# Somebody got caught on the outside



## jaschrumpf

At least the Coasties didn't need to rescue them:


----------



## Sublime

Is that the ding dong couple who tried to outrun the storm then anchored 200 yards off shore because "nothing bad was happening"?

I needed to ring Darwin anyway so why not ask him what's up with these clowns?


Next they will come to sailnet and lambaste lake sailors then regale us, all in text-speak, about their adventures on the high seas where once upon a time, whilst sailing along in pleasant rolling seas under a fair sky, they suddenly found themselves caught in The Great Hurricane and all survived (except a torn jib sail) due to their exceptional skipperism...because that's just how freaking good they are!


----------



## smackdaddy

jaschrumpf said:


> At least the Coasties didn't need to rescue them:


Sorry - no BFS for you!

Notice how the production boat was holding up pretty well to Cat 1 winds...before they beached it? Impressive.


----------



## SailKing1

Yes thats the same boat with the couple and their cat that was rescued earlier in the Chesapeake off Oceanview in Norfolk


----------



## smackdaddy

Anybody know what make of boat that is?


----------



## kd3pc

Hunter...B&R rig, stern scoop, arch...

yep the ones who left Portsmouth Friday, who were trying to make Naptown later today...6' seas and 40mph winds were enough for them to anchor about 400 yds from shore...


----------



## Sublime

I found some video.

Sailboat water rescue - 9 a.m. - YouTube


----------



## TQA

From the daily mail



> A couple living attempting to outrun Hurricane Irene were also rescued today in the Chesapeake Bay as their sailboat was battered by 6- to 8-ft seas and winds gusting to 45mph, rescue officials said.
> 
> Unable to launch rescue craft, two rescue crew members swam to the sailboat, pulled the sailors off and hauled them back to shore in the Willoughby section of Norfolk near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay.
> 
> The couple, who lived aboard with their cat
> 
> Read more: Hurricane Irene: New York prepares as airports and subway shut | Mail Online


----------



## Ninefingers

Looks like a larger Hunter. 40 - 50 feet.


----------



## SailNovice

*Well, I learned something about Heavy Weather Sailing.*

Now I guess this is a salvage situation.


----------



## Undadar

I feel bad thinking it but....

Makes me feel much better about my last "rough weather" experience which was my own fault.

JdFinley.com | Sailing, development, and life with JD
You can observe a lot just by watching.


----------



## HDChopper

*6' seas and 40mph winds *

Ok someone help me out here , All my research tells me this boat and most boats 30+' in general can handle this 6' seas and 40mph winds ... Granted not fun and risky But possible .

So whats UP ? Thay loose the eng ? 
Find out too late thay love life too much to run the risk ( remember thay chose this way of life ) .... and if thay do WHY would thay (anyone) expect help from USCG ( or anyone) if knowing that help _could _lead to anothers death.


----------



## SloopJonB

Doesn't the Chesapeake have a zillion nooks & crannies, rivers etc. to hide in from big weather? Sure looks like it on a map.


----------



## T37Chef

SloopJonB said:


> Doesn't the Chesapeake have a zillion nooks & crannies, rivers etc. to hide in from big weather? Sure looks like it on a map.


Yes

Many things don't make sense here. What I am really not understanding is the report says they left Friday for Annapolis? And why Annapolis? Weird


----------



## PalmettoSailor

And if they left Portsmith for Annapolis on Friday, how do they end up on a beach they's have to turn south/east to get to when Annapolis is clearly north? Friday was perfectly calm. No reason they couldn't have made it pretty far north if they were trying to put distance between themselves and Irene.

Still this isn't the stupidest thing I've seen today.

Earlier I saw a couple of drunks from the hotel at HH swiming out past the breakwater as the first bands or Irene hit. If that had gone bad there wouldn't have been any rescue.


----------



## MarkSF

HDChopper said:


> *6' seas and 40mph winds *
> 
> Ok someone help me out here , All my research tells me this boat and most boats 30+' in general can handle this 6' seas and 40mph winds ... Granted not fun and risky But possible .
> 
> So whats UP ? Thay loose the eng ?
> Find out too late thay love life too much to run the risk ( remember thay chose this way of life ) .... and if thay do WHY would thay (anyone) expect help from USCG ( or anyone) if knowing that help _could _lead to anothers death.


Yes, they did lose the engine.

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News


----------



## HDChopper

Ahhh , Thank you MarkSF

I was searching around and couldn't find the circumstances .
Glad thay both made it , betting niether will forget it & can only make one a better sailer .


----------



## CaptTony

That picture of the boat on the beach made the front page of the St. Petersburg Times Sunday morning.

Years ago when I was doing deliveries, there were two sailboats I delivered one after the other. Both had the same engine. I want to say Yanmar, but it was long ago, 17 years, and I just can't remember for sure. 

It was late in the year and on both deliveries we got into rough weather and both engines stopped running. The second delivery was a 40' Hunter. Something about how the boats bounced in the large swells just screwed up the engine.


----------



## Cruiser2B

these people were only 2-3miles from a safe harbor at little creek, hard to understand, but i was not on board so I cannot judge. i know of at least one that rode out the storm in Willoughby Bay.... at least everyone got off ok, valuable lessoned learned I am sure.


----------



## SailKing1

Not to armchair quarterback but:

1. Why would you leave a safe port 24 hrs prior to a hurricane?
2. Why would you head north where the storm is also expected to hit?
3. When engine went out why anchor with options?
a. Sail to little creek with many marinas 3miles away
b. Radio for help or tow

There is just way too much that does not make sense about this.


----------



## Ninefingers

They're radio wasn't working, so I assume they had an electrical problem?


----------



## emoney

Not to defend them, but, unless you've been in the midst of one of these storms, you don't know what you'll do. If they got caught out in this thing, I'd imagine everything that went bad all went bad in a hurry. With the wind pushing the rain sideways, before you know it, you have zero visibity and the wind is trying it's best to shove you off the deck and out of the cockpit. It's hard to say what these people go into. The report says 6' waves and 45mph winds, but that's the bottom and doesn't include the speed of the gusts they had to be getting hammered with. They're very lucky.


----------



## Nautichthys

CaptTony said:


> It was late in the year and on both deliveries we got into rough weather and both engines stopped running. The second delivery was a 40' Hunter. Something about how the boats bounced in the large swells just screwed up the engine.


Pretty typical. Any crap in the fuel tank will make itself known when things start rocking and rolling, it gets stirred up, plugs the fuel filter and kills the engine.

I'm a strong believer in fitting dual oversized canister primary filters with isolation valves (and transparent sediment bowls so you can see what's going on). Run on one canister with the second isolated in reserve for that dark and stormy night when the engine starts coughing. Not that I have ever been caught dead in the water on a lee shore or anything...


----------



## MikeinLA

According to the CNN video, they lived on the boat. I would have expected a bit more caution in terms of choosing to outrun the storm. If it were my home, I would have had it locked down somewhere as best I could. Oh well, at least the cat is fine.

Mike


----------



## JonEisberg

Some folks are just not meant to venture out upon the water, it's as simple as that...

Morons, in particular... (grin)

All these people had to do, was manage to make their way under sail back into Hampton Roads and around behind Willoughby Spit to a protected anchorage, a distance of perhaps 3 miles from where they decided to drop the hook Friday night... the local conditions throughout that night were a light to moderate ESE, would have been dead downwind past Ft. Wool and on over towards Hampton, or around the spit into Willoughby Bay...

Instead, in advance of the approach of a hurricane and the forecast E-NE winds placing them off a lee shore, they decide to anchor in the open waters of the Chesapeake...

No wonder they "declined to be identified"... Un-freakin-believable...


----------



## dacap06

JonEisberg said:


> Some folks are just not meant to venture out upon the water, it's as simple as that...
> 
> Morons, in particular... (grin)


Jon, you may appreciate one of my favorite funny sayings.

There is no shame in being ignorant. Ignorance can be cured, with effort. Idiocy, on the other hand, is a permanent condition.

DaCAP


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Notice how the production boat was holding up pretty well to Cat 1 winds...before they beached it? Impressive.


Uhh, look closer...



> ...whose anchor chain had ripped a squiggly gash through the fiberglass hull like a piece of string through wet paper.
> 
> Beached sailor races against time - The Washington Post


As you can see, the chain sliced right through the STEM of that boat, which in theory should be one of the most robustly constructed portions of the hull above the waterline...

Wow... That sucker should come standard from the factory with a Chinese Rocna, to ensure the anchor breaks before the boat... (grin)


----------



## padean

So...

Livaboards take off from a harbor just ahead of a hurricane heading the same direction as the hurricane, then when the engine stops, anchor a few hundred yards off shore....

Only explanation that fits is they were tired of living aboard and were hoping to collect the insurance money for a nice downpayment....

Glad everyone is ok and that the CG did not suffer any loss. A heavy boat banging around in shallow water or in the surf can certainly cause a major injury. reminds me of the guys a few years ago that went hang gliding in So Cal when the Santa Anna winds were blowing and there was a forest fire on the principle that the hot air would rise faster....


----------



## johnferrell

I am not sure what kind of engine problems they had but when we went out and looked at the boat on Sunday the prop was covered with barnicles. On that leg of their trip they would have been fighting head winds and current. They were not very far from the Hampton roads bridge tunnel. If they had turned and ran with the wind they could have probably made it back to willoghby bay. but I was not the one making the call. Little creek would have been to tough of a trip after Friday afternoon. The boat did not look to bad for the grounding but I could not see side that was burried in the sand.


----------



## btrayfors

There have been numerous reports of this poor vessel, including a front page article in the Washington Post this morning.

I believe the boat was not a Hunter, but rather a Catalina 30. 

The couple were identified....a guy and his girlfriend, both ex-military. They live aboard with their cats.

According to the articles they went aground near Willoughby Beach after bouncing off or over a barrier seawall.

Heading for Annapolis -- well over 100 miles distant to the north?

Outrun a hurricane moving north at 14mph, in a 30' sailboat against wind and seas and current? 

In the Chesapeake where square waves are typical?

I think not. Someone just badly misjudged the situation.

Clearly, this was a case of inexperienced sailors who misjudged their boat, the conditions, and their own capabilities.

They anchored off what was soon to become a lee shore and hurricane conditions, when to all appearances they could rather easily have made safe harbor downwind under sail (jib alone if need be) or even bare poles. 

Once Irene's winds set in, they were from the north and northeast all day long on Saturday, with gusts in the 60-80 knot range. This boat reportedly anchored on Friday night under fairly benign conditions, and was thrown up on the shore next morning -- long before the real weather set in. 

A real shame, and a lesson to us all.

Hope they somehow manage to get her off the beach before the County or the Feds do it for them.

Bill


----------



## jackdale

The boat is clearly a Hunter. Check out the arch traveler and the centre cockpit.


----------



## Sublime

I recognize those ghastly split front windows anywhere. My hunter has them as well though they look slightly better on that boat than on mine. I guess they thought so much of them they put them in nearly all of their early 2000's boats.

I think it's a Hunter 456.


----------



## btrayfors

Yes, the pictures make it clear that it's much larger than 30', and it sure looks like a Hunter.

The Washington Post said it was a 30' boat, but then later in the article they also called it a "houseboat"! Guess the press rarely gets things right 

Bill


----------



## chrisncate

From the comments section of the linked Post article:

*buffysummers*


> Almost every marina has a self propelled boat hoist that lifts huge vessels into the air with straps. *I'm sure one of these machines could be driven onto the beach to pick up his boat and take it to dry dock*. The idea that he is going to dig out enough sand to get his boat floating is a continuation of the stubborness that got him onto this mess in the first place.


----------



## UPHILL

Yea I am going to drive my $xxx.xx machine on sand and pull out a boat. good luck and nice simple thought. To the person in the reply. 

Now I am sure there are loads of broken telephone poles around, stack a line of poles and roll her out, Stonehendge was built, right.. 

That would be a lot of digging. ouch


----------



## jameswilson29

btrayfors said:


> ...later in the article they also called it a "houseboat"! Guess the press rarely gets things right
> 
> Bill


Was calling it a "houseboat" right or wrong?

:laugher

Is that why it could not sail to weather in a half gale and six foot seas?


----------



## JonEisberg

jameswilson29 said:


> Was calling it a "houseboat" right or wrong?
> 
> :laugher


Wrong... Under the command of these people, it was obviously a powerboat, a trawler with a mast...



jameswilson29 said:


> Is that why it could not sail to weather in a half gale and six foot seas?


What so many appear to be missing, is that whether or not the boat had that capability is moot, in this particular case...

They were _NOT_ "caught out" in the conditions that eventually drove them ashore... They anchored off Ocean View late Friday in totally benign conditions, the weather history for Little Creek that day shows light breezes primarily out of the E-SE throughout, perfect for sailing back into Hampton Roads, and either seek shelter in Hampton, or Willoughby Bay...

For those not familiar with the area, perhaps a pic will help illustrate the mind-numbing stupidity of what they elected to do...

This is Willoughby Spit, looking off the the WNW... The safe haven of Hampton is in the upper right corner of the pic, and the refuge of Willoughby Bay is to the left (South) of the spit...

So, with storm to hurricane-force winds out of the E to NE to N having been forecast for days in advance, they chose to anchor in the open waters of the Chesapeake to the N of Ocean View, probably somewhere along the right margin of the photo in the vicinity of the small boat wake visible in the pic, close to what was obviously destined to become a lee shore, open to the Chesapeake Bay Entrance/Atlantic to the east, a minimum fetch of roughly 20 miles to Cape Charles to the NE, and a fetch of the entire southern half of the Bay from NE-N...

Try as I might, (polite) words fail me in an effort to characterize the depths of such stupidity...


----------



## emoney

Great post putting the pic in! Nice job.
I agree, I don't think the boat had anything to do with this mess. As I'm sure there are numerous stories of experienced skippers doing well in this storm in much "less seaworthy" vessesl. There's no such thing as a ship designed to overcome ignorance in any light nor at any price and I'm no Hunter "fanboi", ftr. Thanks to JonEisberg, it's rather clear what "went wrong" here. It started at the dock.


----------



## CharlieCobra

Waste of a perfectly good boat IMO.


----------



## TakeFive

Don't forget that if the article is accurate, they left from Portsmouth. I don't know those waters, but a quick look on Google maps shows that Portsmouth is even better protected than Willoughby Spit. It just boggles the mind why they would have left Portsmouth with the hurricane coming.


----------



## Bowedtoothdoc

I'm thinking that the Cat was in charge and made some poor decisions once things got difficult


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Uhh, look closer...
> 
> As you can see, the chain sliced right through the STEM of that boat, which in theory should be one of the most robustly constructed portions of the hull above the waterline...
> 
> Wow... That sucker should come standard from the factory with a Chinese Rocna, to ensure the anchor breaks before the boat... (grin)


Okay, dude - granted, I was being a bit hyperbolic on the "production boat in a Cat 1" thing - but c'mon, when you're talking about chain+surf+GRP - not even the most robust "blue water" tank is going to stand up to that - even at the stem. Surely you know that.

And, bowedtooth, his poor decisions apparently started way before it got difficult.


----------



## Barquito

This story makes me think of a common post here on SN. Something to the effect of, 'do you think I am ready for xx big boat'. I would say, compared to the folks from this boat, just by asking the question, you are already more prepared than they. ie: these folks and their cat, probably don't know what they don't know, and never thought to ask... now they know just a little bit more.


----------



## SailKing1

The average wind speed on the lower Chesapeake for Friday the 26th in the area in question was a low 0f 5 knots to a high that evening of 11 knots. So, the weather conditions where not a reason preventing this guy from sailing to a safe place instead of anchoring a 1000 yards from shore off a spit that was actually created by a hurricane. 

This whole ordeal was just plain STUPID.


----------



## Skipper Jer

Do you think this guy will ever show up here and attempt to defend what he did?


----------



## smackdaddy

Captainmeme said:


> Do you think this guy will ever show up here and attempt to defend what he did?


C'mon, the dude lost his boat/home. That's enough.

If he were to come on here I hope he wouldn't be forced to "defend" his actions to some anonymous chumps on the interwebs who have done and will do plenty of stupid things themselves.


----------



## JonEisberg

RhythmDoctor said:


> Don't forget that if the article is accurate, they left from Portsmouth. I don't know those waters, but a quick look on Google maps shows that Portsmouth is even better protected than Willoughby Spit. It just boggles the mind why they would have left Portsmouth with the hurricane coming.


Portsmouth would have been more protected, but it was likely pretty crowded in there...

Surprising after having come up the ICW, he wouldn't have thought to have backtracked a bit, perhaps gone back through the Great Bridge Lock, or back into the Dismal Swamp Canal... Not many hurricane holes on the entire east coast better than that, both within a mere dozen statute miles of Portsmouth...



smackdaddy said:


> Okay, dude - granted, I was being a bit hyperbolic on the "production boat in a Cat 1" thing - but c'mon, *when you're talking about chain+surf+GRP - not even the most robust "blue water" tank is going to stand up to that - even at the stem. Surely you know that.*


Actually, I don't know that... (grin) IMHO, there are plenty of boats out there that could have withstood whatever caused that damage...

Impossible to know precisely the physics of what might have occurred, of course, but seems to me there would have been a failure or breakage in his ground tackle system or deck attachment points, well before his rode peeled open his stem like a can opener...


----------



## jameswilson29

Anchoring in the open while a hurricane was approaching was surely a mistake. However, the design of the boat did prevent the owner from exercising all his options before being driven onto a lee shore as follows:

The video shows the sailboat in what appears to be a fresh breeze and six foot waves during daylight Saturday before the full brunt of the hurricane hit Norfolk. Sure, there are occasional gusts, but the wind appears to be around 30 knots. The boat is dragging anchor toward a lee shore but it is not being knocked on its beam ends or pressed against the water under the force of the wind yet. Foam and spray are not being driven horizontally across the screen. In fact, the conditions are not so bad as to prevent someone from filming the scene.

So, in these conditions where the anchor is dragging, couldn't a well-built, seaworthy, blue-water boat with a storm jib and a triple-reefed main or trysail and a competent captain and crew, sail off the anchor and away from the lee shore and immediately sail to better cover from the storm?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, I don't know that... (grin) IMHO, there are plenty of boats out there that could have withstood whatever caused that damage...
> 
> Impossible to know precisely the physics of what might have occurred, of course, but seems to me there would have been a failure or breakage in his ground tackle system or deck attachment points, well before his rode peeled open his stem like a can opener...


If you zoom in on that image, it sure looks like chain to me. If it's rope rode, you're right, the boat's a piece of crap - and that rope is insanely strong. If it's chain, and if it's wrapped back around the stem to an anchor that's set out away from the beach - that chain becomes a saw in the surf as the waves move the hull up and down. No GRP is going to stand up to that...period...not even on a Hans Christian.

If nothing else, even with your own argument, you have to be impressed with the deck attachment points, right?

In seriousness, I'm not necessarily defending this Hunter(?). But this was a case of putting _a boat_ in the wrong place at the wrong time (as james hints above). It had nothing to do with whether that boat was "blue water capable" or not.


----------



## smackdaddy

Another bummer...


----------



## smackdaddy

Here she (I think) is before beaching...


----------



## T37Chef

I really would encourage the people on the vessel to come here and at least explain what they were thinking, describe the situation, etc. 

Maybe they stole the boat? 

It boggles my mind to say the least?

Smack...you sure that wasn't you shooting that video of your new boat?


----------



## smackdaddy

T37Chef said:


> Smack...you sure that wasn't you shooting that video of your new boat?


Heh-heh. If that was my boat, I would have been _*sailing*_ dude! Into oblivion, yes. But sailing nonetheless!


----------



## sailordave

CharlieCobra said:


> Waste of a *perfectly good boat *IMO.




Um, Charlie, it's a HUNTER.:laugher

Yeah, I posted on this topic over at SA. They should have stayed in Portsmouth or anywhere else down in Tidewater. I lived off the Elizabeth River for 4 years and even the Nor'easters are NASTY.

I'd like to know why, when their engine crapped out and they anchored did they not 
A) SAIL (it is a sailboat)
B) call Sea Tow
C) signal for assistance of some kind.

I can't believe ANYONE would think they could ride out a hurricane that close to a lee shore.


----------



## PorFin

There are so many things wrong here, I don't know what to think.

We all realize hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean that foresight is legally blind does it?

To be laying at anchor on what even my hates-to-sail dog knows would be a seriously bad lee shore just boggles the mind. 

Engine dies? Sail off. Can't sail? Call SeaTow or TowboatUS. No response? Try again. And again. Still no joy? Get the fox off the boat before the heavy wx arrives -- if you can't swim a couple of hundred yards in decent wx, you've got llittle business living on a boat in the first place. 

I really, really hope that there were other circumstances involved about which we are ignorant.


----------



## smackdaddy

PorFin said:


> I really, really hope that there were other circumstances involved about which we are ignorant.


It does make you wonder, eh?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> In seriousness, I'm not necessarily defending this Hunter(?). But this was a case of putting _a boat_ in the wrong place at the wrong time (as james hints above). It had nothing to do with whether that boat was "blue water capable" or not.


Agreed, but the example of the rode cutting through the hull is clearly a result of the incredibly poor design and execution of the builder... One of my biggest peeves against some of the production crap I see out there these days, the pathetic excuses they try to pass off as anchor rollers...

Just LOOK at the freakin' thing on the Hunter 450... (I must say, Hunter has some nerve slapping the moniker "Passage" on a boat with such a ridiculous arrangement, so clearly unsuited for a boat intended to actually do more than go from one marina to the next)








These absurdly cantilevered projections I see on so many modern boats now are simply disasters waiting to happen, they will likely be the first point of failure in any blow at anchor... Read the Pardey's famous account of the disaster in Cabo San Lucas back in the 80's, if you have any doubts about the necessity for a bulletproof roller set-up, and that thing is a joke... Plumb bows and the need for "self-launching" and retrieval by pushbutton control from the helm is my theory for the primary inspiration for the proliferation of this crap... Modern kroozers don't want to actually have to _touch_ their ground tackle, after all - they prefer to just _watch_ it come back aboard...

Look closely at this pic on the beach, the roller is clearly gone, taking a substantial portion of the foredeck with it, and the rode just sliced right through the hull-to-deck joint and down into the hull...

UFB...


----------



## HDChopper

These answers all make perfect sense ! I feel safer allready


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


>


Jon, I see what you mean. And I agree with you.

But, for argument's sake (which of course is my _raison d'etre_), let me take a completely different angle on this in regards to the eternal "blue water" debate...

Look at this Hunter...the most crapped on brand of boat out there besides the MacGregor. It's just been through a _Category 1 hurricane_....in very, very strong winds, battered by hundreds/thousands of significantly large breaking wave strikes, WHILE FOUNDERING ON ITS SIDE ON A BEACH...and it didn't even lose it's freakin' back-stay-less stick!

Yes, tons of stuff broke as you can clearly see in the pic, but it's not a pile of rubble. It really makes me question the critique of the toughness of these production boats...at least in terms of survivability in a storm.

Had this boat been truly and correctly prepped for big weather (no question it wasn't), and had it been at sea...would it have still been afloat after Irene passed?

If so, it probably would have been damaged beyond repair, but I'm not completely convinced it would have broken up and/or flat-out sunk. And even if it were totaled, for the price you could just buy another and still be under the cost of a true blue tank, right?

So maybe it's not the simplistic tank versus production argument that is the real issue. Maybe it's just the age of "disposable" boats...that can take a hell of a beating...just not years and years of them.


----------



## Ninefingers

Looks to be in pretty good shape. As for the anchor ripping out of the bow. I don't think the boat was designed to withstand that much beating at anchor. I don't think any boat is actually. Who would design a boat made to anchor 200 feet offshore in a hurricane?


----------



## JonEisberg

PorFin said:


> There are so many things wrong here, I don't know what to think.
> 
> We all realize hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean that foresight is legally blind does it?
> 
> To be laying at anchor on what even my hates-to-sail dog knows would be a seriously bad lee shore just boggles the mind.
> 
> Engine dies? Sail off. Can't sail? Call SeaTow or TowboatUS. No response? Try again. And again. Still no joy? Get the fox off the boat before the heavy wx arrives -- if you can't swim a couple of hundred yards in decent wx, you've got llittle business living on a boat in the first place.
> 
> I really, really hope that there were other circumstances involved about which we are ignorant.


Only thing I can figure, he chose his anchorage on the same basis so many kroozers do nowadays&#8230;

Namely, perhaps he was scoring a really, REALLY good unsecured WiFi connection at that particular location? (grin)

I'm a bit surprised Chrisncate hasn't weighed in on this one, this would appear to be a classic example of the argument he so often rightly makes, that so many sailors can be absolutely helpless without an engine&#8230; Boggles the mind, that no effort whatsoever was made to attempt to ditch the anchor, and try to sail out of that situation&#8230; Particularly, on a boat where sails could have been unfurled without even leaving the cockpit&#8230;

This is just my hunch, of course, but I'd be willing to bet almost anything this is yet another example of a guy who has jumped into a 40+ boat, with minimal small boat sailing experience&#8230; I wouldn't at all be surprised if he's never sailed a dinghy in his life&#8230;

If he had, he'd have learned the first thing the 8 year-olds in the junior sailing program at my local yacht club learn - namely, how to maneuver their Optis off the beach in an onshore breeze, and the gain in confidence obtained from the realization that even the clunkiest boat can actually be fairly nimble, in capable hands&#8230; This guy just watched helplessly as he dragged inexorably towards shore, seems obvious to me he never learned to sail in a small boat without an engine&#8230;

Otherwise, his seamanship appears to be exemplary&#8230; Gotta love the shore power cord still suspended from the lifelines, and the fenders still lying on deck&#8230; Obviously, he went to great lengths to clear his decks in the fashion expected of one at the beginning of an attempt to outrun a hurricane&#8230;


----------



## glassdad

What kind of anchor was he using? A Chinese Rocna? Maybe if he had a fortress he would have been ok. ;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

Hmmm, a new development to this story, might possibly shed further light on what might have informed his actions last Friday...



> *Boater rescued during Irene has trouble on land*
> 
> The Maybe
> Tomorrow might be chopped up and hauled away in pieces, because right now it's considered a pile of solid waste on the beach at Willoughby Spit in Norfolk. Meanwhile, the vessel's captain doesn't have $50 for bail to get out of jail.
> 
> By Louis Hansen
> The Virginian-Pilot
> © August 31, 2011
> 
> NORFOLK
> 
> The sailor rescued from the Chesapeake Bay during the hurricane needs another life-line.
> 
> A day after Michael Calabrese, his girlfriend and cat were pulled by emergency workers from their battered 42-foot yacht, police arrested him Sunday night for trespassing at a city shelter.
> 
> On Monday, a judge lowered Calabrese's bail but the city issued him a citation - move your yacht in the next week, or we'll chop it up and take it away.
> 
> "I'm about to lose everything I own," Calabrese said during an interview Tuesday in the jail. He was unable to come up with a $50 down payment to make bond.
> 
> ...
> 
> "We made a bad decision," he said. He was not drinking during the trip, he said.
> 
> On Sunday, the couple returned to the boat to get some of their possessions, he said. They had a nice meal and relaxed, and Calabrese said he drank a couple of beers. His girlfriend returned to Bayview Recreational Center, where they were staying, he said. Calabrese tried to see her, but the employees at the rec center smelled alcohol on his breath, he said.
> 
> Court records said Calabrese was "nasty (cursing everyone) and very argumentative."
> 
> According to court and police records, Calabrese has been charged with alcohol-related offenses several times in Hampton Roads. In 2009, Hampton police arrested him on Buckroe beach for taking a swim, naked and intoxicated, according to a public police account. Calabrese was found guilty of indecent exposure and a charge of drunk in public was dropped, court records state.
> 
> Calabrese, a disabled Air Force veteran, said he went through a difficult divorce in 2004, lost custody of his children, and struggled in his personal life. Now, he has another struggle.
> 
> Calabrese does not know exactly what damage the ship has suffered. He has a few ideas about how to have it removed, he said. He does not want to see it chopped up.
> 
> "If the world wants to call me crazy," he said, "I thought could beat that storm."
> 
> Boater rescued during Irene has trouble on land | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com


----------



## TakeFive

People sometimes will keep sliding down in life until they truly hit bottom. I'd say he's getting pretty close to the bottom. This guy's behaviors ooze bad karma. It's a shame to see these self-imposed problems happen to someone who has apparently served our country.


----------



## Ajax_MD

He's been back out to the boat, and he's still "does not know exactly what damage the ship has suffered"??

At a minimum, you've got to have hull integrity, keel and rudder. Then you can be towed, or sail. Obviously he wouldn't be motoring anywhere. Anyway, this guy should know that he's not garnering a lot of sympathy. He's a professional vicitm.


----------



## jameswilson29

Sounds like someone could get a good deal on a slightly used Hunter 45, as is, where is, in need of TLC and a good cleaning, for $50 bail money and a twelve pack.


----------



## smackdaddy

> In 2009, Hampton police arrested him on Buckroe beach for taking a swim, naked and intoxicated, according to a public police account.


I like this guy's style! Definitely sounds like a FC sailor.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Guy sounds like an idiot!


----------



## Barquito

> $50 bail money and a twelve pack


Free-king-hill-hair-ee-us.


----------



## jackdale

RhythmDoctor said:


> It's a shame to see these self-imposed problems happen to someone who has apparently served our country.


This could be the result of PTSD.


----------



## SailKing1

jameswilson29 said:


> Sounds like someone could get a good deal on a slightly used Hunter 45, as is, where is, in need of TLC and a good cleaning, for $50 bail money and a twelve pack.


Thats just mean...I'm on my way down to the Norfolk court house


----------



## LandLocked66c

jackdale said:


> This could be the result of PTSD.


Not likely in the "chair" force! Uh-Oh...


----------



## Skipper Jer

SailKing1 said:


> Thats just mean...I'm on my way down to the Norfolk court house


SailKing, if the radar still works I'll pay a hundred dollars. I also need a stove, anchors and chain, and blocks, double and singles. PM me with an inventory and we can make arraignments.


----------



## cb32863

There is a thread over at SBO that is called "The one that did not get away from Hurricane Irene." Someone went to the boat and took some close up pics of it. Not sure if they post here too, so they could post that link to the pics. I would but, not sure it is OK for me to do so.


----------



## smackdaddy

cb32863 said:


> There is a thread over at SBO that is called "The one that did not get away from Hurricane Irene." Someone went to the boat and took some close up pics of it. Not sure if they post here too, so they could post that link to the pics. I would but, not sure it is OK for me to do so.


Yeah - it links out to this site:

Photo Gallery


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - it links out to this site:
> 
> Photo Gallery


Wow, that close-up of the bow is pretty sobering...

Especially, keeping in mind the stem fitting was ripped off _without any sails being unfurled..._

Granted, the partially unfurled jib could set up so serious snatching loads, but I would still imagine sailcloth should fail before the stem fitting does...


----------



## CBinRI

btrayfors said:


> Yes, the pictures make it clear that it's much larger than 30', and it sure looks like a Hunter.
> 
> The Washington Post said it was a 30' boat, but then later in the article they also called it a "houseboat"! Guess the press rarely gets things right
> 
> Bill


I have never seen a news report in the non-sailing press that gets that sort of stuff right. The news reporter on the TV report keeps calling her a "ship."


----------



## jameswilson29

CBinRI said:


> ...The news reporter on the TV report keeps calling her a "ship."


As in "Piece of Ship"...:laugher


----------



## casey1999

How can you tresspass in a city shelter? I thought a shelter was a place to loiter legally.


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> How can you tresspass in a city shelter? I thought a shelter was a place to loiter legally.


Many shelters are single-gender. A man breaking into to a shelter for women would definitely be trespassing (at the very least).


----------



## casey1999

RhythmDoctor said:


> Many shelters are single-gender. A man breaking into to a shelter for women would definitely be trespassing (at the very least).


Roger that- didn't realize he broke in to a womens' shelter.


----------



## PorFin

CBinRI said:


> I have never seen a news report in the non-sailing press that gets that sort of stuff right. The news reporter on the TV report keeps calling her a "ship."


Kind of like any tracked military vehicle with a gun barrel is a "tank" -- drives me bat ****e whenever it happens.

Just proves that any 1/2-way good loooking knucklehead that can speak without drooling down the front of their shirt is fully qualified to be an on-air reporter.


----------



## casey1999

PorFin said:


> Kind of like any tracked military vehicle with a gun barrel is a "tank" -- drives me bat ****e whenever it happens.
> 
> Just proves that any 1/2-way good loooking knucklehead that can speak without drooling down the front of their shirt is fully qualified to be an on-air reporter.


I always wonder why the reporter needs to be outside in the rain and wind while reporting on a Hurricane or any other storm. Seems they could just sit in their nice air conditioned van and aim the camera out a window.


----------



## Sapperwhite

Bowedtoothdoc said:


> I'm thinking that the Cat was in charge and made some poor decisions once things got difficult


TOONCES! LOOK OUT!!!!


----------



## Dean101

chrisncate said:


> From the comments section of the linked Post article:
> 
> *buffysummers*


Travel lifts can carry quite a load, all depending on their designed load capacity. Unfortunately, attempting to drive an already heavy lift across wet sand would likely sink it to the point it could not pull itself. I doubt it would make it to the boat, let alone be capable of lifting it and walking out without leaving one more man-made object to be removed from the beach. It's a good thought though.


----------



## jackdale

To follow up on Dean's comment.

I thought the same thing (the travel lift would sink into the sand)

In addition the mast would have to be unstepped get the travel lift into position.


----------



## T37Chef

After reading his story, he still deserves the Darwin award of the year, but I hope he can pick up the pieces and get his life back together.


----------



## Dean101

I always try to learn from the mistakes of others and I still consider myself a fledgling when it comes to sailing but WTH! Even I know that one would have to be completely brain dead to leave a safe haven in front of a hurricane knowing the hull speed of my boat could not exceed the speed of the storm. I can't imagine what he was thinking. And since he can't come up with $50 bail money, I think his hopes of moving the boat within a week are just as sunk, unless he has $8 for a good shovel and one hell of a strong back. 

As I mentioned before, a travel lift would be useless. If a mobile crane could be driven close enough, wide pads could be used under the outriggers and the boat swung 180 degrees to a waiting truck. That would cost more than the shovel though. A dozer could pull it up on a skid, or over rollers to a more stable surface where it could be loaded. Can't be done from jail though. 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't most, if not all sailboats that are suitable for coastal cruising capable of handling the conditions this guy found himself in? I'm not validating his decision to be there but I'm sure that all sailors find themselves in bad conditions when they can't avoid a storm or forecasting falls short. The only damage I saw was the result of the anchor chain. I would think that trying to get off a lee shore should be attempted before anchoring. He could always drop an anchor as a last resort, and shouldn't he be carrying more than one anchor? If it was me, I would have dropped every anchor I had, then tied a line to the dead engine and thrown it over as well. 

What I'm getting at is, assuming the captain and crew make smart decisions, surely those conditions aren't "boat killers".


----------



## chrisncate

Oh, and I posted the travel lift comment I saw cause I thought it went without saying that it wouldn't work (power lines? the mast?) and it was funny..


----------



## Barquito

This whole thing is just the train wreck of this guy's life playing out in a public way. We see this all the time. This one just happened to include a sailboat in the drama. An analysis of his seamanship choices at this point in his life is pointless. If he were driving he would have missed a corner. If he were flying he would have stalled in a turn. If he were climbing he would descend onto a rope that is 20' too short, etc.


----------



## svHyLyte

I suspect a crane truck or even crawler could easily pluck the mast off that boat and lift the hull and the separated keel onto a low-boy. If the yacht were propped up—even with sand shoved in place with back-hoe, the rudder could be freed and the keel bolts pulled allowing the keel to separate from the hull as it was lifted. The hull could be supported on a low-boy with inflatable bladders. In fact, if the hull isn’t too badly damaged, with the mast pulled; the keel removed and temporary plugs installed in the keel sump, a tracked crawler could lift that hull and set her down near the tide line at low water with bladders to support her till the tide came up. Moreover, I bet the foregoing could be done for less than $25,000 and, if the hull’s not breached on the leeward side, I bet the yacht could be repaired for $25,000 or less. That could be a real bargain for someone in the area.

FWIW…


----------



## Sublime

What's the number to his jail cell? I could use some parts. Maybe I could get some winches in trade for a few cigs and a crisp $5 bill.


----------



## cb32863

Lifted this link from over at SBO in a thread that says this guy is being bullied by the state attorney general over there. Form your own opinion on that.... Video from this morning as well and article says he has been sailing for 20 years..... hmmmmm. Guess when you add in the refit they dropped $165K on the boat.

LINK


----------



## LauderBoy

svHyLyte said:


> That could be a real bargain for someone in the area.


The problem is he still owns the boat. So it's not like you can just get it in the water and own yourself a Hunter 420.

What usually plays out is the owner can't afford to do the rescue when she's rescue-able and by the time they give up half baked plans, the surf and sand will have worn her down to junk status.


----------



## casey1999

A couple of thoughts:
1. Does the guy have insurance on the boat? If so, seems they would help.
2. At least these people were out doing somthing, and not living in a condo and watching TV or playing video games all the time. Yea, they made a mistake and the man admits it. We all make mistakes.
Ahh #3. He served his country- deserves a little respect.


----------



## SloopJonB

casey1999 said:


> I always wonder why the reporter needs to be outside in the rain and wind while reporting on a Hurricane or any other storm. Seems they could just sit in their nice air conditioned van and aim the camera out a window.


Adds all that gritty REALITY to their infotainment broadcast.


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 1. Does the guy have insurance on the boat? If so, seems they would help.
> 2. At least these people were out doing somthing, and not living in a condo and watching TV or playing video games all the time. Yea, they made a mistake and the man admits it. We all make mistakes.
> Ahh #3. He served his country- deserves a little respect.


One of the articles said that his insurance denied his coverage for this because he violated the terms by going out in a hurricane.

I agree that it's cruel to hit a guy when he's down. However, the picture the media paints of this guy is someone who has been burning his bridges in that area for at least 2 years. It seems that the authorities already know him better than they want to (prior indecent exposure charge, prior public drunkenness, etc.), and therefore have little patience for him.

It may be true that his behaviors of the past couple of years are a result of other factors for which we should have a lot of sympathy (for example, possible PTD from his military service). But at some point your actions do catch up with you, and if you don't seek out help for your problems, it can become too late to recover from the consequences of your actions.


----------



## casey1999

chrisncate said:


> Wow, what a story. You just can't be like that guy anymore, and the establishment authority is definitely showing no mercy for his situation. He was wrong for sure, but I don't like a heartless society that would chop his home up in such a short time frame if he can't remove it, just to bust balls.
> 
> The guy made a mistake (a bunch of them of course), but must he be so totally crucified for it? It's still his house after all, and he is still experiencing this trauma as it unfolds. Sad story, even if he was wrong.


Probably the silly condo owners are complaining the yacht is blocking their view of the water.


----------



## casey1999

RhythmDoctor said:


> One of the articles said that his insurance denied his coverage for this because he violated the terms by going out in a hurricane.
> 
> I agree that it's cruel to hit a guy when he's down. However, the picture the media paints of this guy is someone who has been burning his bridges in that area for at least 2 years. It seems that the authorities already know him better than they want to (prior indecent exposure charge, prior public drunkenness, etc.), and therefore have little patience for him.
> 
> It may be true that his behaviors of the past couple of years are a result of other factors for which we should have a lot of sympathy (for example, possible PTD from his military service). But at some point your actions do catch up with you, and if you don't seek out help for your problems, it can become too late to recover from the consequences of your actions.


So we cut up his house and throw him in jail at a tax payers expense of over $80k for each year he is there. There are a lot of other low beats around, but since they have nothing, they get off scott free. Also a lot of rich people that do the same stuff, but they got the big buck lawyer to get them off- the middle man gets screwed.


----------



## casey1999

If someone post an address- I'll send this guy $10 bucks, at least its a start. PS- don't post your home address, I mailing a check in the man's name.
Thanks


----------



## TakeFive

casey1999 said:


> So we cut up his house and throw him in jail at a tax payers expense of over $80k for each year he is there. There are a lot of other low beats around, but since they have nothing, they get off scott free. Also a lot of rich people that do the same stuff, but they got the big buck lawyer to get them off- the middle man gets screwed.


I was not saying it is right - just pointing out some of the additional information that the news stories have provided.

It is totally wrong to lock the guy up in jail and then give him a few days to remove the boat. Talk about stacking the deck against him! But IMO his refusal to post $50 downpayment on his bond is a sure sign that he is a big part of the problem.


----------



## SloopJonB

From what I have seen here it appears the authorities are really playing hardball with the guy but why hasn't he gotten a lawyer to slow things down?

It sure looks like he is the sole architect of his misfortune.


----------



## groggy

SloopJonB said:


> From what I have seen here it appears the authorities are really playing hardball with the guy but why hasn't he gotten a lawyer to slow things down?
> 
> It sure looks like he is the sole architect of his misfortune.


lawyers are expensive and many, reasonably, wont take a dog of a case with no chance of compensation.

he may not be poor enough to qualify for a free state defense attorney. i dont think you get one just for asking, and despite whatever his current circumstance is, he may have too many assets, including that wrecked boat, to qualify.

the legal system is nothing to get caught up in if you can avoid it.


----------



## SloopJonB

groggy said:


> the legal system is nothing to get caught up in if you can avoid it.


Sounds like he is already in the wringer cycle.


----------



## casey1999

RhythmDoctor said:


> I agree that it's cruel to hit a guy when he's down. However, the picture the media paints of this guy is someone who has been burning his bridges in that area for at least 2 years.


Interesting the media uses a helicopter to film the guys boat on the beach (at a cost of about $1,000 an hour) when they could have easily driven to the site and gotten some good close-up shots at minimal cost. The media is all hype "Live, Local, Late Breaking"


----------



## xymotic

casey1999 said:


> If someone post an address- I'll send this guy $10 bucks, at least its a start. PS- don't post your home address, I mailing a check in the man's name.
> Thanks


SWEET! Once I get your account number I can just print my own checks, or electronically transfer your entire balance!

I've never really understood why people use checks:laugher


----------



## jameswilson29

He has a right to counsel under the 6th A. to the U.S. Constitution because he is charged with a jailable offense. He would qualify for court-appointed counsel if he were below the poverty level. It appears he owns a valuable asset and receives military disability pay (he was able to buy a $165K Hunter 420), so he should be able to hire counsel at his own expense.

Under the Public Trust Doctrine in Va., the beach is public to the mean low water line, the dry beach may be private property or owned by the local government.

It appears this "sailor", through a series of idiotic mistakes and poor judgment, deposited garbage with environmental hazards (diesel fuel, human waste, etc.) over which the U.S. Govt. EPA and Va. may have jurisdiction, on a private beach and the property owners have the right to demand that this garbage be removed by this "sailor" before it further pollutes their land and the adjoining waters of Virginia. This "sailor" also allegedly violated the criminal laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia by being drunk in public and threatening citizens of the Commonwealth or attempting to enter on private property while intoxicated.

While I thank him (and the countless other servicemembers, teachers, police persons, and nurses who proudly serve our communities and country) for his service to our country, he needs to sober up and take responsibility for his actions. I am certain someone would be willing to help him out of this situation in return for fair compensation (including possibly the sale of his vessel), but the same poor judgment and dogged determination that resulted in hazardous garbage being placed on a Virginia beach and threatened the lives of the people who attempted to rescue him from his predicament, causes him now to remain in jail unable to post bond.

While he has provided countless hours of entertainment and valuable lessons to sailors everywhere, he is not deserving of anyone's charity. His girlfriend and cat made the right move IMHO.


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> 2. At least these people were out doing somthing, and not living in a condo and watching TV or playing video games all the time.


Not sure how one would draw that conclusion... That boat IS a condo, and it would appear that one of the earliest newspaper accounts describing it as a "houseboat" is entirely accurate in this case...

With a home port of Florida, I also had originally assumed they were cruisers just passing through the area. But with his extended police record in the Norfolk area, it's apparent he's been based there for some time...

With a disabled engine and one look at the remarkably fouled condition of the boat's running gear, the one thing that is apparent is that they were definitely NOT "out there", cruising and sailing regularly... Even if the engine had been functional, that thing wasn't gonna be capable of outrunning a summer rainshower, much less a hurricane... Of late, this boat was simply being used as a dwelling, nothing more...

NTTAWWT, of course... (grin)


----------



## svHyLyte

> While I thank him (and the countless other service members, teachers, police persons, and nurses who proudly serve our communities and country) for his service to our country, he needs to sober up and take responsibility for his actions. I am certain someone would be willing to help him out of this situation in return for fair compensation (including possibly the sale of his vessel), but the same poor judgment and dogged determination that resulted in hazardous garbage being placed on a Virginia beach and threatened the lives of the people who attempted to rescue him from his predicament, causes him now to remain in jail unable to post bond.
> 
> While he has provided countless hours of entertainment and valuable lessons to sailors everywhere, he is not deserving of anyone's charity. His girlfriend and cat made the right move IMHO.


I think James has it right--above. The unfortunate fact is that quite a few retired Military, and others, end up addicted to booze. More unfortunate is the fact that some are "mean" when they are under the effects--even if they are not when they're perfectly sober. And the booze can be paralyzing in the sense that a person can just get stuck. Unhappiness leads to drinking, leads to bad behavior/judgment, leads to further unhappiness, leads to drink.....

N'any case, the guy's life changed--likely for the worst unless this lesson is a wake-up call--at the moment that yacht went on the beach, if not when he left the marina. He's lost that yacht and he needs counsel as to how he might salvage something out of the experience. Whether he accepts the counsel or not is another matter. Admiralty lawyers are better equipped to judge when that yacht is "abandoned" but I suspect that one could work with local authorities to take charge of the wreck and go from there. If the conditions hold, it would not be difficult to salvage that yacht and return her to service--even tho' perhaps, a little worse for wear.

Regrettably, the discussion may all be quite academic if the next storm-Katia-does not make a turn soon.

FWIW...


----------



## ftldiver

Ahem, the previous arrest was for swimming naked and drunk....

Who among us hasn't been swimming naked after a few drinks? 

but, He's screwed...

his best bet is to stop the loss... make a deal with a salvage operator for half the value of the boat, as it sits, and move on.

---------

Wayyy OT:


xymotic said:


> SWEET! Once I get your account number I can just print my own checks, or electronically transfer your entire balance!
> 
> I've never really understood why people use checks:laugher


if you steal money from my account with a forged check, you stole the BANKS money, not mine. Laws are in place to protect you when you forge checks. Wire transfers, and especially Debit cards... not so much. most banks will hold you harmless, but its not a law, its a policy.

Sure you may not have access to the cash for a while til its sorted out, but you WILL prevail. all the money stolen was fraud against a bank, and its the BANK's mistake for allowing it to occur.


----------



## SailKing1

jameswilson29 said:


> He has a right to counsel under the 6th A. to the U.S. Constitution because he is charged with a jailable offense. He would qualify for court-appointed counsel if he were below the poverty level. It appears he owns a valuable asset and receives military disability pay (he was able to buy a $165K Hunter 420), so he should be able to hire counsel at his own expense.
> 
> Under the Public Trust Doctrine in Va., the beach is public to the mean low water line, the dry beach may be private property or owned by the local government.
> 
> It appears this "sailor", through a series of idiotic mistakes and poor judgment, deposited garbage with environmental hazards (diesel fuel, human waste, etc.) over which the U.S. Govt. EPA and Va. may have jurisdiction, on a private beach and the property owners have the right to demand that this garbage be removed by this "sailor" before it further pollutes their land and the adjoining waters of Virginia. This "sailor" also allegedly violated the criminal laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia by being drunk in public and threatening citizens of the Commonwealth or attempting to enter on private property while intoxicated.
> 
> While I thank him (and the countless other servicemembers, teachers, police persons, and nurses who proudly serve our communities and country) for his service to our country, he needs to sober up and take responsibility for his actions. I am certain someone would be willing to help him out of this situation in return for fair compensation (including possibly the sale of his vessel), but the same poor judgment and dogged determination that resulted in hazardous garbage being placed on a Virginia beach and threatened the lives of the people who attempted to rescue him from his predicament, causes him now to remain in jail unable to post bond.
> 
> While he has provided countless hours of entertainment and valuable lessons to sailors everywhere, he is not deserving of anyone's charity. His girlfriend and cat made the right move IMHO.


Most logical response I've seen printed here yet. Good post JW


----------



## ftldiver

good point about mean low water line...

were these pics already posted in this thread:

*http://www.sailcheers.com/The one that did not get away.htm
*


----------



## n0w0rries

I think the real issue here is why is swimming drunk and naked considered a crime!?


----------



## SloopJonB

ftldiver said:


> *Photo Gallery
> *


The shot of the bow sure points out the need for chafe gear on your anchor!

From what I can see in those pictures the boat looks very salvageable - any more news on it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JonEisberg said:


>





sailordave said:


> B) call Sea Tow


"What do you mean salvage?? I have unlimited towing!!"


----------



## JonEisberg

The train wreck continues...



> *Rescued sailor arrested in Norfolk a second time*
> 
> By Louis Hansen
> Patrick Wilson
> The Virginian-Pilot
> © September 2, 2011
> 
> NORFOLK
> 
> Michael Calabrese, the man firefighters rescued from a sailboat in Willoughby during Hurricane Irene, has been arrested for a second time in Norfolk.
> 
> Calabrese was arrested around midnight Thursday at 7661 Granby St. in Wards Corner after police were called for a report of a disorderly disturbance. He was charged with damage to property and taken to jail, with bail set at $500, police said.
> 
> A police spokeswoman said details of what he is accused of damaging were not yet available today. Calabrese posted bond around lunchtime today, the Norfolk Sheriff's Office said.
> 
> Rescued sailor arrested in Norfolk a second time | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com


Sounding more and more likely that thing is coming off the beach in pieces...



> Coast Guard officials determined the vessel's hull is warped, split and cracked...


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JonEisberg said:


> Coast Guard officials determined the vessel's hull is warped, split and cracked...


That's different from the day it left the Hunter factory??


----------



## Plumbean

SloopJonB said:


> The shot of the bow sure points out the need for chafe gear on your anchor!


Chafe gear? Looks to me like the load on the anchor roller was sufficient to rip it (and the stem head) out of the deck. I never ride off of my bow roller, but instead take the anchor rode through the bow chock to one of my bow cleats. If you are in the habit of just riding off the bow roller, make sure it is built to handle the loads. I suspect a lot are not, and I know mine isn't.


----------



## Bene505

The anchor ripping through the hull is a bit disturbing. Is that a Hunter thing, or are all fiberglass boats the same with this?

Regards,
Brad


----------



## SloopJonB

JonEisberg said:


> Quote:Coast Guard officials determined the vessel's hull is warped, split and cracked...


Sounds like a description of the owner as well.


----------



## SloopJonB

Plumbean said:


> Chafe gear? Looks to me like the load on the anchor roller was sufficient to rip it (and the stem head) out of the deck. I never ride off of my bow roller, but instead take the anchor rode through the bow chock to one of my bow cleats. If you are in the habit of just riding off the bow roller, make sure it is built to handle the loads. I suspect a lot are not, and I know mine isn't.


I guess I have to start using even more smilies to make sure my point is made. 

In the referenced comment about chafe gear, please retroactively add


----------



## Summer Magic

*Point Loma*

A couple times a year foolish skippers get caught inside the breakers at the surf break known as Ralph's. It lies just south of the Point Loma peninsula. Most days it is not a problem but occasional South swells can push you onto the rocks in a matter of minutes. Beware entering San Diego harbor. The other side has a jetty that is submerged at high tide which also claims a few keels a year.


----------



## JonEisberg

chrisncate said:


> It's a thin boat construction thing.
> 
> My Alberg would _never_ fall apart like that in those conditions.


Yup, lots of ordinary Classic Plastic boats would have maintained their integrity at the stem and hull to deck joint in that situation... As I've mentioned in a previous post, it all started with Hunter's incredibly poor design and execution of the anchor roller, in this instance...

What is really sobering about the close-up photo of the ripped-out portion of the foredeck, is that there appears to be _no additional thickness or layup whatsoever_ at this most critical area of the hull... In fact, from the appearance of the way in which the stem fitting was torn from the hull, it looks like there might not have even been a substantial backing plate placed inside the hull...

Yup, the early (mis)characterization of this boat as a "houseboat" wasn't that far off the mark...

Not hard to imagine how such a lightly constructed bow section would handle an impact with something solid at the water line, that thing could crack open like an eggshell...


----------



## TakeFive

I think it's very uncool to use this sad accident to bust on Hunters and other production boats. Every boat has tradeoffs, and different people will have different preferences for performance, cost, interior amenities, durability of fittings, etc. Whatever you may think about them, Hunter has managed to stay in business through thick and thin, so they must be delivering products that meet the desires of a significant body of customers. Maybe a Hunter is not the boat that you want, but you may choose to do a different type of sailing from the typical production boat customer.

Because of the tradeoffs, every boat owner must sail his boat within its and his limitations. Since these people were liveaboards without a huge amount of wealth, it's understandable that they would choose tradeoffs that favor interior comforts and cost over other factors. But their error was not in their selection of boat - it was in not sailing her within her reasonable limitations.

Sailnet is not a user group for any particular brand. It's a place where everyone is supposed to feel welcome to learn and share knowledge (and occasionally make a purchase from the owners and/or advertisers). Yet hearing the venom and cheap jokes directed toward Hunters, MacGregors, and other production boats can make some people feel very unwelcome. So I'm not sure this is the best place to do that. Maybe you should go to your own boat's user group (or form one, if one does not exist) if you want to bust on other brands.

This is especially important in this case, because the fact that this boat was a Hunter seems to me to have had absolutely nothing to do with the accident. And that suggestion obscures the fact that this accident had everything to do with the owner's faulty judgement in going out in conditions that clearly exceeded that capabilities of the boat (and the vast majority of other boats as well) as well as the skipper. Another contributing factor appears to have been poor maintenance, since it appears that the auxiliary power was not operational.


----------



## SloopJonB

RhythmDoctor said:


> I think it's very uncool to use this sad accident to bust on Hunters and other production boats. Every boat has tradeoffs, and different people will have different preferences for performance, cost, interior amenities, durability of fittings, etc. Whatever you may think about them, Hunter has managed to stay in business through thick and thin, so they must be delivering products that meet the desires of a significant body of customers. Maybe a Hunter is not the boat that you want, but you may choose to do a different type of sailing from the typical production boat customer.
> 
> Because of the tradeoffs, every boat owner must sail his boat within its and his limitations. Since these people were liveaboards without a huge amount of wealth, it's understandable that they would choose tradeoffs that favor interior comforts and cost over other factors. But their error was not in their selection of boat - it was in not sailing her within her reasonable limitations.
> 
> Sailnet is not a user group for any particular brand. It's a place where everyone is supposed to feel welcome to learn and share knowledge (and occasionally make a purchase from the owners and/or advertisers). Yet hearing the venom and cheap jokes directed toward Hunters, MacGregors, and other production boats can make some people feel very unwelcome. So I'm not sure this is the best place to do that. Maybe you should go to your own boat's user group (or form one, if one does not exist) if you want to bust on other brands.
> 
> This is especially important in this case, because the fact that this boat was a Hunter seems to me to have had absolutely nothing to do with the accident. And that suggestion obscures the fact that this accident had everything to do with the owner's faulty judgement in going out in conditions that clearly exceeded that capabilities of the boat (and the vast majority of other boats as well) as well as the skipper. Another contributing factor appears to have been poor maintenance, since it appears that the auxiliary power was not operational.


Absolutely right. The Benehuntalina snobs attitude transferred to cars would require everyone to drive Porsches and Benzes, if not Bentleys. Most people can afford and drive Chevies, Fords etc. Some need motorhomes or minivans and others need pickups. Taking a motorhome on the track with a Porsche would be just as absurd as taking a Hunter out in extreme heavy weather.

I've done considerable cruising in protected water on a friends Hunter 38 - up to 45 knots of winter weather - and it did just fine and was as comfortable as home (almost ). It isn't what I would choose for myself but it does an admirable job of what it was designed for - local cruising in full comfort (read: keeping the girls interested). I am always impressed by all the well thought out details as well. I even find the "roll bar" a plus when on board (though ugly as he!! from afar).

The essential underlying attitude of the snobs is that ANY largish sailboat should be capable of crossing oceans, which is absurd, the requirements are completely different, strength being only one of many. I don't want to sleep in a scrunchy pilot berth in a protected cove in the summer for example.

People need to keep some perspective when analyzing boats, their design and build quality.


----------



## smackdaddy

RhythmDoctor said:


> This is especially important in this case, because the fact that this boat was a Hunter seems to me to have had absolutely nothing to do with the accident. And that suggestion obscures the fact that this accident had everything to do with the owner's faulty judgement in going out in conditions that clearly exceeded that capabilities of the boat (and the vast majority of other boats as well) as well as the skipper. Another contributing factor appears to have been poor maintenance, since it appears that the auxiliary power was not operational.


+1.

I don't care what anyone says...NO boat could have stood up to the same circumstances without significant damage.


----------



## chef2sail

I agree with the previous two posts.

While I would never buy one , nor do I beleive that bashing a brand is particularly useful in any way, it is important to understand that this is also an opppertunty to correct a flaw in this particular design also.

In an airplane crash there is usually not just one cause, but a series of them compounding the circumstances. There is no doubt majority of blame is assigned to the captain here. Do not lose sight of the fact that there is also a design flaw which should be corrected in the bow area. Failure to address that will lead to other similar instances.
Enough said.



> Sailnet is not a user group for any particular brand. It's a place where everyone is supposed to feel welcome to learn and share knowledge (and occasionally make a purchase from the owners and/or advertisers). Yet hearing the venom and cheap jokes directed toward Hunters, MacGregors, and other production boats can make some people feel very unwelcome. So I'm not sure this is the best place to do that. Maybe you should go to your own boat's user group (or form one, if one does not exist) if you want to bust on other brands.


I agree. There is nothing gained by this. While I am not personally a subscriber to any of these production boats, they allow many to enjoy the water which after all is what we all share in common. Some have gtreat experience....some are gaining it. Some live on their boats...some just use them recreationally...and some travel all over gods creation in them. Our boats are personal...we love them, and it is disrespectfull to poke foilly at anothers choice. If it serves to turn someone away from sailnet....its a bad choice.

Dave


----------



## h20man

Bene505 said:


> The anchor ripping through the hull is a bit disturbing. Is that a Hunter thing, or are all fiberglass boats the same with this?
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


I suspect it is a chain saw thing.....

I doubt that any glass boat can be impervious to a chain saw....

and by not having a bridle... the chain just ate through the bow....

No?


----------



## Ninefingers

This a 15 second video of my evening sail last week on a Hunter 33.

After arriving at the dock and leaving a few short moments later, I motored out of the Marina with my 29 hp Yanmar at 7 knots. Using my lazy arse autopilot, I walked the deck and collected my fenders. Next I unrolled my mainsail, (that's was 30 seconds of my life I'll never get back). And then I did the same with the jib. More like 20 seconds for that, but who's counting? As music played on my cockpit speakers, I accelerated gently to 7.5 knots. I continued my sail until I decided to go back to the dock, at which point I wasted another 50 seconds of life bringing in my sails.

It was as far from being a painful experience as I could ever imagine.

Each design of a boat/car/plane/building has it's own purpose or function. In my case, a Hunter fulfills my needs perfectly and makes me very happy.

I hope everyone on the internet is okay with that.

Sorry, for the shaky video, I took it on my iPhone, which while not being as "tuneable" as a Blackberry, or as pure as a 35mm Panavision, is certainly convenient and user friendly.

sail - YouTube


----------



## smackdaddy

Ninefingers said:


> This a 15 second video of my evening sail last week on a Hunter 33.
> 
> After arriving at the dock and leaving a few short moments later, I motored out of the Marina with my 29 hp Yanmar at 7 knots. Using my lazy arse autopilot, I walked the deck and collected my fenders. Next I unrolled my mainsail, (that's was 30 seconds of my life I'll never get back). And then I did the same with the jib. More like 20 seconds for that, but who's counting? As music played on my cockpit speakers, I accelerated gently to 7.5 knots. I continued my sail until I decided to go back to the dock, at which point I wasted another 50 seconds of life bringing in my sails.
> 
> It was as far from being a painful experience as I could ever imagine.
> 
> Each design of a boat/car/plane/building has it's own purpose or function. In my case, a Hunter fulfills my needs perfectly and makes me very happy.
> 
> I hope everyone on the internet is okay with that.
> 
> Sorry, for the shaky video, I took it on my iPhone, which while not being as "tuneable" as a Blackberry, or as pure as a 35mm Panavision, is certainly convenient and user friendly.
> 
> sail - YouTube


Nicely done nine. 7 knots on a nice day - how can you beat that?


----------



## TakeFive

But I thought hull speed on a Hunter was 30% less than other boats of the same size. lol


----------



## smackdaddy

RhythmDoctor said:


> But I thought hull speed on a Hunter was 30% less than other boats of the same size. lol


Completely an urban legend.

Of course, at 8 knots, the hull implodes because it's only .005 mil thick. Pieces of crap.


----------



## chrisncate

Sorry if I offended Hunter or Hunter owners. Not my intent.


----------



## TakeFive

I'm not going to go back and reread the whole thread, but here's what bothers me from my recollection. I saw the pic of the chain that sawed through the fiberglass. From that picture some drew the conclusion that the fiberglass is paper thin there, with no reinforcement or additional layup. But I think that was an assumption - I never saw a picture that showed the back side of the layup, or any type of caliper measuring the thickness of that boat in comparison to other boats. Maybe I missed a picture somewhere - like I said, I'm not going to go back and reread 14 pages, and all the assorted links.

It seems to me that the boat was chainsawed by an unprotected chain, and I see no hard evidence that the same would not have happened to many other boats.

Clearly there are some boats that would have a thicker layup than these production boats. But in the absence of a control experiment for comparison, I'm not buying into the suggestion that this damage was caused by insufficient layup.

The root cause was severe weather that exceeded the capabilities and maintenance skills of the skipper, the design criteria of the boat, and FWIW the terms of the owner's insurance policy.


----------



## chrisncate

Some positive news:



> "On Friday, however, Lori Crouch, a city spokeswoman, said that the boat will not be demolished Monday if it hasn't been removed, pending City Manager Marcus Jones' review of options for removing a public nuisance.
> 
> *"We're trying to work with the boat owner to rectify the problem, but we're not going to take a chain saw to it and hack it up on the beach," Crouch said.*"


Link to rest of article


----------



## MikeWhy

Why the fuhgetaboutit, Chris? I thought it was on target. 

Don't most boats nowadays boast of well placed flotation cells to protect against bow strikes, rather than robust structure? Hunter surely isn't alone. In fact, everything without a substantial keel is susceptible in the same way. Why drag in flimsy construction when the real reason was poor seamanship?

Why leave a reasonably secure harbor with a hurricane certain and imminent? Why set hook on the lee shore when relative safety and security laid literally just around the next bend? Why stay there, of all places, when the storm finally caught up?

I'm guessing, but the picture painted is one of severe alcohol abuse. I could easily fill in a back story of unpaid bills and loud disagreements with neighbors. They threw his ass out into the storm. But I'm only guessing.

Why anchor there, of all places? Still working from the story of alcoholism, I'm guessing he had engine trouble and needed a timeout to sleep it off and figure it out tomorrow. Isn't that how that's done? The problem is, he likely never learned to unhook under sail. Simple enough for any one of us, but insurmountable because he never learned. Once the hook was down, with the engine out, he was there to stay. And so there he was, and there he stayed.

The rest seems inevitable once it reached that point. Even if he had known to bridle the rode rode to more secure structure, the rode could have easily have parted, or the anchor pulled out, in the coming onslaught. Instead, the unbraced rollers parted first, giving the hyenas and jackals here something to howl about, as though their noise and voluminous denials can keep the same from happening to them. Rest assured, if you think your flimsy stem can sustain those loads in storm conditions, you're well qualified to star in the very next headline hard luck story.

But why go there? Why vilify Hunter above all others? It was the obvious lack of even the most basic seamanship that made this into a story. And a story that would not have been had he just not shat where he slept (or so I'm led to believe).


----------



## MikeWhy

Chris, I'll be more careful in the future how I use the pronoun "you". In every case, it was the editorial-you, not the personal-you.  Cheers.


----------



## chrisncate

MikeWhy said:


> Chris, I'll be more careful in the future how I use the pronoun "you". In every case, it was the editorial-you, not the personal-you.  Cheers.


----------



## Sublime

Hello from a Hunter owner.  I have sailed a Hunter and actually lived to tell about it! 

I can take some smack talk about my Hunter. I know it's not the boat people dream about. 
Right now I can't take care of my ideal boat. Hell, I can't even buy it. Right now, I _need_ a boat I can actually afford to purchase and maintain. I _need_ a boat I can pull out of the water without the expense of hiring a lift. I'd _like_ a boat I can sail and be reasonably comfortable at anchor in. I'm not on a shoe string budget but I refuse to waste money just to be part of some "super-duper-sailnet-approved-yacht-club".

Is she the most seaworthy vessel? Nope. She never was designed to be. Do you critique the value of a wrench with the criteria for doing a screw driver's work? She fills a void between a day sailor and the super-duper-sailnet-approved-yachts which is exactly what fits my needs.
Fact is, if I were out crossing oceans, she wouldn't be the boat for me. Sounds like this guy was doing coastal cruising and not crossing the Southern Ocean. Save all that extra boat and hardware for the guy who actually does need it to cross oceans-which is probably less 1% of all sailors. What is it they say, that more people have been into space than have sailed around the world? 
Anyway, she _is_ a sailboat and she fits what I _need_ in a sailboat as well as a little bit of what I want without extras I _don't_ need. I have fun with her. That's all that matters. And she gets out more than a lot of the super-duper-sailnet-approved boats.

With a reasonable person at the helm, these production boats are not death traps.

And I'd rather be out sailing on a Hunter than not sailing at all. Since mine is paid for, that means less time at work, more time at the helm. So be jealous, my friends. Be jealous. :laugher

It's all irrelevant anyway. This entire fiasco is because of the skipper, not the boat.


----------



## johnferrell

Just to let everyone know the bow damage happened after the boat was grounded. I was on the beach last Saturday(the day of the storm) and the bow was intact. Both anchor rodes were still in the water and the roller furling was still attached. My guess would be that it had nothing to do with being a Hunter but just bad luck. No one did anything to protect the boat after the couple and the cat were rescued. The waves were moving th boat around all night and thats when the roller furling and bow were damaged.


----------



## weephee

*Somebody got Caught on the Outside*

So what is the present status of this boat. Is it still laying on the beach or has it been cut up. Surely someone, even a bottom feeder, would be interested in salvaging her. Can a crane and flat bed not reach her and pick her up in one piece and truck her off to a yard. I can't believe a boat of this kind would be cut up with a chain saw. I remember a year or so ago a post named "Having a bad day" where a similar boat was beached in the Carolina's I think. That one ended up being destroyed. Hopefully this one has a better ending.


----------



## johnferrell

The city has had a change of heart (or politics) they are going to work with the owner and give him some time. The boat will most likely need a crane barge to get it back in the water. getting a crane on the beach would probably be more expensive. The boat is high out of the water and is not being damaged by the surf or tide.


----------



## JonEisberg

chrisncate said:


> Regarding the owner, I wonder if he could unbolt the keel, temporarily epoxy the area over so it's watertight, do the same with the rudder and drag the thing via a towboat back into the water and into a marina with a temporary rudder rigged up? Come back for the keel and rudder with a front end loader and a dumptruck?


That might be a bit optimistic - according to a poster over on Sailing Anarchy, it sounds as if a significant portion of the starboard side is missing...

Stupidity during Irene - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 3

I'll be surprised if this boat ever sails again...


----------



## chrisncate

JonEisberg said:


> That might be a bit optimistic - according to a poster over on Sailing Anarchy, it sounds as if a significant portion of the starboard side is missing...
> 
> Stupidity during Irene - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 3
> 
> I'll be surprised if this boat ever sails again...


It'll buff out...


----------



## HDChopper

LOL chrisncate ! you just made my humor list


----------



## JonEisberg

MikeWhy said:


> But why go there? Why vilify Hunter above all others? It was the obvious lack of even the most basic seamanship that made this into a story. And a story that would not have been *had he just not shat where he slept* (or so I'm led to believe).


You may not realize how right you are...



> *Police: Boater defecates in squad car*
> 
> Updated: Saturday, 03 Sep 2011, 12:30 AM EDT
> 
> NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) - Thursday night, police arrested the sailboat owner, Michael Calabrese, for a second time since that incident. Calabrese is accused of being drunk in public. He also reportedly defecated in the back of a police car.
> 
> Sailboat owner arrested | WAVY.com | Norfolk, Va.


----------



## smackdaddy

> Police: Boater defecates in squad car
> 
> Updated: Saturday, 03 Sep 2011, 12:30 AM EDT
> 
> NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) - Thursday night, police arrested the sailboat owner, Michael Calabrese, for a second time since that incident. Calabrese is accused of being drunk in public. He also reportedly defecated in the back of a police car.


This guy is epic. In the words of Neil Young..."It's better to burn out than fade away."


----------



## deniseO30

I've yet to find anything that quotes the guy himself. This is odd imo, because in just about anything newsworthy there are both "sides" to a story. All we have is what the news is spoon feeding us?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> +1.
> 
> I don't care what anyone says...NO boat could have stood up to the same circumstances without significant damage.


If you are suggesting that no other boat could have withstood being at anchor in 35 knot winds in an open roadstead without having their anchor roller self-destruct, I would disagree - bigtime&#8230; Many boats could have survived those conditions with their bow rollers and stem fittings still intact&#8230;

Obviously, we don't know the precise chain of events that occurred that morning, but it was obvious the roller had completely self-destructed well before the boat was in the surf line&#8230; Without question, any boat would have been seriously damaged after dragging over those jetties, and winding up on the beach&#8230; But it is certainly possible that the failure of the anchor roller was but the first in a series of cascading failures that might have made it impossible to have raised or ditched the anchor, and attempt to escape the situation under sail&#8230;



SloopJonB said:


> The essential underlying attitude of the snobs is that ANY largish sailboat should be capable of crossing oceans, which is absurd, the requirements are completely different, strength being only one of many.


Agreed&#8230;

But, how about when a manufacturer denotes a particular model as one of their _*Passage*_ Series, and markets it as follows:



> The combination of performance, comfort and structural integrity allow you to sail with confidence* no matter where you go*; so "Discover The Difference."


Sounds like a boat intended to "_Go The Distance_", and be sailed comfortably offshore, no?

Or, is everyone expected to know by now, that Hunter is just adding the moniker "Passage" with a wink and a nod, and their marketing is intended to be taken as written with tongue firmly planted in cheek? (grin)



SloopJonB said:


> Absolutely right. The Benehuntalina snobs attitude transferred to cars would require everyone to drive Porsches and Benzes, if not Bentleys. Most people can afford and drive Chevies, Fords etc. Some need motorhomes or minivans and others need pickups. Taking a motorhome on the track with a Porsche would be just as absurd as taking a Hunter out in extreme heavy weather.


I think you've missed the mark, there&#8230; If one is gonna make the analogy to the automotive industry, I'd suggest this incident is better viewed from the point of view of crash safety standards, as opposed to performance&#8230;

Suppose you're buying a car strictly for commuting locally, not planning on driving at high speeds in heavy traffic&#8230;. Would you be comfortable with you and your family in such a vehicle that would perform poorly in the (however unlikely) event of a serious accident? No matter how you intend sailing your boat, wouldn't you still want one engineered so that the ground tackle would likely fail prior to the _hull_???



RhythmDoctor said:


> I'm not going to go back and reread the whole thread, but here's what bothers me from my recollection. I saw the pic of the chain that sawed through the fiberglass. From that picture some drew the conclusion that the fiberglass is paper thin there, with no reinforcement or additional layup. But I think that was an assumption - I never saw a picture that showed the back side of the layup, or any type of caliper measuring the thickness of that boat in comparison to other boats. Maybe I missed a picture somewhere - like I said, I'm not going to go back and reread 14 pages, and all the assorted links.
> 
> It seems to me that the boat was chainsawed by an unprotected chain, and I see no hard evidence that the same would not have happened to many other boats.


Have a look at the close up of the stem from the following gallery&#8230; Gives a pretty good indication of the thickness of the layup of the port side of the hull near the stem, and I can see no indication that the laminate schedule gets any heavier at the stem:

Photo Gallery

Of course, this incident was precipitated by the poor judgment and incompetence of the skipper, there's no disputing that&#8230; However, when such a poor design and execution of a builder's bow roller is made so painfully apparent as in this instance, is the community of sailors here better served by _ignoring_ that fact?

I don't see this as "Hunter-bashing", they obviously deliver a product that is very popular, and serves many sailors very well&#8230; But, IMHO, they offer perhaps the most glaring example in production boatbuilding today of a ground tackle system _designed to fail_&#8230;

No matter what a boat's intended use, a robust bow roller is one of the most critical components in any boat's design and construction&#8230; It can very often be one's very last line of defense, after all, and spell the difference between a boat than will survive a dire or unanticipated situation, and one that will not&#8230;


----------



## JonEisberg

deniseO30 said:


> I've yet to find anything that quotes the guy himself. This is odd imo, because in just about anything newsworthy there are both "sides" to a story. All we have is what the news is spoon feeding us?


Actually, he was quoted in several of the initial accounts of the incident... Here's one example:

Beached sailor races against time - The Washington Post

He seems to have gone to ground in the wake of his arrests, but now has resurfaced once again - on FACEBOOK, of all places:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/208804435845259/

Sounds like Captain Calabrese may be in the running for the Guiness' World Record for most souls saved from drowning by a single individual, with 287 to his credit so far...


----------



## deniseO30

Thanks Jon.. I was following on facebook and see he only recently started posting there.


----------



## PorFin

JonEisberg said:


> I don't see this as "Hunter-bashing", they obviously deliver a product that is very popular, and serves many sailors very well&#8230; But, IMHO, they offer perhaps the most glaring example in production boatbuilding today of a ground tackle system _designed to fail_&#8230;


Jon,

Respectfully, I disagree. I've got no horse in this race, but it seems to me that you are in fact bashing Hunter pretty hard. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Just be honest enough with yourself to recognize it and admit it.

For example, I would be a absolutely amazed to find out that the Hunter designers are sitting around a conference table in Alachua, FL going to great lengths to deliberately design a ground tackle system that looks good but will ultimately fail. That's a lot of work, what with all the variables involved.

You also stated:

"Obviously, we don't know the precise chain of events that occurred that morning, but it was obvious the roller had completely self-destructed well before the boat was in the surf line&#8230; "

Why is it obvious that the roller "self-destructed" well before it reached the surf line? I seem to recall someone mentioning that they saw the roller intact on the boat on the beach.

I can also easily imagine a scenario in which the roller failed coming over the top of that breakwater -- the rudder gets caught and the boat is turned 90* to the rode, so the repeated shock loading on the roller is perpendicular to the designed axis. I don't think it reasonable to call that a design failure.

The bottom line is that you shouldn't ask hamster to pull an ox cart -- it just ain't gonna happen, even if the cart's empty and hamster's motivated. Any boat designed for coastal cruising is gonna struggle -- sometimes unsuccessfully -- in TS or hurricane conditions.


----------



## MikeWhy

JonEisberg said:


> If you are suggesting that no other boat could have withstood being at anchor in 35 knot winds in an open roadstead without having their anchor roller self-destruct, I would disagree - bigtime&#8230; Many boats could have survived those conditions with their bow rollers and stem fittings still intact&#8230;
> 
> Obviously, we don't know the precise chain of events that occurred that morning, but it was obvious the roller had completely self-destructed well before the boat was in the surf line&#8230; Without question, any boat would have been seriously damaged after dragging over those jetties, and winding up on the beach&#8230; But it is certainly possible that the failure of the anchor roller was but the first in a series of cascading failures that might have made it impossible to have raised or ditched the anchor, and attempt to escape the situation under sail&#8230;
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't see this as "Hunter-bashing", they obviously deliver a product that is very popular, and serves many sailors very well&#8230; But, IMHO, they offer perhaps the most glaring example in production boatbuilding today of a ground tackle system _designed to fail_&#8230;
> 
> No matter what a boat's intended use, a robust bow roller is one of the most critical components in any boat's design and construction&#8230; It can very often be one's very last line of defense, after all, and spell the difference between a boat than will survive a dire or unanticipated situation, and one that will not&#8230;


We can beat this to death... I don't know the area, but "1000 ft off Willoughby Spit", according to the reports, is in less than 10 ft of water. It doesn't take much of a sea state, let alone a hurricane, to put that inside anyone's definition of surf line. There's an open fetch to the E through NE, and a 20 mile fetch to Cape Charles more northerly. Willoughby Spit was catching fully developed swells from Irene.

Riding on just the chain rode, with no nylon or anything else to snub the shock, it doesn't seem to me to matter much what's holding your bow rollers. The shock loads will tear it off your bow. Side stays might help, or they might just crank off a larger piece of your hull.

All that aside, the windlass or rode bitt is still securely attached. Clearly, the anchor dragged or the chain parted to put him on the beach. From the lack of an anchor the pictures, I'm guessing the chain failed first. Whether that's so, or whether the anchor dragged enough for it to snag and break on the jetty is immaterial. The bitter end is still attached to the boat.

The more I look at this and the more I think about what I'm seeing, it does look like the hull structure is pretty substantial. That's directly contrary to your thoughts above.


----------



## jameswilson29

At the critical moment (after a series of mistakes) where he is facing a thirty knot breeze, 3 - 5 foot seas, and a lee shore astern, this is not the boat I would want to be in. He might simply have been afraid and was not confident in his boat and his own ability to sail off the anchor to windward in these conditions.

I would much rather face those conditions in much less expensive, well-built classic plastic, an older, narrower, higher ballast to displacement ratio, less windage aloft, more seaworthy boat with a storm jib bent on, and a triple-reefed mainsail. While he definitely picked a newer, more comfortable, more spacious boat for navigating the ICW and pounding beers in the marina, it might have limited his options when he most needed to sail to weather in challenging conditions.


----------



## xymotic

jameswilson29 said:


> At the critical moment (after a series of mistakes) where he is facing a thirty knot breeze, 3 - 5 foot seas, and a lee shore astern, this is not the boat I would want to be in. He might simply have been afraid and was not confident in his boat and his own ability to sail off the anchor to windward in these conditions.
> 
> I would much rather face those conditions in much less expensive, well-built classic plastic, an older, narrower, higher ballast to displacement ratio, less windage aloft, more seaworthy boat with a storm jib bent on, and a triple-reefed mainsail. While he definitely picked a newer, more comfortable, more spacious boat for navigating the ICW and pounding beers in the marina, it might have limited his options when he most needed to sail to weather in challenging conditions.


Conditions that he created through a series of rather large mistakes.

This argument seems odd to me, why isn't anyone blaming Yanmar because his engine died? Those Yanmar's are crap, can't trust em in a hurricane.

the bottom line is that he exceeded the design spec of the boat. That's a far cry from indicting all Hunters as un-seaworthy. Sure, *some* other boats *might* have survived such stupidity. And sure some boats are *better* than a hunter in one way or another, but that doesn't mean all hunters are automatically *bad*


----------



## Sublime

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, he was quoted in several of the initial accounts of the incident... Here's one example:
> 
> Beached sailor races against time - The Washington Post
> 
> He seems to have gone to ground in the wake of his arrests, but now has resurfaced once again - on FACEBOOK, of all places:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/208804435845259/
> 
> Sounds like Captain Calabrese may be in the running for the Guiness' World Record for most souls saved from drowning by a single individual, with 287 to his credit so far...


For those without facebook:










All I can imagine is Dr. Phil looking at him through a raised eyebrow asking, "And how is that HOPE working out for ya?" :laugher


----------



## LandLocked66c

This guy is a lost cause, he drinks bud-light! Nuff said...  

Regardless of what craft he sailed, the story would be the same. He's not a sailor, no sailor would knowingly try to beat a hurricane when safe port was at hand. This guy thought his big boat would deliver him victory, but instead it took everything.


----------



## deniseO30

EVERYONE HAS, MAY, OR WILL MAKE STUPID MISTAKES. And yes there are people that continue to make dumbass mistakes.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> If you are suggesting that no other boat could have withstood being at anchor in 35 knot winds in an open roadstead without having their anchor roller self-destruct, I would disagree - bigtime&#8230; Many boats could have survived those conditions with their bow rollers and stem fittings still intact&#8230;
> 
> Obviously, we don't know the precise chain of events that occurred that morning, but it was obvious the roller had completely self-destructed well before the boat was in the surf line&#8230; Without question, any boat would have been seriously damaged after dragging over those jetties, and winding up on the beach&#8230; But it is certainly possible that the failure of the anchor roller was but the first in a series of cascading failures that might have made it impossible to have raised or ditched the anchor, and attempt to escape the situation under sail&#8230;


I'm saying that no boat, put in exactly the same circumstances would have survived intact. Period. This was a boat anchored against a lee shore in a freakin' hurricane. To try to compare boat-build quality in a situation like this is silly. The bow roller is just one gear failure of many. Yet, this eggshell of a boat didn't lose its stick, nor was it reduced to flotsam despite being thrown over a rock jetty and bashed in hurricane-generated surf for 24 hours plus.

So, I will stand by my amazement at how well the Hunter faired overall being of "lighter build". And I also stand by my assertion that, as you acknowledge, even the heaviest of builds would have been severely beaten up (and _eaten_ up by that chain in the same configuration).

Beyond that, as to the "Hunter bashing", current Hunters are rated CE-A. That's blue water. I'll leave it to you and others to quibble about what that means exactly within your strict definition of blue-always-equals-heavy. But you can't argue the fact this these boats have this rating...which is no gimme.

I used to buy into the anti-Hunter howling. I don't anymore. In terms of what the majority of us sailors do, these are good, safe boats at a good price. I'll consider Hunter right along with Beneteau/Jenneau for our next boat. I will absolutely NOT be buying a classic full-keeler.

Of course, that's just me.



jameswilson29 said:


> I would much rather face those conditions in much less expensive, well-built classic plastic, an older, narrower, higher ballast to displacement ratio, less windage aloft, more seaworthy boat with a storm jib bent on, and a triple-reefed mainsail. While he definitely picked a newer, more comfortable, more spacious boat for navigating the ICW and pounding beers in the marina, it might have limited his options when he most needed to sail to weather in challenging conditions.


See the above. The classic plastic would have been broken on the beach just like the Hunter was. I take that back, it probably wouldn't have made it over the rock jetty and would have fared much worse.


----------



## jameswilson29

From the Washington Post linked article:

"Calabrese said strong currents and wind slowed his progress and forced him to anchor perhaps 1,000 yards off Willoughby Spit."

That reads as if his boat's inability to make progress to windward in the conditions was one of the root causes of this tragic event.


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> The classic plastic would have been broken on the beach just like the Hunter was. I take that back, it probably wouldn't have made it over the rock jetty and would have fared much worse.


Oh! Now you're just fanning the flames!!! :hothead :laugher


----------



## jameswilson29

Did this become the unofficial "Fight Club for Sailors" thread?


----------



## deniseO30

So many sites are doing the very same thing as here James. Sadly it seems the guy is basically on his own. I can't imagine being in his situation. Regardless of his dumb actions and even dumber remarks, he needs help. There are thousands of sailors that could offer help but because he's the dumb-ass of the storm it looks like the media and the beach town has sealed his fate.


----------



## saillife

I think so James. As to your earlier post (#166). The inability to make it to windward I suspect lies at the fault of the helmsman.... My understanding was that when he dropped anchor he had 3' waves and a 10 knot breeze.

"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools." Considering everything else we've heard, I can't really fault the boat for windward performance.


----------



## smackdaddy

jameswilson29 said:


> Did this become the unofficial "Fight Club for Sailors" thread?


Dude, surely you know me by now. EVERY thread is Fight Club!


----------



## LandLocked66c

deniseO30 said:


> So many sites are doing the very same thing as here James. Sadly it seems the guy is basically on his own. I can't imagine being in his situation. Regardless of his dumb actions and even dumber remarks, he needs help. There are thousands of sailors that could offer help but because he's the dumb-ass of the storm it looks like the media and the beach town has sealed his fate.


Denise I could agree with you if there wasn't alcohol involved. It's a simple choice not to drink and take care of business. This guy isn't doing that... It takes a lot to get arrested and he managed to do it twice in one week. Sorry, i've seen it before with friends of mine...


----------



## jorgenl

smackdaddy said:


> I'm saying that no boat, put in exactly the same circumstances would have survived intact. Period. This was a boat anchored against a lee shore in a freakin' hurricane. To try to compare boat-build quality in a situation like this is silly. The bow roller is just one gear failure of many. Yet, this eggshell of a boat didn't lose its stick, nor was it reduced to flotsam despite being thrown over a rock jetty and bashed in hurricane-generated surf for 24 hours plus.
> 
> So, I will stand by my amazement at how well the Hunter faired overall being of "lighter build". And I also stand by my assertion that, as you acknowledge, even the heaviest of builds would have been severely beaten up (and _eaten_ up by that chain in the same configuration).
> 
> Beyond that, as to the "Hunter bashing", current Hunters are rated CE-A. That's blue water. I'll leave it to you and others to quibble about what that means exactly within your strict definition of blue-always-equals-heavy. But you can't argue the fact this these boats have this rating...which is no gimme.
> 
> I used to buy into the anti-Hunter howling. I don't anymore. In terms of what the majority of us sailors do, these are good, safe boats at a good price. I'll consider Hunter right along with Beneteau/Jenneau for our next boat. I will absolutely NOT be buying a classic full-keeler.
> 
> Of course, that's just me.
> 
> See the above. The classic plastic would have been broken on the beach just like the Hunter was. I take that back, it probably wouldn't have made it over the rock jetty and would have fared much worse.


Nah, I think a TayaValiBaba would have saved his sorry ass.


----------



## casey1999

xymotic said:


> SWEET! Once I get your account number I can just print my own checks, or electronically transfer your entire balance!
> 
> I've never really understood why people use checks:laugher


Ever hear of a bank cashier check? Cannot get my bank account # with that. What do you use to pay people- all cash?


----------



## zboss

Regardless of his seamanship ability... or maybe evidence of "lack of seamanship"...

I am surprised that no-one seems to have pointed out that his jib was partially out and flogging. I always learned to take 2 or three wraps around the sail specifically to prevent this from happening. I imagine this sail caused an awful lot of wind resistance and I would hazard a guess that this probably contributed quite a bit to the anchor dragging.

As for anchoring out 1000 feet from shore.... would you rather have had him anchor only 100 feet from shore? I own three moorings... Each one successively deeper and farther from the beach. During heavy weather we always place the boat on the furthest mooring.


----------



## jholder

jameswilson29 said:


> From the Washington Post linked article:
> 
> "Calabrese said strong currents and wind slowed his progress and forced him to anchor perhaps 1,000 yards off Willoughby Spit."
> 
> That reads as if his boat's inability to make progress to windward in the conditions was one of the root causes of this tragic event.


I would completely expect him to blame it on the boats inability to make progress and not on his own....


----------



## casey1999

Just some comments for y'all:
1. The guy does live on the boat, but he does sail it "They left Florida on July 4 for Virginia before being caught in Hurricane Irene." So it is not a marina queen.

2. All of you that bash Hunter. Do you sail a steel hull boat? If not, you should trash your glass hull and go steel. That way she will hold up better to groundings, rammings, and running through ice. True go anywhere yachts would be steel or maybe aluminum. With a hammer, I'll put a hole in your glass boat, but not a steel hull. I always wanted a steel hull, but compromised on a strong fiberglass S&S34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&S_34

3. How many boats really are lost every year at sea due to build quality? Give me some examples.

4. If this guy were at sea and needed help, would you help, or just post here on SN you saw this poor sailor asking for help.

Regards


----------



## LandLocked66c

This is turning into a RULE 62 thread fast!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

LandLocked66c said:


> This guy is a lost cause, he drinks bud-light! Nuff said...


W/LIME!!


----------



## casey1999

LandLocked66c said:


> This is turning into a RULE 62 thread fast!


Checked the rule book- did not see #62. Can you post it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Hunter owners are immune to it.


----------



## chrisncate

smackdaddy said:


> I'm saying that no boat, put in exactly the same circumstances would have survived intact. Period. This was a boat anchored against a lee shore in a freakin' hurricane. To try to compare boat-build quality in a situation like this is silly. The bow roller is just one gear failure of many. Yet, this eggshell of a boat didn't lose its stick, nor was it reduced to flotsam despite being thrown over a rock jetty and bashed in hurricane-generated surf for 24 hours plus.
> 
> So, I will stand by my amazement at how well the Hunter faired overall being of "lighter build". And I also stand by my assertion that, as you acknowledge, even the heaviest of builds would have been severely beaten up (and _eaten_ up by that chain in the same configuration).
> 
> Beyond that, as to the "Hunter bashing", current Hunters are rated CE-A. That's blue water. I'll leave it to you and others to quibble about what that means exactly within your strict definition of blue-always-equals-heavy. But you can't argue the fact this these boats have this rating...which is no gimme.
> 
> I used to buy into the anti-Hunter howling. I don't anymore. In terms of what the majority of us sailors do, these are good, safe boats at a good price. I'll consider Hunter right along with Beneteau/Jenneau for our next boat. I will absolutely NOT be buying a classic full-keeler.
> 
> Of course, that's just me.
> 
> See the above. The classic plastic would have been broken on the beach just like the Hunter was. I take that back, it probably wouldn't have made it over the rock jetty and would have fared much worse.


Lol


----------



## Rick486

*Embarrassed*

I've been reading some of the self-righteous crap on this thread from guys who obviously have very little sailing experience running own this poor guy who has lost his home and maybe his family as well. Notice he said a "family" had lost their home. In college we called them "fat a** phonies". Certainly applies here. I am embarrassed for you guys, and you know who you are. This guy needs help and I'll say right now there's $50 of my hard earned money available for this guy and his family to save their home. How many guys and gals are willing to match it?


----------



## MikeWhy

casey1999 said:


> Checked the rule book- did not see #62. Can you post it?


Google is your friend.

Most recently, Rule 62 wrecked on the rocks in a storm off the Bahamas last Nov., with loss of life. Imagine the scorn shucking and second guessing here times 10.

More generally, perhaps appropriately enough, rule 62 in the AA rule book is an admonition to not take yourself too seriously. (Me, I'm having a home brew and reading this. There isn't enough support for the wayward lost skipper's actions to develop a serious fight. Hence, the Hunter effigy got rolled out for a lame public hanging instead. There's always a pound of flesh to be paid, you see. Stay sharp, or be next.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Rick486 said:


> I'll say right now there's $50 of my hard earned money available for this guy and his family to save their home.


That won't even buy two cases of beer these days.


----------



## h20man

Sublime said:


> For those without facebook:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can imagine is Dr. Phil looking at him through a raised eyebrow asking, "And how is that HOPE working out for ya?" :laugher


Hope is the name of his cat...

very talented individual...


----------



## arf145

MikeWhy said:


> There isn't enough support for the wayward lost skipper's actions to develop a serious fight. Hence, the Hunter effigy got rolled out for a lame public hanging instead. There's always a pound of flesh to be paid, you see. Stay sharp, or be next.


:laugher


----------



## MikeWhy

chrisncate said:


> To the very pro Hunter set, let me ask you: Does this line of reasoning apply to all manufacturers across the spectrum? Does say, the fact that a new Honda Civic is built with thinner construction than a new Mercedes of the same class automatically translate to Honda bashing? Do we follow a train of thought that both the Honda and Mercedes would crack up the same under identical circumstances? They wouldn't.
> 
> Where do you draw your line on what you will honestly comment on regarding a manufacturers construction methods?
> 
> I, for one, not being a Hunter expert at all, didn't know they classified what I assumed to be coastal cruisers as "Blue Water". To me, that's not a passage making boat because it's built thin and because of it's design. I understand this point can be argued, but it's my opinion.
> 
> I certainly can't understand Smacks assertions that the classic plastic would have faired _worse_, it makes no sense in light of the difference in the way they are built.


Chris, the car analogy isn't a good fit. When we think of family cars, we have in mind well maintained highways, no more harrowing than in-shore, good weather sailing. When speaking of the bow rollers on blue water passage makers, we probably should talk about Land Rovers instead. If a wannabe, urbanized Ford F150 falls down a ravine after breaking off its winch, we'll have a similar conversation. I don't know where I stand on that. In both cases, for Calabrese or the hypothetical ravine, I can shrug and say, "Don't care. I wouldn't have been there, and for sure not with my drawers around my ankles."

When we first heard this story, I'm certain each of us went through our mental checklists. Nope, wouldn't've left ahead of that storm. Nope; wouldn't've parked it where he parked. Nope; woulda hauled anchor long before it got that rough, engine or no engine. Nope; would've just cut the rode and clawed my way out if it came to that. And, nope, would've bridled it good and tight, and put out snubbers and 200' of nylon. And, no way would I be caught dead on a death trap like that one. (Hmmmph.) Nope, no fool am I. I'm safe. (Even though the staysail and trysail haven't left the storage locker the past three seasons; let's just not tell anyone.)

Motorcyclists and pilots are the same way. Roadside deaths that make the news are analyzed, newbies educated, habits scrutinized, and the rare lesson to be learned noted and maybe acted on. Oddly, aside from Robinson head speed, we don't generally blame the bike or aircraft. And even then, it's clear always that the rider or pilot that's at fault. Which is why this fixation with Hunter is so interesting.


----------



## casey1999

MikeWhy said:


> Google is your friend.
> 
> Most recently, Rule 62 wrecked on the rocks in a storm off the Bahamas last Nov., with loss of life. Imagine the scorn shucking and second guessing here times 10.
> 
> More generally, perhaps appropriately enough, rule 62 in the AA rule book is an admonition to not take yourself too seriously. (Me, I'm having a home brew and reading this. There isn't enough support for the wayward lost skipper's actions to develop a serious fight. Hence, the Hunter effigy got rolled out for a lame public hanging instead. There's always a pound of flesh to be paid, you see. Stay sharp, or be next.


Thanks for explaining- lol. I'm staying low and movin fast.


----------



## Ninefingers

chrisncate said:


> To the very pro Hunter set, let me ask you: Does this line of reasoning apply to all manufacturers across the spectrum? Does say, the fact that a new Honda Civic is built with thinner construction than a new Mercedes of the same class automatically translate to Honda bashing?


Nope, not at all. I sail a Hunter and I'll admit it's built thinner than a true bluewater boat. But you don't need a tank to drive to the grocery store. I don't know of any Hunter owners, besides this guy, who don't understand the limits of their boats.

Anyhow, when someone says that Hunter designed something specifically to fail, you do have to take that as a bash.

And one more thing, would a skipper and owner of a boat in the infamous 1979 Fastnet, sail a Hunter today? Yes, he would, in fact has for last six years here. And he loves the boat.


----------



## JonEisberg

PorFin said:


> Jon,
> 
> Respectfully, I disagree. I've got no horse in this race, but it seems to me that you are in fact bashing Hunter pretty hard. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Just be honest enough with yourself to recognize it and admit it.
> 
> For example, I would be a absolutely amazed to find out that the Hunter designers are sitting around a conference table in Alachua, FL going to great lengths to deliberately design a ground tackle system that looks good but will ultimately fail. That's a lot of work, what with all the variables involved.


Of course, even as devout a Hunter-basher as myself (grin) would not assert that the manufacturer is _deliberately_ designing their systems to fail&#8230; It's just that in their apparent effort to make anchoring more _convenient_, and by maximizing the self-launching and retrieval of anchors without risking damage to the topsides, they have - _in effect_ - construed an arrangement (at least on some of their models I've seen) are literally "designed to fail", at least if you believe the laws of physics to be a determining factor&#8230;

Look at these solutions to bow rollers from Hunter:










OK, someone, help me out here: What conceivable reason or advantage is to be gained from such an absurd degree of projection from the stem?

Those rollers likely have no more than 1/3 of their overall length attached to the hull/deck&#8230; Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the physics of leverage should appreciate that such an arrangement will increase the leverage moment and loads upon the deck exponentially, WAY beyond a more traditional and sensible location of the main roller closer to the deck&#8230; Why on earth would a designer/builder want to do that?

Then, you take this sort of needlessly leveraged configuration, and attach it to a relatively tiny section of the deck behind the stem&#8230; Because of the deck cut-out and lifting hatch to gain access to the anchor locker and below-deck windlass, the loads from the roller cannot be spread and supported to the entire foredeck structure, they are concentrated to a tiny triangle of deck forward of that lifting hatch&#8230; From the close-up photo below, looks like we're talking about an area of deck of perhaps 2 square feet&#8230; That translates to a LOT of force potentially concentrated in a VERY small area&#8230;










In addition, at the very least, I would expect to see a mini-bulkhead or some sort of athwartships stringer tabbed into the hull at the aft end of that deck section, to provide rigidity and support to that very critical portion of the deck&#8230; Sorry, but I don't see any evidence of such engineering or construction&#8230;

And finally, there is no substantial caprail beneath the roller at the hull to deck joint - once the chain jumped the roller, there was very little of significant structure in place to impede the chain from beginning to saw through the hull's laminate&#8230;

Obviously, many here will not agree, but I see a very poorly conceived and constructed system, "designed to fail" when subject to the sort of snatching loads any proper ground tackle system a 42-foot boat might be subjected to&#8230;



PorFin said:


> You also stated:
> 
> "Obviously, we don't know the precise chain of events that occurred that morning, but it was obvious the roller had completely self-destructed well before the boat was in the surf line&#8230; "
> 
> Why is it obvious that the roller "self-destructed" well before it reached the surf line? I seem to recall someone mentioning that they saw the roller intact on the boat on the beach.
> 
> I can also easily imagine a scenario in which the roller failed coming over the top of that breakwater -- the rudder gets caught and the boat is turned 90* to the rode, so the repeated shock loading on the roller is perpendicular to the designed axis. I don't think it reasonable to call that a design failure.


You're right, I don't know with any degree of certainty how much the roller system had been damaged, at what point in the chain of events&#8230; I'm simply guessing there, of course&#8230;

However, this pic taken shortly after the boat reached the beach, shows the roller to already be tweaked at an "awkward" angle, to say the least&#8230; And, of course, the chain had already sawed through the hull - perhaps it's just me, but I would classify that as evidence that a significant failure in the system had already occurred&#8230; (grin)










And you're right, an extreme sideways load could have created an extreme degree of damage not normally anticipated&#8230; Still, a good roller system should be designed to handle heavy side loads, having to deploy a kedge anchor could be one example&#8230; In any event, a shorter projection forward, and a lower moment of leverage upon the roller is ALWAYS gonna be better&#8230;



smackdaddy said:


> I'm saying that no boat, put in exactly the same circumstances would have survived intact. Period. This was a boat anchored against a lee shore in a freakin' hurricane. To try to compare boat-build quality in a situation like this is silly. The bow roller is just one gear failure of many.


More precisely, this boat was anchored against a lee shore in a near-gale, nothing more, at the time this drama began early that Saturday morning, when a news crew was already on the scene, and the boat almost on the beach&#8230;

Look at the video back in Post #2, winds were no more than 35-40 mph, max&#8230;. The marine reporting data from the south island of the Bay Bridge tunnel confirms this, even sustained gale conditions did not develop in that location that morning until well after the boat was already in the surf&#8230;

I think this is significant, because those conditions might be similar in severity to the point at which a skipper in an open roadstead or exposed anchorage might decide it's time to vacate the anchorage&#8230; Many people will say that they don't lie to their roller anyway, this guy should have been using a snubber or bridle, and so on&#8230; But, when winds approach gale force, and you decide it's time to bug out of an anchorage before it becomes a death trap, it's precisely _then_ that your roller system will be put to the test&#8230;

I would guess that the conditions that morning when he found himself in distress were similar to those at the start of the Cabo San Lucas disaster in '82 which wrecked numerous cruising boats anchored off the beach in a similar situation&#8230; Any disaster in which a sailor as capable as Bernard Moitessier loses his boat should forever serve as a cautionary tale for all sailors. The Pardeys wrote a great post-mortem analysis of what went wrong, and by far the most common gear failure experienced by the fleet in their desperation to get out of there, was that of anchor rollers and ground tackle systems&#8230;

It's inexplicable to me, that this guy made no attempt to sail out of that situation - especially on a boat where the sails could have been deployed without even leaving the cockpit&#8230; My hunch is that he was simply paralyzed by fear and or confusion, or simply had no confidence in his or his boat's ability to do so&#8230; (he didn't even have to "claw offshore", a simple close reach could have gotten him out of there) But, in order to do so, he would have had to deal with his anchors&#8230; A rope rode would be easy (assuming he would have had a knife), but his chain rode, not so much&#8230;

I'm gonna give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and presume he might have actually tried to get out of there&#8230; If he was unable to, this is one likely scenario as to why he - or anyone else - might have been unable to do so&#8230;

IMHO, one of the most terrifying scenarios imaginable is to know it's time to vacate an anchorage in rapidly deteriorating conditions, but to be physically unable to attempt either raising, or casting off, an all-chain rode&#8230; Needless to say, no need to ask me how I know this&#8230; (grin)

Here's what I believe might likely have occurred, if such were the case&#8230; The point at which the chain began sawing through the hull, is precisely at the gap between that bulbous _thing_ that I suppose functions as a caprail (grin), and the anchor roller&#8230; It is very easy for me to picture the chain jumping the roller, and quickly becoming so tightly wedged between the roller, and that fiberglass caprail&#8230; With the windlass located belowdeck in the foredeck locker, the angle of the rode over the rail is increased even more, jamming it even more quickly, and perhaps precipitating the cutting through the hull to deck joint almost immediately&#8230; At such a point, even the most capable skipper might have been doomed&#8230; Without something like a portable angle grinder at hand to attempt to cut the chain, sailing off the anchor and out of there would no longer have been an option&#8230;

We're never likely to know all the details of what transpired that morning, of course - I doubt Mr Calabrese even knows that with any real clarity&#8230; But it seems to me _highly probable_ that the inherent weaknesses of that boat's ground tackle arrangement might have contributed, or at least seriously limited the options that even the most capable crew might have taken&#8230;

Y'all are free to believe what you want to believe, of course - but to those who believe that the design and construction of that boat within a few feet of the now-missing stem does not exhibit some SERIOUS deficiencies, well&#8230; Dream On&#8230; (grin)


----------



## anthemj24

Does anyone seriously believe this guy would have been safer in an Island Packet with no motor? IPs can't tack without a motor half the time on a good day. What about a Gemini or even a Leopard? The guy made some bad decisions, and is paying for them. I imagine that there were people who had the opportunity to talk him out of some of the bad decisions, but can also imagine that they wanted him out of their marina more than wanted him to stay safe. Of course that is just my imagination, but as long as we are making stuff up I figure I will join in.


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> Here's what I believe might likely have occurred, if such were the case&#8230; The point at which the chain began sawing through the hull, is precisely at the gap between that bulbous _thing_ that I suppose functions as a caprail (grin), and the anchor roller&#8230; It is very easy for me to picture the chain jumping the roller, and quickly becoming so tightly wedged between the roller, and that fiberglass caprail&#8230; With the windlass located belowdeck in the foredeck locker, the angle of the rode over the rail is increased even more, jamming it even more quickly, and perhaps precipitating the cutting through the hull to deck joint almost immediately&#8230; At such a point, even the most capable skipper might have been doomed&#8230; Without something like a portable angle grinder at hand to attempt to cut the chain, sailing off the anchor and out of there would no longer have been an option&#8230;
> 
> &#8230; (grin)


The other thing is a one has to know their limitations. Given the situation with your woman and cat on board, and the boat's capabilities and that the hurricane was approaching with higher winds and waves, I probably would not have tried to sail away from the anchorage. I would walk or swim to the safety of the land (which he did). Let's give him credit for getting his crew off safely, might not have happened if he tried to sail off.

Anohter thing, in the pics of the Hunters, the potted flowers add a nice touch don't you agree?


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Just some comments for y'all:
> 1. The guy does live on the boat, but he does sail it "They left Florida on July 4 for Virginia before being caught in Hurricane Irene." So it is not a marina queen.


Just curious, where does that information come from?

Frankly, given the condition of his running gear, I find that a bit hard to believe...

Although, perhaps it could explain the demise of the engine, if he motored up the Ditch from Florida with a prop that fouled... (grin)


----------



## BigZ

JonEisberg said:


> &#8230; (grin)
> 
> &#8230; (grin)
> 
> (grin)


Your (grin)s become tiresome.


----------



## Ninefingers

I don't think they make those extended rollers anymore.


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> Just curious, where does that information come from?
> 
> Frankly, given the condition of his running gear, I find that a bit hard to believe...
> 
> Although, perhaps it could explain the demise of the engine, if he motored up the Ditch from Florida with a prop that fouled... (grin)


 "They left Florida on July 4 for Virginia before being caught in Hurricane Irene." quote was from a news paper article someone had posted in this thread. As far as running gear, it looks like it was in good shape, at least before the storm shreaded it from what I can see. The whole boat looks clean to me. I need to dive my prop evey month to keep the barnacles off.


----------



## smackdaddy

chrisncate said:


> I certainly can't understand Smacks assertions that the classic plastic would have faired _worse_, it makes no sense in light of the difference in the way they are built.


Simple. The classic's heavy...with a full keel. How are the waves going to chunk that monster _over_ the rock jetty? If it doesn't clear that jetty, where is going to be bashing? On the rock jetty instead of the sand.

Do the math dude!


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> It's inexplicable to me, that this guy made no attempt to sail out of that situation - especially on a boat where the sails could have been deployed without even leaving the cockpit&#8230; My hunch is that he was simply paralyzed by fear and or confusion, or simply had no confidence in his or his boat's ability to do so&#8230; (he didn't even have to "claw offshore", a simple close reach could have gotten him out of there) But, in order to do so, he would have had to deal with his anchors&#8230; A rope rode would be easy (assuming he would have had a knife), but his chain rode, not so much&#8230;


Agreed. In this case, I'll also bet the absence of a working motor was a huge detriment to his options.


----------



## smackdaddy

chrisncate said:


> Well, the "math" tells me my Alberg weighs a lot less than that Hunter that got pitched over the jetty. Yet it is a heavy, full (cutaway) keel that is built better than the Hunter.
> 
> So... ?


Okay, put your Alberg in the same situation/conditions and we'll do a test case. I'm sure it'll be fine. That's not even blue water at that jetty.


----------



## Sublime

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, put your Alberg in the same situation/conditions and we'll do a test case. I'm sure it'll be fine. That's not even blue water at that jetty.


Did you even ask whether or not the boat was equipped with an invisible force field before making such outlandish assumptions?

I bet not.


----------



## anthemj24

smackdaddy said:


> Agreed. In this case, I'll also bet the absence of a working motor was a huge detriment to his options.


Which is one of the reasons I hate to hear people talk about engines as a safety feature. They should be looked at with the same derision we should aim at reality tv. A despicable and evil indulgence.


----------



## Plumbean

casey1999 said:


> I always wanted a steel hull, but compromised on a strong fiberglass S&S34 S&S 34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Casey: Excellent choice (but then I'm biased). 

Sent you a pm. Good to have another owner on board.

Plumbean

Now back to your regular programming ...


----------



## smackdaddy

anthemj24 said:


> Which is one of the reasons I hate to hear people talk about engines as a safety feature. They should be looked at with the same derision we should aim at reality tv. A despicable and evil indulgence.


Heh-heh. +1!


----------



## MikeWhy

chrisncate said:


> Right here is a perfect example: To me, the bolded part of what you wrote is not an insult, just an acknowledgment of reality. I suspect to many reading this though, what you wrote is "bashing" or insulting Hunter.
> 
> Which is it you think?


Which did you find the more appealing characterization? "Wannabe", or "urbanized"?


----------



## chrisncate

MikeWhy said:


> Which did you find the more appealing characterization? "Wannabe", or "urbanized"?


Oh, wannabe by a mile...


----------



## smackdaddy

chrisncate said:


> How about instead of lashing out and going with the diversionary post, you simply explain how a big flimsy Hunter that weighs more than a smaller heavier built classic plastic would fair better, like you said it would.
> 
> ?
> 
> Nice touch with the "blue water" quip as well, I appreciate that. Not retarded at all..


Dude, harden up. If you really think that was a "lash out"...woah.

Look, I just look at the pretty pictures - which show what actually happened. If you want to post some similar pics showing an Alberg on the rocks after a C1 hurricane that is in better shape than that "flimsy" Hunter in the sand, knockyaseffonout!

I can wait.

I'm just dubious.


----------



## deniseO30

*She's talking, He's uh....*

Gina Sullivan: 'That is our home'

Updated: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2011, 7:16 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 06 Sep 2011, 7:10 PM EDT

Andy Fox

NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) - WAVY.com spoke with the owner of the beached boat in Ocean View.

Gina Sullivan and her fiance, Michael Calabrese, were rescued from their boat, Maybe Tomorrow, after they tried to escape the path of Hurricane Irene.

Since the rescue, Calabrese has been arrested three times and most recently attempted to take his own life.

Sullivan said Calabrese has several medical conditions, is an alcoholic and sometimes does not take his medication.

Click to read more...
Woman rescued from boat speaks | WAVY.com | Norfolk


----------



## chrisncate

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, harden up. If you really think that was a "lash out"...woah.
> 
> Look, I just look at the pretty pictures - which show what actually happened. If you want to post some similar pics showing an Alberg on the rocks after a C1 hurricane that is in better shape than that "flimsy" Hunter in the sand, knockyaseffonout!
> 
> I can wait.
> 
> I'm just dubious.


Ok.


----------



## zboss

It sounds to me like he is not the only one with issues.


----------



## JonEisberg

BigZ said:


> Your (grin)s become tiresome.


LOL! Yeah, I get that a lot - but I suspect most find the meat of what I write far more tiresome than what I put in parentheses... Old habits die hard, I suppose, and my annoying affectation is a holdover from the days before sailing forums had all these cute little icons...

Just trying to keep my Brand-bashing light hearted, though it appears I could even use a few more (grins), some folks actually seemed to take my "designed to fail" remark literally, after all...

(grin)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's inexplicable to me, that this guy made no attempt to sail out of that situation - especially on a boat where the sails could have been deployed without even leaving the cockpit&#8230; My hunch is that he was simply paralyzed by fear and or confusion, or simply had no confidence in his or his boat's ability to do so&#8230; (he didn't even have to "claw offshore", a simple close reach could have gotten him out of there) But, in order to do so, he would have had to deal with his anchors&#8230; A rope rode would be easy (assuming he would have had a knife), but his chain rode, not so much&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. In this case, I'll also bet the absence of a working motor was a huge detriment to his options.
Click to expand...

Perhaps only in his own mind, I would suggest&#8230;

I'm gonna go with the line of argument that Chris has often made, that being accustomed to having an engine at one's disposal can ultimately create a reliance upon it that clouds one's perception of the bigger picture&#8230;

Right from the start, this guy has struck me as a sailor who has precious little small boat sailing experience, it may simply never have even occurred to him that he could have attempted to sail out of that situation&#8230; I can easily imagine him being in the mindset of "well, with no engine, I can't use it to help retrieve the anchor in these conditions, the windlass alone won't cut it&#8230;", and so on...

It may simply never have occurred to him that dumping his rode and reaching off was an option, just as if one were sailing a small boat off a mooring&#8230; (assuming his chain was not jammed/incapable of being released as I speculated earlier, which I still think was a strong possibility)

An engine can be a lifesaver, no question - but it can also inhibit the ability to think outside of the box, or one's accustomed comfort level, as well&#8230;


----------



## LandLocked66c

I love this thread!


----------



## BigZ

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Yeah, I get that a lot - but I suspect most find the meat of what I write far more tiresome than what I put in parentheses... Old habits die hard, I suppose, and my annoying affectation is a holdover from the days before sailing forums had all these cute little icons...
> 
> Just trying to keep my Brand-bashing light hearted, though it appears I could even use a few more (grins), some folks actually seemed to take my "designed to fail" remark literally, after all...
> 
> (grin)


Well, I was going to give you a few points for not using an annoying icon, but then you screwed it up with the LOL.


----------



## chrisncate

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps only in his own mind, I would suggest&#8230;
> 
> I'm gonna go with the line of argument that Chris has often made, that being accustomed to having an engine at one's disposal can ultimately create a reliance upon it that clouds one's perception of the bigger picture&#8230;
> 
> Right from the start, this guy has struck me as a sailor who has precious little small boat sailing experience, it may simply never have even occurred to him that he could have attempted to sail out of that situation&#8230; I can easily imagine him being in the mindset of "well, with no engine, I can't use it to help retrieve the anchor in these conditions, the windlass alone won't cut it&#8230;", and so on...
> 
> It may simply never have occurred to him that dumping his rode and reaching off was an option, just as if one were sailing a small boat off a mooring&#8230; (assuming his chain was not jammed/incapable of being released as I speculated earlier, which I still think was a strong possibility)
> 
> An engine can be a lifesaver, no question - but it can also inhibit the ability to think outside of the box, or one's accustomed comfort level, as well&#8230;


Careful Jon, agreeing with me on this controversial point is far more egregious a crime to some than your alleged (grin) overusage...

(grin)


----------



## anthemj24

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps only in his own mind, I would suggest&#8230;
> 
> I'm gonna go with the line of argument that Chris has often made, that being accustomed to having an engine at one's disposal can ultimately create a reliance upon it that clouds one's perception of the bigger picture&#8230;
> 
> Right from the start, this guy has struck me as a sailor who has precious little small boat sailing experience, it may simply never have even occurred to him that he could have attempted to sail out of that situation&#8230; I can easily imagine him being in the mindset of "well, with no engine, I can't use it to help retrieve the anchor in these conditions, the windlass alone won't cut it&#8230;", and so on...
> 
> It may simply never have occurred to him that dumping his rode and reaching off was an option, just as if one were sailing a small boat off a mooring&#8230; (assuming his chain was not jammed/incapable of being released as I speculated earlier, which I still think was a strong possibility)
> 
> An engine can be a lifesaver, no question - but it can also inhibit the ability to think outside of the box, or one's accustomed comfort level, as well&#8230;


That plus many boats now are rigged and sailed as if the first thing you do is turn the motor on when things get snotty. I am betting there was a 135 or 150 on that roller furler, and if there was a storm jib on board, I bet it had never been rigged or set in the time the intrepid capt owned the boat. I am not too familiar with that particular boat, but I am gonna go out on a limb and say that it is not a fantastic sailing boat under reefed main alone. So even if the thought occurred to him to sail off, he was likely unprepared to do so.

I still have motors on my boats, but I don't like them and won't count on them. I still short tack my boat into it's slip more often than not, rather than hauling the outboard on and off the back of the boat.


----------



## anthemj24

chrisncate said:


> Careful Jon, agreeing with me on this controversial point is far more egregious a crime to some than your alleged (grin) overusage...
> 
> (grin)


Indeed, it is heresy on many a sailing message board to speak of sails as being the primary source of power on sailboats.


----------



## MikeWhy

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> It is very easy for me to picture the chain jumping the roller, and quickly becoming so tightly wedged between the roller, and that fiberglass caprail&#8230; With the windlass located belowdeck in the foredeck locker, the angle of the rode over the rail is increased even more, jamming it even more quickly, and perhaps precipitating the cutting through the hull to deck joint almost immediately&#8230; At such a point, even the most capable skipper might have been doomed&#8230; Without something like a portable angle grinder at hand to attempt to cut the chain, sailing off the anchor and out of there would no longer have been an option&#8230;
> 
> We're never likely to know all the details of what transpired that morning, of course - I doubt Mr Calabrese even knows that with any real clarity&#8230; But it seems to me _highly probable_ that the inherent weaknesses of that boat's ground tackle arrangement might have contributed, or at least seriously limited the options that even the most capable crew might have taken&#8230;
> 
> Y'all are free to believe what you want to believe, of course - but to those who believe that the design and construction of that boat within a few feet of the now-missing stem does not exhibit some SERIOUS deficiencies, well&#8230; Dream On&#8230; (grin)


We've had our fun, but maybe there is still something we can carry away from this. It takes mere moments to hook a bridle to the chain rode and unload the windlass. We do this as a matter of course every night when we anchor.

You talk like an engineer, so visualizing the load paths and magnitudes is, I imagine, probably ingrained habit for you as well. There's no way a stamped metal bracket alone will withstand the loads at anchor. Just lifting the catenary of chain amounts to a few thousand pounds. Shock loads from riding on the bare chain, heaving, pitching, and yawing in heavy seas, multiply that load many times. I don't expect the unbraced bow rollers to survive, whether Hunter branded or otherwise.

There was a time when bowsprits were substantial compression structures, extending forward from the bow to carry the forestay. Nowadays, we want the longer waterline as well as the headsail area, leaving the bow rollers sticking out as a vestigial, unsupported bowsprit. The importance here is the bowsprits of old didn't rely on a moment connection to the stem for rigidity and structural strength. They were braced with stays, the same as the mast with its shrouds and stays.

I don't see many boats built this way today. Hunter for sure isn't alone. The derisive smack talk just distracts the rest of us from examining our own equipment and procedures. There really is a problem in habitually leaving the chain rode to sit unbridled on the roller. You've already pointed out the consequences in your commentary above. The solution is rather simple, and has nothing to do with the brand name decal.


----------



## chrisncate

I think it's insane that we can't openly discuss the way the Hunter in question is constructed without being accused of "bashing", and that some folks here just can't bring themselves to admit that a new(ish) Hunter *is* thinly constructed (for better or worse), and that perhaps a stronger built boat might have faired a little bit better under the same circumstance.

"Might" being the keyword here.

This whole debate seems to be centered around those who don't want Hunter or Hunter owners to "feel" bad vs those who can still have a normal conversation who's central premise isn't based on the feelings of others first, but rather just the facts on the ground.

I think if boat construction _didn't_ matter, there wouldn't even be this debate to begin with.


----------



## anthemj24

chrisncate said:


> I think it's insane that we can't openly discuss the way the Hunter in question is constructed without being accused of "bashing", and that some folks here just can't bring themselves to admit that a new(ish) Hunter *is* thinly constructed (for better or worse), and that perhaps a stronger built boat might have faired a little bit better under the same circumstance.
> 
> "Might" being the keyword here.
> 
> This whole debate seems to be centered around those who don't want Hunter or Hunter owners to "feel" bad vs those who can still have a normal conversation who's central premise isn't based on the feelings of others first, but rather just the facts on the ground.
> 
> I think if boat construction _didn't_ matter, there wouldn't even be this debate to begin with.


I think it is a worthwhile discussion to have. The way I see it, there are three main qualities which affect a boat's safety.

1) Build strength. 
2) Sailing qualities
3) Skipper ability

I don't think there is any way to say that it would have been any safer if the boat was stronger without knowing what the sailing qualities of the new boat would be. For instance, an Island Packet or cruising catamaran is arguably less nimble than even the Hunter here. A less stronger but less nimble boat may have lasted longer on the hook, but would have had a more difficult time sailing off it, only delaying the inevitable. If the boat were more nimble than the Hunter and stronger, I believe there is a slim possibility that the skipper would have had the additional confidence to sail off the anchor, and get to (relative)safety.

The one factor that does not change with the boat is the skipper ability and decision making, which I believe is also the single biggest contributor to this fiasco. The fellow is clearly mentally ill, and mentally ill people generally have diminished decision making ability. Good decision making relies heavily on assessing risk and reward. In this case, the skippers estimate of the value of living is greatly diminished, and so the risk/reward ratio gets skewed dramatically towards accepting more risk to life and limb. The skipper also appears to have an overactive flight response. When the shmidt hits the fan, his response is to get away, whether by trying to outsail a hurricane, climb into a bottle, or leave this life by committing suicide. Who knows how he got this way. One article mentioned he was a vet, and I suppose that PTSD and extended combat exposure could play a big part in something like this. All I know is that if I lose my mind and start trying to do something like he did, I hope some good natured soul ties me to a tree, well above the expected surge level, back on shore and ignores my demands to live life the way I see fit.


----------



## BryceGTX

*Anchor pulpit construction*

This thread has prompted me to join sailnet as I am somewhat concerned about the analysis of the anchor pulpit failure.

I think I would fault the use of the anchor system rather than its construction. The way I see it, the primary anchor (rode still connected) is still properly held within the anchor pulpit.

And we can see from the picture below, the rode does not exert its force over a huge lever. Rather, the lever arm created by the lower roller is much closer to the bow.

Futhermore, the primary anchor (connected to the rode) still has its rode held in proper place within the pulpit and it has not jumped as the chain.

I suspect the chain of events was, the primary anchor (rope) was dropped as it was designed to be and the rode was properly held by the anchor pulpit. Rollers above and below the rode held the rope in place even after the beaching. This is how a pulpit should work. The road must be contained by the pulpit.

The chained anchor was deployed over the top roller which had no stainless loop to hold it on the pulpit and top roller. This was a serious blunder. The chain jumped the top roller and sawed through the starboard structural support for the anchor pulpit.

Interesting that even after the structure had been radically compromised by the chain sawing through the starboard support, the pulpit remained attached after the beaching. No doubt the extreme side load on the pulpit combined with the missing structure opposing the side load contributed to the pulpit eventually being ripped off.

Any design which has its structural support compromised is bound to fail in extreme conditions. I don't see this as a design fault of Hunter, rather a deployment fault of the anchors.

I don't see poor design in the pulpit attachment. Fiberglass or wood is invariably used structurally in boats. A good example is shroud attachment to the fiberglass side of the hull on some boats.


----------



## LandLocked66c

chrisncate said:


> I think it's insane that we can't openly discuss the way the Hunter in question is constructed without being accused of "bashing", and that some folks here just can't bring themselves to admit that a new(ish) Hunter *is* thinly constructed (for better or worse), and that perhaps a stronger built boat might have faired a little bit better under the same circumstance.
> 
> "Might" being the keyword here.
> 
> This whole debate seems to be centered around those who don't want Hunter or Hunter owners to "feel" bad vs those who can still have a normal conversation who's central premise isn't based on the feelings of others first, but rather just the facts on the ground.
> 
> I think if boat construction _didn't_ matter, there wouldn't even be this debate to begin with.


Chris, stop it! The interwebs doesn't deal in currency such as logic. Hunter owners are getting their feelings hurt! You need to be sensitive to that...


----------



## kd3pc

anthemj24 said:


> I still have motors on my boats, but I don't like them and won't count on them. I still short tack my boat into it's slip more often than not, rather than hauling the outboard on and off the back of the boat.


it is a far cry more difficult to "sail" a 42 footer into a slip, than anything the size an outboard will power...

Similarly in this hurricane, the 42 footer will present a lot more "sail" with all the sails down than a smaller, less freeboard boat.

The fact that the engine was disabled, left them very few options. The thought that he could sail off the hook, even if he dropped the rode, is not in the realm of possible given the breakers and wind blowing 40 ashore and only 100yds away the beach.

And that has nothing to do with the make/quality/build of the boat, or it's ability to survive the breakwater bounce, and subsequent beaching..


----------



## jameswilson29

kd3pc said:


> ...Similarly in this hurricane, the 42 footer will present a lot more "sail" with all the sails down than a smaller, less freeboard boat...


...or even a 42 foot boat that isn't designed with maximum living space as a goal?

Isn't this the cost for valuing living space above sailing performance, particularly when sailing to windward? Why not design a sailboat with the largest possible cabin for its length?

I am sure the nearly 14' beam, high freeboard, expansive cabin, arch, and bimini all hurt windward sailing ability. The space belowdecks is impressive at the boat show or on the dock, not so impressive when you need to sail to windward in a half gale.

(BTW the articles report that he was anchored 1,000 feet off the beach, not 100 yards.)


----------



## anthemj24

kd3pc said:


> it is a far cry more difficult to "sail" a 42 footer into a slip, than anything the size an outboard will power...
> 
> Similarly in this hurricane, the 42 footer will present a lot more "sail" with all the sails down than a smaller, less freeboard boat.
> 
> The fact that the engine was disabled, left them very few options. The thought that he could sail off the hook, even if he dropped the rode, is not in the realm of possible given the breakers and wind blowing 40 ashore and only 100yds away the beach.
> 
> And that has nothing to do with the make/quality/build of the boat, or it's ability to survive the breakwater bounce, and subsequent beaching..


Of course it is more difficult. Doing just about anything except pro(re)creating on a 42 foot boat is more difficult than on a 24' boat. But that is not really relevant to my point, that if the boat and skipper were capable of sailing off the anchor, they would have been safer. It is not impossible to sail a 42 foot boat off in those conditions, just impossible for many of today's skipper/boat combinations.

I don't know this Hunter design well enough to state with any certainty that even a skilled skipper could sail it off the anchor in those conditions. I already stated that it was fairly clear to me that at a minimum this skipper was incapable of it.

My point is that the broader range of conditions you can handle under sail, the safer you will be. If the conditions are such that you can not sail in them, I don't believe you should be in them at all, and if you find yourself in them there was some error in judgement on your part. I believe it is a bad idea to think about a motor as some safety net that catches you when you make a mistake. In my experience, sailors who rely on motors to get themselves out of trouble, get into far more difficult situations and far more trouble than those that don't.


----------



## JonEisberg

MikeWhy said:


> We've had our fun, but maybe there is still something we can carry away from this. It takes mere moments to hook a bridle to the chain rode and unload the windlass. We do this as a matter of course every night when we anchor.
> 
> You talk like an engineer, so visualizing the load paths and magnitudes is, I imagine, probably ingrained habit for you as well. There's no way a stamped metal bracket alone will withstand the loads at anchor. Just lifting the catenary of chain amounts to a few thousand pounds. Shock loads from riding on the bare chain, heaving, pitching, and yawing in heavy seas, multiply that load many times. I don't expect the unbraced bow rollers to survive, whether Hunter branded or otherwise.
> 
> There was a time when bowsprits were substantial compression structures, extending forward from the bow to carry the forestay. Nowadays, we want the longer waterline as well as the headsail area, leaving the bow rollers sticking out as a vestigial, unsupported bowsprit. The importance here is the bowsprits of old didn't rely on a moment connection to the stem for rigidity and structural strength. They were braced with stays, the same as the mast with its shrouds and stays.
> 
> I don't see many boats built this way today. Hunter for sure isn't alone. The derisive smack talk just distracts the rest of us from examining our own equipment and procedures. There really is a problem in habitually leaving the chain rode to sit unbridled on the roller. You've already pointed out the consequences in your commentary above. The solution is rather simple, and has nothing to do with the brand name decal.


Seems like you missed the point I was attempting to make, and which this incident highlights...

Sure, a bow roller itself should rarely be stressed while lying at anchor, and the proper use of a snubber or bridle should eliminate any potential snatching loads from a chain rode upon the deck gear in all but the most extreme conditions...

But, SHOULD AN ANCHORAGE OR CONDITIONS BECOME UNTENABLE, and the decision is made to leave, IT IS AT THAT POINT that there is no alternative but to retrieve the anchor through the roller, and the avoidance of some very heavy and destructive loads will be difficult... IT IS FOR THAT MOMENTARY PERIOD - however brief - in which there is the slightest margin for error and poses the greatest risk to the boat and crew, for which the ground tackle system must be sized...

Obviously few here share my opinion, but I rate a bow roller system as one of a boat's most critical systems - up there with steering, for example, as something that can't possibly be overbuilt... I'm amazed at the dismissive attitude by some, that the guy simply "exceeded the design parameters of the boat in this case", or whatever...

No, I'm not a engineer, far from it... But I've had the privilege of sailing a lot of different boats over the years, and have seen a bit of what works, and what may not... No matter what sort of sailing one does, real seamanship IMHO is always informed by that little voice in the back of your head saying "What if...?", or "You never know..." Obviously, no one _plans_ to find themselves anchored near a lee shore in a rising gale, but one must always be prepared for the possibility of such an occurrence, it can happen to anyone... And at that point, I'd want the stoutest setup possible, one that can cope with any imaginable "What if...?"...

In the meantime, anyone want to take a stab on why these rollers need this ridiculous extent of forward projection, or why there is no support for them offered in the form of a solid rod or strut coming up from the waterline?










Finally, what I am "bashing" in this thread, is poor anchor roller setups, not a particular brand... These inadequate and poorly conceived arrangements have been a pet peeve of mine for years, I've railed against the dangers they can present elsewhere, on all kinds of boats...

Just so happens this latest incident happens to involve a particular brand... Hell, if it were solely my intent to "bash Hunters", I might have expressed my surprise that - given the history of the failure of the GRP rudderposts on the Passage 420 - that rudder made it onto the beach still attached to the boat... (grin)

Or, perhaps, that some of the "Passage" Series yachts featured perhaps the Alltime Dumbest and Most Dangerous Companionway Ladder Ever Conceived:










Just a matter of time, before we start to see monohull sailboats equipped with stabilizers, and my money will be on a particular brand to be the first to feature such a "breakthrough in sailing ease and comfort"... (grin)


----------



## Maine Sail

Here's one off a boat that got caught on a lee shore. The roller bent like a pretzel but was adequately backed, the backing plate can be seen, and the hull barely even had crazing. The bow of the boat did not suffer any damage. This roller barely stuck out 6" beyond the stem let alone the 16"-18" of many newer boats.









It is a gross design flaw in many boats, not just Hunter or Catalina or the other big production boats. What's even worse is that people actually use these paper-clip strength appendages during storm conditions and often they are the ONLY method for retrieval. Sad really...

As Jon says if you have a boat with a "paper-clip" roller the decision to get out of there should be done well before you can't retrieve your ground tackle.

A smart "captain" with "20 years experience" would have never secured his anchor to anything but the bow cleat with a snubber. A windlass and paper-clip strong bow roller was NEVER designed to take these snatching loads. There is no effective chain caternary in those conditions so you have no elasticity to prevent shock loading the deck hardware. All chain in those conditions, without a snubber, is about as dumb as bungee jumping off the Golden Gate bridge with chain instead of bungee cord.

We owned a Catalina with one of these PISS POOR anchor roller designs and no secondary roller to retrieve the anchor. So once we were anchored, and attached to the bow cleats, we were committed. I chose my anchoring spots carefully because once set and it was blowing 40+ that roller would have folded like a tooth-pick lifting a cinder block. I was NEVER comfortable with this dumb design.

In fact here it is:









I guess that a smart "captain" with "20 years experience" never would have anchored on that lee shore, or left the port he was in either without proper planning and foresight, like doing some simple math, he probably would have also struck all canvas, sails and windage adding nuisances for a storm like this. The sad reality is that it now appears this captain has some psych issues that likely clouded his decision making process when he went off his medication.

This is not the fault of the vessel/Hunter but rather mostly the fault of the captains decisions. The anchor roller and design did not help much though and gave him no "exit plan" if he needed one, which he obviously did but could not execute.

Our boat has ridden out 55+ knots at anchor, though with much less fetch. The retrieval anchor roller, the one that sticks out a few inches beyond the bow, and is thin as a "paper-clip", was not used and our anchor was fed through the stem head roller, which is part of the massive stem head casting, and does not stick over the bow. The anchor rode was then led to a bow cleat designed to handle these loads not our windlass..

I weigh this as 95% captain error and about 5% vessel, if that. The Hunter as I see it really had little to do with the added windage and poor anchoring choice made by its skipper. That appendage should have never been used in that manner and that is not the fault of the boat...


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine/Jon,

So I'm beginning to wonder when and where it makes sense to use all chain rode? If the intent of all chain is to ensure strength in crazy conditions, yet due to lighter on-board tackle gear can essentially trap you at anchor...what's the point?


----------



## JonEisberg

kd3pc said:


> The fact that the engine was disabled, left them very few options. The thought that he could sail off the hook, even if he dropped the rode, is not in the realm of possible given the breakers and wind blowing 40 ashore and only 100yds away the beach.


Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that you say that..

From the few Hunters that I've sailed, I have always been favorably impressed with their overall sailing ability... I delivered an early 90's version south one fall, that boat sailed like a witch (after the 30 minutes or so it usually required to hoist the freakin' main (grin)) ... There was a lot I didn't like about that particular boat, and was very relieved to step off it for the last time in Lauderdale, but it was a very weatherly boat, and I would have been quite confident in it's ability to sail out of a tricky situation if the need ever arose...

I presume you mean that by the time he was literally in the breakers as some of the photos indicate, at that point sailing off would not have been an option, you're certainly right about that... I have no experience with a center cockpit Hunter like the Passage 420, and all that additional windage and cockpit canvas doesn't help, but I would expect that if the skipper's decision had been taken early enough, that boat would have certainly been capable of sailing off that shore, a close reach is all it would have required to gain plenty of searoom, initially...

As Maine Sail points out, the key thing to be learned from this incident is that good seamanship is almost always a matter primarily of _anticipation_, or taking action in advance of when it finally needs to be done...

If this guy had indeed been "sailing for 20 years", it seems unfathomable that at the point when he deployed his second anchor at 0500 or thereabouts that Saturday, he wouldn't have made the decision to get the hell out of there, instead...

Bit of an OT question for Maine Sail re your Manson...










Those little triangular "ears" on each side that extend back from the bottom of the roll hoop, have yours shown any rust? Oddly, with the exception of a bit of lost galvanizing around the tip and on the bottom, those are the only spots on my anchor which have shown rust to a noticeable degree... No big deal, just touched mine up with some POR-15, but was just curious if you'd noticed something similar?


----------



## Maine Sail

smackdaddy said:


> Maine/Jon,
> 
> So I'm beginning to wonder when and where it makes sense to use all chain rode? If the intent of all chain is to ensure strength in crazy conditions, yet due to lighter on-board tackle gear can essentially trap you at anchor...what's the point?


You almost never use "all chain", that is a misnomer. All chain usually means all chain except for a 30+ foot snubber of stretchy nylon or polyester rode to absorb the shock loading.

In benign conditions all chain can work fine but you'd best be prepared for what to do when an unexpected summer microburst comes through in the middle of the night.

In storm conditions running chain straight to the boat is about as dumb as bungee jumping with all chain....

We used a mixed line/chain rode as our primary tackle then an "all chain" with a 45' snubber as "secondary" for storm conditions.. I have seen our all chain rode near bar tight a number of times. The idea that chain creates and keeps caternary is all well and good until you get over 25-30 knots + then you're into shock loading territory. If you then add some fetch you're going to be doing some serious chain straightening and this is why a long stretchy snubber is a must.

The only people who use "all chain", straight to the boat, in conditions like those, are "captains" who have _"20 years experience"_ but not _"20 years of LEARNING experience"_......

Some captains already know everything and stop learning, others learn for life and gain and better themselves from these learning experiences.....! Captain Calabrese clearly was not a "learner". If he was he would not have made any of those mistakes let alone about 10-12 very serious ones in less than 24 hours.....


----------



## smackdaddy

I just got confused on the issue when someone above mentioned that if your windlass can't handle the load, you need to be able to just cut away the tackle and get out of there. Even with a snubber/bridle, you'd still be on chain.

Personally, the mixed rode makes a lot more sense to me. But the general notion, I think, is that "chain is stronger"...without thought to the loads caused by a big boat in waves.


----------



## Maine Sail

JonEisberg said:


> Bit of an OT question for Maine Sail re your Manson...
> 
> Those little triangular "ears" on each side that extend back from the bottom of the roll hoop, have yours shown any rust? Oddly, with the exception of a bit of lost galvanizing around the tip and on the bottom, those are the only spots on my anchor which have shown rust to a noticeable degree... No big deal, just touched mine up with some POR-15, but was just curious if you'd noticed something similar?


No rust but I have not used it as my primary since 2005. It was on loan for three years and still does not show any signs of rusting. This was one of the first Manson Supreme anchors to be shipped into the US so perhaps the galvanizing was a little better back then or yours just has more use in rocky bottoms?? My tip does show some rust but nothing to worry about.

I use a Canadian built Rocna these days and it too is holding up just fine, though with the "Rocna debacle", I really wish I had a Manson Supreme instead. I did talk two cruisers out of a Chinese/Hold Fast Rocna and into a Manson though while off cruising... It sure is a "conversation piece" when hung up on the bow I just wish I had a Manson as it is easier to "believe in" and put my faith behind at this point when compared to a Chinese made Rocna......


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Those little triangular "ears" on each side that extend back from the bottom of the roll hoop, have yours shown any rust? Oddly, with the exception of a bit of lost galvanizing around the tip and on the bottom, those are the only spots on my anchor which have shown rust to a noticeable degree... No big deal, just touched mine up with some POR-15, but was just curious if you'd noticed something similar?


Crap! Another anchor war?

Oh no you din't!!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I'm missing information on why there appears to be no insurance on this boat. 

I suspect it's the same reason the aux power didn't work but shouldn't speculate.


----------



## TakeFive

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm missing information on why there appears to be no insurance on this boat.
> 
> I suspect it's the same reason the aux power didn't work but shouldn't speculate.


In one of the very first articles, I think the owner was quoted as saying he had insurance on the boat, but the carrier was denying coverage because of an exclusion for being out on the water during the hurricane.

I think a good lawyer - or even a more clear-headed captain - might be able to mount a counter-argument, since the accident occurred before the hurricane arrived.

Your speculation that the insurance lapsed for lack of payment seems plausable (given his claimed inability to come up with $50 bail), but I have not seen any facts reported to back this up.


----------



## Donna_F

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm missing information on why there appears to be no insurance on this boat.
> 
> I suspect it's the same reason the aux power didn't work but shouldn't speculate.


If he didn't finance the boat he may not have insurance. It's a good thing to have, certainly, but I have heard of many who don't have insurance because they want to sail in hurricane-prone locations and most insurers either won't insure them or the cost is astronomical and they'd rather take their chances.


----------



## kd3pc

RhythmDoctor said:


> I think a good lawyer - or even a more clear-headed captain - might be able to mount a counter-argument, since the accident occurred before the hurricane arrived.


According to most insurance plans...as soon as the storm is named, and you are in the projected path...

You can argue, even with a lawyer and will likely still be denied coverage.

In this case the rains and winds of the named storm were already pounding the area with at least 1/2gale if not full gale...the NAVY had beat feet even before this clown left a perfectly good hurricane hole. And they could make 30knots...he into the wind and current, with no motor - perhaps 5knots SOG...likely less...

YMMV


----------



## aeventyr60

"In the meantime, anyone want to take a stab on why these rollers need this ridiculous extent of forward projection, or why there is no support for them offered in the form of a solid rod or strut coming up from the waterline?"

Me thinks the charter company was tired of having the bow of the boat damaged by a swinging anchor, so decided the best option was to put it out so far. Or maybe it was intended to be used as a battering ram?

Retrieving an all chain rode after the snubber has been released is tricky business once the swell and waves get up. Better hope your bow roller and windlass are up to the task.


----------



## Rick486

_


LandLocked66c said:



Chris, stop it! The interwebs doesn't deal in currency such as logic. Hunter owners are getting their feelings hurt! You need to be sensitive to that...

Click to expand...

_Thanks for stepping up Land, but as a Hunter owner holding the doctorate in structural engineering, specialty in composite materials, my feelings are not hurt at all. Other than the dismay I feel at the arrogance shown by some in their ridiculing of the family involved in this tragedy, I am comfortable with the structural design and construction of my boat. And I am comfortable with the engineering and design throughout. These are areas I investigated at length before acquiring my boat. In the design of composite structures it is far from technically accurate to equate thickness of laminate with ultimate strength. The essence of design of a composite structure is in fact design of the material itself, which is very different from the deign of metal structures. Production boats today are benefiting from advancements in composite material technology over the last 30 years. Through an integrated design process for the material and the structure, unnecessary weight is saved and structural stiffness and strength can be accurately designed in and provided in areas where it is needed most, say in way of the keel attachment, in the most cost effective fashion.

I think we Hunter owners will get through this somehow.  I am more concerned about the well-being of the family who are living through this tragedy in poor judgment.


----------



## TakeFive

kd3pc said:


> According to most insurance plans...as soon as the storm is named, and you are in the projected path...
> 
> You can argue, even with a lawyer and will likely still be denied coverage.


Maybe so. My policy does not have named storm exclusions for Pennsylvania (only for Virginia and south) so I haven't paid much attention to those terms.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

RhythmDoctor said:


> In one of the very first articles, I think the owner was quoted as saying he had insurance on the boat, but the carrier was denying coverage because of an exclusion for being out on the water during the hurricane.


I saw that but was hoping for an update.

Exclusions are generally very clear.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Rick486 said:


> I think we Hunter owners will get through this somehow.  I am more concerned about the well-being of the family who are living through this tragedy in poor judgment.


I was being sarcastic, but great post! Anyone that gets there panties in a bunch over a brand is just being silly. There is no perfect craft, I think we all know that. It's really been informative to see what happens to a boat when it's punished thoroughly - in this case a Hunter!


----------



## cb32863

deniseO30 said:


> Gina Sullivan: 'That is our home'
> 
> Updated: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2011, 7:16 PM EDT
> Published : Tuesday, 06 Sep 2011, 7:10 PM EDT
> 
> Andy Fox
> 
> NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) - WAVY.com spoke with the owner of the beached boat in Ocean View.
> 
> Gina Sullivan and her fiance, Michael Calabrese, were rescued from their boat, Maybe Tomorrow, after they tried to escape the path of Hurricane Irene.
> 
> Since the rescue, Calabrese has been arrested three times and most recently attempted to take his own life.
> 
> Sullivan said Calabrese has several medical conditions, is an alcoholic and sometimes does not take his medication.
> 
> Click to read more...
> Woman rescued from boat speaks | WAVY.com | Norfolk


Not sure if anyone else read this, too much "discussing" going on. Things just are about as bad as they can get for these two folks.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Yep, the guy is in bad shape!

Wow, read some of the comments...



> One day society will wake up and realize that some people should NOT be allowed to roam free...obviously this woman and her boyfriend are missing more than a few marbles and it's pretty scary to think that someone who has severe mental problems and is an alcoholic to boot is allowed to drive a car or navigate a boat. The taxpayers are supporting both of these idiots and they brag that they will "never have to work again".....he's an ex-con on top of everything else... "how would you like it if someone chopped up your home?"....lady....my home is NOT lying on a beach somewhere due to my own stupidity...the only one who deserves ANY sympathy in this whole story is the CAT!!!!!


----------



## wingNwing

smackdaddy said:


> I just got confused on the issue when someone above mentioned that if your windlass can't handle the load, you need to be able to just cut away the tackle and get out of there. Even with a snubber/bridle, you'd still be on chain.


A friend has used this solution, which we're now incorporating on our boat: at the bitter end of the chain, tie 50' of floating poly rope, then tie the end of that to the hard point in your anchor locker. If you have to bail out of an emergency situation, you let out all the chain and the poly rope. Then cut the poly rope when its on deck. The poly rope is easy to cut, and it provides a floating marker so you can (hopefully) come back later and retrieve your anchor. (This assumes you anchor in less than 50' of water)


----------



## anthemj24

LandLocked66c said:


> Yep, the guy is in bad shape!
> 
> Wow, read some of the comments...


I think some of the comments are a bit harsh. He may have been an ex con, but he was also a vet. That counts for something in my book. I am sure that his mental illness contributed to this, and would love to see better mental health treatment for our vets in general. There are plenty of other vets with similar issues who end up homeless, they just don't do it by landing a boat on a beach in a hurricane. So while I find that he is ultimately responsible for the boat landing on the beach, I don't feel a whole lot of anger towards him or people like him. Instead, I think that the whole episode can provide, through a methodical post mortem, a number of lessons learned from dealing with the mentally ill to how we build or use boats.


----------



## Melrna

Anything with over 24 pages in a thread has to be interesting and a learning experience. 
This guy obvious has issues. His issues led to the poor decisions to the lose of his boat. During any emergency one needs a clear head for through review of ones options. He did not have that. Here is what I have gleamed on lessons learned. 
1. Every skipper should have a running thought of what if's as he sails. If the engine fails one has two choices,, sail or drop anchor to sort out the problem. He elected to drop anchor. What is unclear (although I suspect he didn't) was he trying to find the reason why his engine quit? In the sailing option, trying to pull out any sail in a in-mast furled system with big winds is hard without the most of the sail, sailing out the mast at incredible speeds than trying to roll it back into the mast. This is especially hard to do with big boats over 40'. With limit crew as he had, in his limited capacity, he elected to anchor. 
2. Anytime one anchors a bridal is a must and snubbers is a bonus. No boat including bluewater boats can withstand the forces of a wild sea on the anchor system. Windlass are not engineered to take those pressures. That is why we have cleats in the bow section. What I have a problem with some production boats is the lack of backing plates and structural integrity in this area, not the design of anchor bow rollers. 
Watching the film of this boat in the rough surf and 30 knots of wind shows the tremendous forces acting on the bow of this boat. One can see clearing the anchor was doing a pretty good of holding the boat for the most part. Where the failure occurred in my humble opinion is the wild swinging of the bow putting side way forces on the anchoring system from the anchor roller to the anchor itself. Hunters are known for their wild swinging action on the hook; plus or minus 60 degrees ( I know I own a Hunter). I have dove my anchor during big winds to see how the whole system is reacting. Not a pretty sight. The anchor would unset and try to reset itself as the chain dragged on the ocean floor ( with a 7:1 to 10:1 scope). BTW I have a Ronca anchor. So watching this video the wild swinging of the bow was part of the undoing of this vessel along with the poor decision of no bridal. 
3. For the Hunter bashers- Looking at the beached boat I see a lot of positives on the design and structural integrity of the boat. First there is NO holes in the side of the boat after getting pounded by Hurricane seas on a beach. The Kevlar structure below the waterline seems to be intact. The rudder broke as designed with what seems is no structural damage to the rudder post into the hull. The mast is still standing even with no forestay. The keel seems to be intact as well with no split at the hull joint. I am willing to bet if they can float the boat, it will towable for repairs. 
Some other interesting observations. The jib was shredded. Looking at other boats at the dock or on the hard from this storm and others it seems this is a common occurrence. Lesson learned: Take the jib off. The in-mast mainsail did stay in the mast and did not pulled out. Always wondered about that. 
Random thoughts. Sailing skills vary from sailor to sailor. Since there is no licensing requirements for boats on the water anyone can buy a boat and be on the water. There are smart things we see and learn from as well as the opposite. No matter how long one sails, skills acquired is an individual choice. Some sailors take this seriously; taking classes, reading, and on the water experience while others not so. We have all seen this to a degree. Choices we all make whether on the water or in our land life. What statistics will bear out is those who make poor choices in there personal life also make poor choices in their other endeavors. This is clear in this case. 
Those that read these bulletin boards I would like to think try to gleam on lessons learned so as to be an intelligent sailor. As we vent out the mistakes of others in these arenas our notions of what works and doesn't I hope become clearer. Be safe out there!


----------



## jorgenl

wingNwing said:


> A friend has used this solution, which we're now incorporating on our boat: at the bitter end of the chain, tie 50' of floating poly rope, then tie the end of that to the hard point in your anchor locker. If you have to bail out of an emergency situation, you let out all the chain and the poly rope. Then cut the poly rope when its on deck. The poly rope is easy to cut, and it provides a floating marker so you can (hopefully) come back later and retrieve your anchor. (This assumes you anchor in less than 50' of water)


Yep,

That is what I have as well. 200' of chain with maybe 25' of three strand at the end of it tied of of to the boat.


----------



## Rick486

_


Melrna said:



Anything with over 24 pages in a thread has to be interesting and a learning experience. 
This guy obvious has issues. His issues led to the poor decisions to the lose of his boat. During any emergency one needs a clear head for through review of ones options. He did not have that. Here is what I have gleamed on lessons learned. 
1. Every skipper should have a running thought of what if's as he sails. If the engine fails one has two choices,, sail or drop anchor to sort out the problem. He elected to drop anchor. What is unclear (although I suspect he didn't) was he trying to find the reason why his engine quit? In the sailing option, trying to pull out any sail in a in-mast furled system with big winds is hard without the most of the sail, sailing out the mast at incredible speeds than trying to roll it back into the mast. This is especially hard to do with big boats over 40'. With limit crew as he had, in his limited capacity, he elected to anchor. 
2. Anytime one anchors a bridal is a must and snubbers is a bonus. No boat including bluewater boats can withstand the forces of a wild sea on the anchor system. Windlass are not engineered to take those pressures. That is why we have cleats in the bow section. What I have a problem with some production boats is the lack of backing plates and structural integrity in this area, not the design of anchor bow rollers. 
Watching the film of this boat in the rough surf and 30 knots of wind shows the tremendous forces acting on the bow of this boat. One can see clearing the anchor was doing a pretty good of holding the boat for the most part. Where the failure occurred in my humble opinion is the wild swinging of the bow putting side way forces on the anchoring system from the anchor roller to the anchor itself. Hunters are known for their wild swinging action on the hook; plus or minus 60 degrees ( I know I own a Hunter). I have dove my anchor during big winds to see how the whole system is reacting. Not a pretty sight. The anchor would unset and try to reset itself as the chain dragged on the ocean floor ( with a 7:1 to 10:1 scope). BTW I have a Ronca anchor. So watching this video the wild swinging of the bow was part of the undoing of this vessel along with the poor decision of no bridal. 
3. For the Hunter bashers- Looking at the beached boat I see a lot of positives on the design and structural integrity of the boat. First there is NO holes in the side of the boat after getting pounded by Hurricane seas on a beach. The Kevlar structure below the waterline seems to be intact. The rudder broke as designed with what seems is no structural damage to the rudder post into the hull. The mast is still standing even with no forestay. The keel seems to be intact as well with no split at the hull joint. I am will to bet if they can float the boat, it will towable for repairs. 
Some other interesting observations. The jib was shredded. Looking at other boats at the dock or on the hard from this storm and others it seems this is a common occurrence. Lesson learned: Take the jib off. The in-mast mainsail did stay in the mast and did not pulled out. Always wondered about that. 
Random thoughts. Sailing skills vary from sailor to sailor. Since there is no licensing requirements for boats on the water anyone can buy a boat and be on the water. There are smart things we see and learn from as well as the opposite. No matter how long one sails, skills acquired is an individual choice. Some sailors take this seriously; taking classes, reading, and on the water experience while others not so. We have all seen this to a degree. Choices we all make whether on the water or in our land life. What statistics will bear out is those who make poor choices in there personal life also make poor choices in their other endeavors. This is clear in this case. 
Those that read these bulletin boards I would like to think try to gleam on lessons learned so as to be an intelligent sailor. As we vent out the mistakes of others in these arenas our notions of what works and doesn't I hope become clearer. Be safe out there!

Click to expand...

_Excellent post.


----------



## JonEisberg

Melrna said:


> 3. For the Hunter bashers- Looking at the beached boat I see a lot of positives on the design and structural integrity of the boat. First there is NO holes in the side of the boat after getting pounded by Hurricane seas on a beach. The Kevlar structure below the waterline seems to be intact. The rudder broke as designed with what seems is no structural damage to the rudder post into the hull. The mast is still standing even with no forestay. The keel seems to be intact as well with no split at the hull joint. I am willing to bet if they can float the boat, it will towable for repairs.


It's difficult to imagine that any fiberglass boat wouldn't have suffered heavy damage in such a grounding, and it appears this one is no different. We won't really know until the side resting on the sand is revealed, but at least one observer reports that a significant portion of the topsides on the starboard side are gone:

Stupidity during Irene - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 3

In addition, the Coast Guard determined fairly early on that the hull is "warped, split, and cracked..."


----------



## Maine Sail

Melrna said:


> 1. He elected to drop anchor. What is unclear (although I suspect he didn't) was he trying to find the reason why his engine quit?


It did not quit on the journey. They intentionally left port with an inoperable engine.


----------



## MikeWhy

Rightly or not, we hold him to a higher standard because he chose a sailboat to make his escape. Aside from that, he could have been any other anonymous escapist, hiding out in a mobile home on some mud spit on a tidal plane. If the storm surge had washed away his home and belongings there. we wouldn't make half this outcry. We might fume for a moment that the jerk should have known better, but we'd forget by the time we turned the newspaper page. (The same goes for dot-com millionaires building homes on muddy mountaintops, or in tinder dry forests. But I digress...)

The key to Calabrese's personality was posted up-thread, largely unnoticed and no doubt lost in the surrounding flames. He's an escapist, and a sailboat is the ultimate symbol of escape. But that's all it is, just a symbol, until you use it as intended and make yourself into an island. He was still every bit subject to the same petty and sniveling inhumanity we face every day.

I learned quite a bit reading this thread, and thinking about what and why it happened. Ground tackle handling and seamanship were the least of it. Sitting here with Gilmour yammering on in the background about time, I understand a little of his futility, and how far some will go to haul you back into their little cauldron. Understanding this stole a bit of the sparkle from today's post-summer afternoon sun I can see outside my office window. It sucks to be him, and it sucks to share even a small part of his dream of breaking out of our little cells.


----------



## casey1999

Maine Sail said:


> It did not quit on the journey. They intentionally left port with an inoperable engine.


And they share chrisncate's thoughts on sailing without engines. This quote form the paper: WAVY.com asked Sullivan if she thought it was smart to leave the marina without a boat motor.

"No. I mean, yes, because we had the capability to sail," Sullivan answered. "Did they have motors back in the old days?"


----------



## anthemj24

PHP:







casey1999 said:


> And they share chrisncate's thoughts on sailing without engines. This quote form the paper: WAVY.com asked Sullivan if she thought it was smart to leave the marina without a boat motor.
> 
> "No. I mean, yes, because we had the capability to sail," Sullivan answered. "Did they have motors back in the old days?"


The problem was not that they left without a working engine, but that they left to sail straight into a hurricane. I hope you are not thinking that an engine would have saved them here. As Jon has pointed out, they could have left the anchor under sail if need be. Engines are not safety gear, they are lazy gear.


----------



## MikeWhy

JonEisberg said:


> Seems like you missed the point I was attempting to make, and which this incident highlights...
> 
> Sure, a bow roller itself should rarely be stressed while lying at anchor, and the proper use of a snubber or bridle should eliminate any potential snatching loads from a chain rode upon the deck gear in all but the most extreme conditions...
> 
> But, SHOULD AN ANCHORAGE OR CONDITIONS BECOME UNTENABLE, and the decision is made to leave, IT IS AT THAT POINT that there is no alternative but to retrieve the anchor through the roller, and the avoidance of some very heavy and destructive loads will be difficult... IT IS FOR THAT MOMENTARY PERIOD - however brief - in which there is the slightest margin for error and poses the greatest risk to the boat and crew, for which the ground tackle system must be sized...
> 
> Obviously few here share my opinion, but I rate a bow roller system as one of a boat's most critical systems - up there with steering, for example, as something that can't possibly be overbuilt... I'm amazed at the dismissive attitude by some, that the guy simply "exceeded the design parameters of the boat in this case", or whatever...


I don't think I missed that, Jon. I didn't address it directly, but kedging on the bow roller against storm winds and swell seems to be a lost cause from the start. My point about bridling was to unload the rode at the windlass, so it hangs slack to the bridle. I can do what I want with what still lies in the anchor locker. If I can't short tack up to the anchor, I can still cut free. (In theory only, since I had never needed to do this.)


----------



## casey1999

Anchor question:
Say I am anchoring in 25 feet of water and have 300 feet of chain. Say I want to let out 200 feet of chain and then attach a bridal (30 foot length of 3 strand nylon) to the chain with the two bridal leads going back to the two bow cleats. What is best way to attach the bridal to the chain?


----------



## casey1999

anthemj24 said:


> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was not that they left without a working engine, but that they left to sail straight into a hurricane. I hope you are not thinking that an engine would have saved them here. As Jon has pointed out, they could have left the anchor under sail if need be. Engines are not safety gear, they are lazy gear.


That is the point I am trying to make, Sullivan says she does not need an engine. I am not saying it is right or wrong, just pointing out the crew of Maybe Tomorrow says they do not need an engine. And they left without one, just as sailing ships have done for thousands of years.

"No. I mean, yes, because we had the capability to sail," Sullivan answered. "Did they have motors back in the old days?"


----------



## MikeWhy

casey1999 said:


> Anchor question:
> Say I am anchoring in 25 feet of water and have 300 feet of chain. Say I want to let out 200 feet of chain and then attach a bridal (30 foot length of 3 strand nylon) to the chain with the two bridal leads going back to the two bow cleats. What is best way to attach the bridal to the chain?


A grab hook. The throat slips over a chain link. I have an eye-splice on each end to quickly slip through and over the bow cleats.


----------



## kd3pc

anthemj24 said:


> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I hope you are not thinking that an engine would have saved them here. As Jon has pointed out, they could have left the anchor under sail if need be. Engines are not safety gear, they are lazy gear.


an engine would have allowed them control enough to "unload" the tie point of the anchor with out losing a finger or hand or foot...perhaps.

an engine would have allowed them to motor head in to the wind to maintain distance off the shore, at least until they ran out of fuel

You guys seem to think that you can unset that anchor rode from the boat, by uncleating it...and - well what do you do then with an anchor in your hand, 18,000 pounds blowing out from under your feet...and no motive power to go away from the shore/breakers/breakwater/shallows....

So what do you do with the anchor in your hands...and I know you would just "loosen or slacken" it a bit...Not gonna happen in the real world...and that is IF you can uncleat or loosen or un-windlass it in the first place...as the storm may have lain astray the rounds you so carefully place on the windlass or cleat..

Get real guys...A person is no match for the forces at play here...you just can't do it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

casey1999 said:


> That is the point I am trying to make, Sullivan says she does not need an engine. *I am not saying it is right or wrong*, just pointing out the crew of Maybe Tomorrow says they do not need an engine. And they left without one, just as sailing ships have done for thousands of years.
> 
> "No. I mean, yes, because we had the capability to sail," Sullivan answered. "Did they have motors back in the old days?"


Why vacillate?? It's wrong.

They didn't have radar or VHF radios either.

Use them.


----------



## casey1999

kd3pc said:


> an engine would have allowed them control enough to "unload" the tie point of the anchor with out losing a finger or hand or foot...perhaps.
> 
> an engine would have allowed them to motor head in to the wind to maintain distance off the shore, at least until they ran out of fuel
> 
> You guys seem to think that you can unset that anchor rode from the boat, by uncleating it...and - well what do you do then with an anchor in your hand, 18,000 pounds blowing out from under your feet...and no motive power to go away from the shore/breakers/breakwater/shallows....
> 
> So what do you do with the anchor in your hands...and I know you would just "loosen or slacken" it a bit...Not gonna happen in the real world...and that is IF you can uncleat or loosen or un-windlass it in the first place...as the storm may have lain astray the rounds you so carefully place on the windlass or cleat..
> 
> Get real guys...A person is no match for the forces at play here...you just can't do it.


Agree, and the man was an older gentlemen, not some 20 year old 250 pound Volvo around the world coffee grinder crew member. Like I said, you need to know you limitations.


----------



## Maine Sail

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why vacillate?? It's wrong.
> 
> They didn't have radar or VHF radios either.
> 
> Use them.


I guess the difference is that in the "old days" they actually knew how to sail and skipper a boat effectively, without a motor, because they did not know otherwise..??

One of the first things I was taught when learning how to sail was how to claw off a lee shore. The cove I sailed out of was oriented to the prevailing winds and every sail I made was about 30 tacks out and off an exposed beach. I have had to use the technique before in much bigger boats and it still works the same.

I would say they certainly needed that engine because they obviously did not have the skills to save their boat without it eg: clawing of a lee shore.. There is a possibility that they may just have their home today if the skipper had kept it in operable condition and used it to take some surge loading off the bow gear, or of course, just not left port to begin with.

A quick read of his insurance policy or a call to clarify things would have likely seen him staying put. I don't feel much different than most but I called my insurance company, Amica, on Tue to clarify some details for named storms.

I then drove 400 miles on Wed, a full five days before the storm was due to hit Maine, and moved our boat 2nm to a well known hurricane hole and a massive mooring.

I then struck all canvas, radar reflector, head sail etc. and rigged triple un-equal length pendants with triple layers of chafe protection and headed home. Drove back Friday to be on-board for the storm, due to hit late Sunday, to care for the boat if needed. Storm was a bust in Maine but I was prepared and knew my outcome based on my policy well ahead of time. I was also there with a working engine to take the load of the mooring if things got real bad.

This hurricane was well predicted many days in advance so why did he wait until less than 12 hours before the storm hit to move his boat roughly 129 nautical miles, and then decide to take a nap part way through?? I think well never know but his mental condition sadly and likely played a large part in all these poor decisions. That is what makes this such a sad story.


----------



## anthemj24

kd3pc said:


> an engine would have allowed them control enough to "unload" the tie point of the anchor with out losing a finger or hand or foot...perhaps.
> 
> an engine would have allowed them to motor head in to the wind to maintain distance off the shore, at least until they ran out of fuel
> 
> You guys seem to think that you can unset that anchor rode from the boat, by uncleating it...and - well what do you do then with an anchor in your hand, 18,000 pounds blowing out from under your feet...and no motive power to go away from the shore/breakers/breakwater/shallows....
> 
> So what do you do with the anchor in your hands...and I know you would just "loosen or slacken" it a bit...Not gonna happen in the real world...and that is IF you can uncleat or loosen or un-windlass it in the first place...as the storm may have lain astray the rounds you so carefully place on the windlass or cleat..
> 
> Get real guys...A person is no match for the forces at play here...you just can't do it.


You cut off part of my quote which really takes it out of context. I am making two points.

1) that the major contributing factor here was sailing into a hurricane
2) that the presence of a working engine would not have prevented it

You are throwing up strawmen here. If you feel you can disprove one of my points, have at it, but leave your straw men at home.


----------



## casey1999

chrisncate said:


> You think that big windage Hunter could have motored into the wind and made headway on that day without getting flipped around port or starboard with every big blast of air?
> 
> And suppose he could motor to release the slack on the rode momentarily: Would he send the g/f up front to do it while he worked the throttle and rudder? Would she have worked the controls while he went up front?
> 
> Maybe the cat could have steered and kept an eye on the radar for them while they made it a team effort on the bow..


That is what I like about an S&S 34 (after rounding Cape Horn). Look, no captain needed.


----------



## chrisncate

casey1999 said:


> That is what I like about an S&S 34 (after rounding Cape Horn). Look, no captain needed.


----------



## kd3pc

anthemj24 said:


> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was not that they left without a working engine, but that they left to sail straight into a hurricane. I hope you are not thinking that an engine would have saved them here. As Jon has pointed out, they could have left the anchor under sail if need be. Engines are not safety gear, they are lazy gear.


I am saying that with an engine...he had options, without the engine he had none.

There is no way he could have "sailed" off the anchor given his human abilities and the ground tackle/ship attachment gear that he had/has. Simply not possible.

Even if the woman helped in some way, he still could not sail off in those conditions.

If you disagree, please explain how, in detail it could be done.


----------



## kd3pc

chrisncate said:


> You think that big windage Hunter could have motored into the wind and made headway on that day without getting flipped around port or starboard with every big blast of air?
> 
> And suppose he could motor to release the slack on the rode momentarily: Would he send the g/f up front to do it while he worked the throttle and rudder? Would she have worked the controls while he went up front?
> 
> Maybe the cat could have steered and kept an eye on the radar for them while they made it a team effort on the bow..


Firstly I would never have ventured out in that, but having been caught....My big "windage" hunter can motor in to and maintain headway in +40Knots...been there and done that. Even with 8-12' seas. Contrary to what you may think....my big hunter sits almost beam-to with the wind blowing hard, due to that windage and with that knowledge, I can steer and motor with quite a bit of control, actually. It only gets weird in gusts, or when the wind varies, or lack of running room hems me in.

the big Hunter is very predictable and vectors along pretty well. You have to know your assets and liabilities. And the sails long since reefed and with a storm jib on the cutter stay

I would say that neither (or both) could have released the anchor once set like he did, short of cutting/breaking the chain or sledging the windlass. If the anchor had been properly configured, and could be cut loose - then yes he or she could have motored up, and the other cut the anchor free, releasing the boat from emminent harm.


----------



## casey1999

anthemj24 said:


> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was not that they left without a working engine, but that they left to sail straight into a hurricane. I hope you are not thinking that an engine would have saved them here. As Jon has pointed out, they could have left the anchor under sail if need be. Engines are not safety gear, they are lazy gear.


I raise an 35 lb anchor with 100 feet of 3/8 chain by hand. I come in and leave the dock single handling my 34. I can sail (no engine) single handed and anchor and leave the anchorage (no engine). but I need the engine to get into my dock because the way it is situated with the prevailing 20 knot winds. The only way I could come in with no engine is to use lines to pull her in and single handed (and no help on the dock) this is not possible. Because I need to head up wind then make a sharp turn down wind into dock it is just not possible to do that under sail. I would need to tack several times and there is not enough width to tack. One day the engine will probably die (actually it did die the after buying the boat- Hit reverse at the dock to stop- engine died, hit pier- no damage- then fixed the engine problem- dirty filters), but I am going slow and will ram a dock and not someones boat (my boat is strong so expect minimal damage- I hope!).

Is this being lazy?


----------



## anthemj24

kd3pc said:


> I am saying that with an engine...he had options, without the engine he had none.
> 
> There is no way he could have "sailed" off the anchor given his human abilities and the ground tackle/ship attachment gear that he had/has. Simply not possible.
> 
> Even if the woman helped in some way, he still could not sail off in those conditions.
> 
> If you disagree, please explain how, in detail it could be done.


He could not have sailed off the anchor ever? Or he could not have sailed off it at the moment where the chain started breaking through the hull? or once he was on the beach? If he had acted quickly enough, he certainly could have sailed off, as that is how he left his marina. Now please explain to me how an engine would have saved him from hitting the beach. Are you saying that with the once the chain had jumped the roller and started sawing through the fiberglass, that he could have flipped the motor on and simply motored up, pulled the anchor up, and motored on home?

This is the exact attitude that I believe gets people into trouble. People are constantly overestimating the reliability and capability of engines. Your argument that a working engine gave him options or would have prevented this is completely without substance.


----------



## anthemj24

casey1999 said:


> I raise an 35 lb anchor with 100 feet of 3/8 chain by hand. I come in and leave the dock single handling my 34. I can sail (no engine) single handed and anchor and leave the anchorage (no engine). but I need the engine to get into my dock because the way it is situated with the prevailing 20 knot winds. The only way I could come in with no engine is to use lines to pull her in and single handed (and no help on the dock) this is not possible. Because I need to head up wind then make a sharp turn down wind into dock it is just not possible to do that under sail. I would need to tack several times and there is not enough width to tack. One day the engine will probably die (actually it did die the after buying the boat- Hit reverse at the dock to stop- engine died, hit pier- no damage- then fixed the engine problem- dirty filters), but I am going slow and will ram a dock and not someones boat (my boat is strong so expect minimal damage- I hope!).
> 
> Is this being lazy?


Yeah, pretty much. We like to use docks and marinas rather than moorings as moorings are a bit more of a hassle. Don't take it personal, I can be lazy too. Convenience is cool, just don't mistake convenience with safety. That is what can get you killed.


----------



## kd3pc

anthemj24 said:


> He could not have sailed off the anchor ever? Or he could not have sailed off it at the moment where the chain started breaking through the hull? or once he was on the beach? If he had acted quickly enough, he certainly could have sailed off, as that is how he left his marina. Now please explain to me how an engine would have saved him from hitting the beach. Are you saying that with the once the chain had jumped the roller and started sawing through the fiberglass, that he could have flipped the motor on and simply motored up, pulled the anchor up, and motored on home?
> 
> This is the exact attitude that I believe gets people into trouble. People are constantly overestimating the reliability and capability of engines. Your argument that a working engine gave him options or would have prevented this is completely without substance.


I am saying that whilst at anchor 800 yards off the beach, prior to the boat dragging - as depicted in the video shown on several local TV stations. The one where the nose is bobbing, say 6-10' in gale force winds, and where the anchor chain was attached to the windlass (by his own interview, and still shots available). He could not sail off.

For all practical purposes, that anchor rode was not coming off the windlass, given the stress the chain and anchor being set, was putting on the nose. Simply unfurling the sails he had would have been very difficult. I have a dutchman and furling jib, that would be all but useless in those winds, shallows and breakers. His sails were worse off than mine.

I am saying that with an engine, it MAY have been possible to motor OVER the anchor (possibly at the expense of some fiberglass on the bow, or a broken anchor roller) and that the anchor may have set free with all the bow action..

With the engine, he may have been able to minimize the stress on the anchor, bought time to destroy a link and motor off, or even just turned in to the wind and rode it out...Don't know, was not on that boat at the time.

he would NEVER have sailed off that anchor that was set off the beach. Never.

Lastly, if you really think he could sail off that anchor...tell us how, step by step, show us how it would be done.

Waiting.


----------



## casey1999

anthemj24 said:


> Yeah, pretty much. We like to use docks and marinas rather than moorings as moorings are a bit more of a hassle. Don't take it personal, I can be lazy too. Convenience is cool, just don't mistake convenience with safety. That is what can get you killed.


Dude, go to google maps and check out where I keep my boat. North Shore of Oahu. There is only one boat harbor along this 40 mile coast. There are no moorings. There is one place to anchor Waimea Bay, and their only in the summer. In the winter we have wave faces up to 80 feet- not a place to anchor or moor. The only safe haven is the Haleiwa Boat harbor- and the winter swell even makes that unsafe at times. Here, there is not option but the boat harbor- and no moorings there. I am sure your conditions are more benign.


----------



## anthemj24

casey1999 said:


> Dude, go to google maps and check out where I keep my boat. North Shore of Oahu. There is only one boat harbor along this 40 mile coast. There are no moorings. There is one place to anchor Waimea Bay, and their only in the summer. In the winter we have wave faces up to 80 feet- not a place to anchor or moor. The only safe haven is the Haleiwa Boat harbor- and the winter swell even makes that unsafe at times. Here, there is not option but the boat harbor- and no moorings there. I am sure your conditions are more benign.


Err, umm, Dude, how would I know where you keep your boat or what your situation is. Don't take it personal.


----------



## casey1999

anthemj24 said:


> Err, umm, Dude, how would I know where you keep your boat or what your situation is. Don't take it personal.


Ask before you make uniformed comments. BTW, where do you sail?


----------



## anthemj24

kd3pc said:


> I am saying that whilst at anchor 800 yards off the beach, prior to the boat dragging - as depicted in the video shown on several local TV stations. The one where the nose is bobbing, say 6-10' in gale force winds, and where the anchor chain was attached to the windlass (by his own interview, and still shots available). He could not sail off.
> 
> For all practical purposes, that anchor rode was not coming off the windlass, given the stress the chain and anchor being set, was putting on the nose. Simply unfurling the sails he had would have been very difficult. I have a dutchman and furling jib, that would be all but useless in those winds, shallows and breakers. His sails were worse off than mine.
> 
> I am saying that with an engine, it MAY have been possible to motor OVER the anchor (possibly at the expense of some fiberglass on the bow, or a broken anchor roller) and that the anchor may have set free with all the bow action..
> 
> With the engine, he may have been able to minimize the stress on the anchor, bought time to destroy a link and motor off, or even just turned in to the wind and rode it out...Don't know, was not on that boat at the time.
> 
> he would NEVER have sailed off that anchor that was set off the beach. Never.
> 
> Lastly, if you really think he could sail off that anchor...tell us how, step by step, show us how it would be done.
> 
> Waiting.


I really don't know why you are arguing with me or throwing up these straw man arguments. You are even qualifying it, by saying that had he acted early enough, the engine MAY have given them some hope of getting away safely. I am saying the same thing about getting out under sail, although what constitutes early enough may be different in that case. My point which seems totally lost on you, is that there is no evidence he would have left early enough for the motor to help, if he did not leave early enough for the sails to help. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please post it.


----------



## anthemj24

casey1999 said:


> Ask before you make uniformed comments. BTW, where do you sail?


Uniformed?

You seem to be taking this personally, and really I never meant it that way. Why not just leave it at that, or do you really feel like an Internet P***ing match is necessary? How about if from now on, I say engines are not safety gear, they are lazy gear, except in the case of one guy I don't know in HI who needs one to get to his dock. It does not have the same ring to it, but if it will get you off my back, I can make a promise I will never keep that I will do exactly that.


----------



## kd3pc

anthemj24 said:


> I really don't know why you are arguing with me or throwing up these straw man arguments. You are even qualifying it, by saying that had he acted early enough, the engine MAY have given them some hope of getting away safely. I am saying the same thing about getting out under sail, although what constitutes early enough may be different in that case. My point which seems totally lost on you, is that there is no evidence he would have left early enough for the motor to help, if he did not leave early enough for the sails to help. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please post it.


this was in response to your post at #275...

You were the one who stated that "He could not have sailed off the anchor ever? Or he could not have sailed off it at the moment where the chain started breaking through the hull? or once he was on the beach? If he had acted quickly enough, he certainly could have sailed off, as that is how he left his marina. Now please explain to me how an engine would have saved him from hitting the beach."

I explained how the engine "could" have kept him off the beach, now you explain how he could have sailed off the set anchor to save himself once that anchor was set.

All yours, please answer...


----------



## anthemj24

kd3pc said:


> this was in response to your post at #275...
> 
> You were the one who stated that "He could not have sailed off the anchor ever? Or he could not have sailed off it at the moment where the chain started breaking through the hull? or once he was on the beach? If he had acted quickly enough, he certainly could have sailed off, as that is how he left his marina. Now please explain to me how an engine would have saved him from hitting the beach."
> 
> I explained how the engine "could" have kept him off the beach, now you explain how he could have sailed off the set anchor to save himself once that anchor was set.
> 
> All yours, please answer...


This is really going nowhere. From what I can see, he clearly was able to sail off the anchor at some point before things went to hell, as that is how he left his marina, and had evidently been sailing engineless before. I do not know him or his sailing skills well enough to say at what exact point he lost that ability due to deteriorating conditions. Maybe you know him personally through some Hunter owners group and could enlighten me on his precise set of skills.


----------



## kd3pc

anthemj24 said:


> This is really going nowhere.


obviously, you do not have a clue.

thanks it was a fine time, but until you can answer the simple question, the others can play. I am here to learn, and to give the results of my experience, not chat

Have a nice day, go sailing, then come back and tell us how to sail off an anchor in a full gale 300 yds from the beach, with a chain jammed windless with a set anchor on the other end.

C ya


----------



## anthemj24

kd3pc said:


> obviously, you do not have a clue.
> 
> thanks it was a fine time, but until you can answer the simple question, the others can play. I am here to learn, and to give the results of my experience, not chat
> 
> Have a nice day, go sailing, then come back and tell us how to sail off an anchor in a full gale 300 yds from the beach, with a chain jammed windless with a set anchor on the other end.
> 
> C ya


You again clipped my quote to take it out of context. I never asserted that he could sail off his anchor in a full gale. What I said was that there are some conditions in which he could, since he had already demonstrated that ability. Note some conditions is not the same as a full gale. Why do you feel the need to argue over things you are only imagining that I said?


----------



## JonEisberg

kd3pc said:


> thanks it was a fine time, but until you can answer the simple question, the others can play. I am here to learn, and to give the results of my experience, not chat
> 
> Have a nice day, go sailing, then come back and tell us how to sail off an anchor in a full gale 300 yds from the beach, with a chain jammed windless with a set anchor on the other end.


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but I wouldn't go as far to state that it wouldn't have been possible to sail off his anchor - particularly, without knowing whether his chain rode was, indeed, jammed... Obviously, we don't know enough about what the precise circumstances on board were at that time, but I would suggest that it certainly could have been _possible_...

Only at considerable risk, no question, dealing with such a situation could easily produce a very serious injury or worse, obviously...

But, unless the chain were, indeed, somehow completely jammed at the windlass, or knotted in a chain pipe (if applicable), I don't see why it might not have been released... Not knowing what sort of windlass he had, of course, but most I've used have some form of clutch that could be released, and the chain allowed to run free...

I've never liked the idea of placing a windlass below deck level in a locker like that, it would have made dealing with such a chore much more difficult and dangerous, IMHO, than a deck-mounted windlass... And, I think a horizontal windlass is also easier to free up than a vertical one, in extremis...

Even in the sort of conditions he faced, however, his rode would not have been bar-tight _all_ the time - with such extreme snatching loads, there will always be brief intervals of recovery where the gear would not necessarily have been extremely loaded... Even in the event of a severe jam at the gypsy, if you can recover sufficient chain from the locker, it should be possible to jump the chain from the gypsy during one of the "lulls" on the load in the chain... The safest method in such extreme conditions might be to take a line from the unloaded portion of the chain back to one of the primary winches, and horse it off from a safer distance...

Again, who knows what the situation was with his ground tackle and foredeck that morning, but I don't think one can categorically assert that for him to have dropped his rode, and sailed on out of there on a close reach would not have been possible...

BTW, that boat had in-mast furling, wouldn't his situation be a perfect example in support of the proponents of such systems, to be off and sailing in a jiffy, with minimal risk or exposure to the crew?


----------



## casey1999

1985 Cabo Rico Cutter Rigged Sloop Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Ok, how would the above yacht hold up? Always like the Cabo Rico 38 but a little more expense and maintenance than I can deal with now. What a bargin she looks to me at $74k


----------



## smackdaddy

anthemj24 said:


> How about if from now on, I say engines are not safety gear, they are lazy gear, except in the case of one guy I don't know in HI who needs one to get to his dock. It does not have the same ring to it, but if it will get you off my back, I can make a promise I will never keep that I will do exactly that.


Not that's pretty funny. Nicely played anth.

This thread settles it. I'm getting a Hunter...just to piss off The Establishment.


----------



## Ninefingers

This is what the Hunter manual says about anchoring. This not a leading question folks, I just want to know how to get the rode to the cleats. Do you just cleat to one side? How do you attach the rode without it chafing on the rail?

Edit: Bummer, I can't upload the manual.


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> This thread settles it. I'm getting a Hunter...just to piss off The Establishment.


Don't do it SMACK!!!


----------



## chrisncate

smackdaddy said:


> Not that's pretty funny. Nicely played anth.
> 
> This thread settles it. I'm getting a Hunter...just to piss off The Establishment.


Wow, you're edgy. What a rebel...

Why not go all the way though, and get a MacGregor that does 40kph? That'll claw you off the lee _real_ quick...


----------



## casey1999

Just curious, a lot of the engineless crowd seem to have a windlass (either electric or manual). That seems to be just another mechanical device that can fail (like an engine). So are you being lazy using the windlass? I have a mechanical windlass, but is was broken when I bought the boat. Asked the previous owner how she raised the anchor (she did a circumnavigation) and she said she just pulled it up. So that is what I do. I got a nice bronze 20lb mooring bit I am going to install in place of the broken windlass. I have decided to rely on mechanical devices as little as possible (and I am a licensed mechanical engineer- and I still don't trust the stuff). That is why i like a nice 30-35 foot boat. You should be able to deal with stuff with minimal mechanical advantage- I rarely use a whinch handle- even in 35 knot winds. I also find as I get older, doing things by hand keep me in shape, and hopefully be able to sail longer. Although my problem could be if I hurt myself while sailing, I've got no mechanical advantage.


----------



## aeventyr60

chrisncate said:


> You sail off the anchor by hanking on your storm jib (even if it's one of those "over the furler" types), preferably on an inner stay close to the mast, tying a third reef in the main (or putting up the trysail), and going to work.
> 
> Start tacking and slowly puling up rode. Rinse and repeat until you sail the hook out and keep on going until the lee is far enough to heave to and get your crap together.
> 
> In the immortal words of Jay Fitgerald: _"your boat won't do that? Sell it, it's a dog"_


You sailors out there might want to try sailing on and off your anchor once in a while to see how this works in calm conditions. Good skill development in sailing on and off the anchor. Why so many people can't? Cuz it takes a little bit of effort....and seamanship.


----------



## casey1999

MikeWhy said:


> A grab hook. The throat slips over a chain link. I have an eye-splice on each end to quickly slip through and over the bow cleats.


I got one of these. Will these hooks wear the galvanizing off the chain and lead to more rapid corrosion at that location on the chain? Seems like it would put quite a point load on the link.


----------



## aeventyr60

I stopped using the chain hooks. A rolling hitch works better, easier on the chain. Hooks fall off occasionally, will start rusting after a few years of use and the size of the top pin and the small space below does not allow a large enough line or shackle to pass though.


----------



## casey1999

aeventyr60 said:


> You sailors out there might want to try sailing on and off your anchor once in a while to see how this works in calm conditions. Good skill development in sailing on and off the anchor. Why so many people can't? Cuz it takes a little bit of effort....and seamanship.


When I single hand I just pull up the anchor (no engine and no sails needed). Then once anchor and 100 feet of chain is stored and secured I put up sail and sail away. A lot easier to do this way if alone. It would take 2 people to sail off the hook while the anchor is still not secured.


----------



## aeventyr60

I have the SL 555 manual windlass, works a charm every time. Also a bit of exercise every morning too. Nice way to enjoy our morning cuppa and look at the anchorage and plan our sail off the anchor. Yes, sometimes it gets a bit hairy, but then that's why were out here...to meet the challenges in our own way. Our anchoring gear very similar to above, but with 275' of G4 HT 5/16 chain with 300' of 3 stand behind it. Pulling up a couple hundred feet of chain with a 45 LB CQR? I don't think so....save your back, get a manual windlass, attach a longer section to the handle so you can stand up and make a longer pumping action...this kneeling on the deck pumping away with a short handle is no way to go...


----------



## MikeWhy

casey1999 said:


> I got one of these. Will these hooks wear the galvanizing off the chain and lead to more rapid corrosion at that location on the chain? Seems like it would put quite a point load on the link.


I'm sure it will. Anything moving and abrading on it will. I just never thought to look. Always seems to hit a different link, spreading the love around.

I haven't given the loading a second thought. The first time I saw one, I had skidded off an icy road into the ditch. A tow truck soon pulled up, tossed out a chain, and said he would pull me out if I attach it (and hurry up; he didn't have all day). So I belly crawled in the snow and looped it around the first cross member I saw. Ever since then, grab hooks seemed the natural way to attach to a chain.

I don't know what to tell ya. That and anchoring in mostly benign conditions is all that I have to share.


----------



## casey1999

chrisncate said:


> Funny you should mention that.
> 
> For starters, I view a manual windlass as being more akin to sails than a motor, in the sense of simplicity. I can't speak for other "motorless by choice" folks, but for us, the goal is simplicity in all systems rather than just eschewing all things convenient.
> 
> We bought our windlass because of the ground tackle we wanted to have (again for those who don't know us, we chose a 44# bruce on 150' of G4 for our small 30' classic plastic). I can't pull up a 44# bruce and all that chain, and I doubt you could either in anything but a flat dead calm.
> 
> Our windlass is (imo) the best manual windlass out there, the 7B. It's 45# of solid bronze, and it's a work of art. I can't understand why you don't fix your windlass, they are a snap to work on (like winches).
> 
> ?
> 
> Plath rebuilds windlasses for those who don't want to try it themselves, maybe give them a try? A good manual windlass is easily as reliable as a sheet winch.
> 
> Having a pure sailing vessel isn't about judging others, deeming others choices "lazy" or whatever. It's (for us) about what we like and how we like to sail. We aren't pompous jerks lording our purity over everyone else, we are simply two serious boat nerds who really like sailing for sailing itself, and not so much for the 5pm cocktail hour raft up (although we occasionally like that too). We are building our boat in the teotwawki spirit and mentality, rather than as a cocktail cruiser.
> 
> For the record, our ground tackle for the Alberg:
> 
> Hooks:
> 44# Bruce as the main hook (a real Belgium one, no knock off)
> 33# Bruce as the aft hook (same as above, on it's own dedicated roller aft)
> 25# CQR
> Fortress FX16
> 45# Fisherman/Herreshoff
> 20# shroom (Kellet)
> 
> 150' G4 5/16th
> Roughly 800' in nylon rode(s) that can be bent together if needed
> Plath 7b solid Bronze windlass
> And of course the related hardware to secure it all.


I regularly pull up a 35 lb anchor (CQR) with 100 feet of 3/8 inch chain in 25 knots of wind and 2 foot wind swell. (also have a spare 35 lb Mason Supreme and 300 feet of 3/4 inch anchor line) I actually looked into repairing my windlass but company is out of buisness, I can get parts but only from England- better buying new (BTW, if I were to get a windlass, I would get your model- nice), but what I found is that when handling boat alone, I can pull up anchor and all chain in about 2 minutes, a windlass would take much longer, and once the anchor is clear of bottom, I do not have much time to get the anchor on deck because the boat will start drifting (25 knot wind) and could hit another anchored boat. So for me, time is of the esence, windlass too slow, plus, if windlass breaks, and I don not have strength to pull up anchor, I'm screwed. What I have read is windlass break all the time, either manual or electric, the other thing, that are really rated for light loads. I think yours is 400 lbs, and remember that is the rated load, I would not trust it for use long term if 400 lb loads are often placed on it. Actually windlass designed only to lift the anchor and chain, they are not designed to be used to pull a boat forward to the anchor nor un set an anchor, although people do use them for such and problably why they break so often. I just decide the windlass does not serve me any purpose, and like I said, PO did a single handed circumnavigation without a windlass and things turned out fine.


----------



## BryceGTX

chrisncate said:


> You think that big windage Hunter could have motored into the wind and made headway on that day without getting flipped around port or starboard with every big blast of air?





kd3pc said:


> ...My big "windage" hunter can motor in to and maintain headway in +40Knots...been there and done that. Even with 8-12' seas.


Good point kd3pc... took the words out of my mouth.

Just a few months ago, we were caught in a 55 MPH storm west of the Bass Islands in Lake Erie on our beamy Catalina 400 for about 15 minutes. With the motor at 2200 rpms, headway was about 5 mph. Normal speed is about 7 mph. Storm was so short lived, waves did not have time to build.

We saw the front approaching 20 miles out and just before it hit just steered directly into the storm (as I have done for the past 30 years). The heavy horizontal rain, wind and hail was more an issue than anything. Steerage was predictable and uneventful.

I have seen waves have a bigger impact on my speed and steerage than wind. On the other hand I have never been in a hurricane.

Heading into 6-10 foot waves we rode this past Monday on Lake Erie somtimes reduced my speed to below 3 mph. Average speed probably 5 mph.


----------



## BryceGTX

Maine Sail said:


> We owned a Catalina with one of these PISS POOR anchor roller designs and no secondary roller to retrieve the anchor. So once we were anchored, and attached to the bow cleats, we were committed. I chose my anchoring spots carefully because once set and it was blowing 40+ that roller would have folded like a tooth-pick lifting a cinder block. I was NEVER comfortable with this dumb design.


No doubt some boats from all manufacturers have issues. On the other hand, I feel very comfortable with our Catalina 400. Its pulpit seems to be very robust. 3/8" stainless steel plate, 6 inches of over hang to the roller. See attached pic.

Our pulpit has already seen 45 mph winds in a reasonably protected anchorage. Two weeks ago, we were anchored in 35 mph winds. Another sailboat (28-29 foot) dragged onto our line. Our line was wedged between his rudder and keel. I dove in, moved our line under his rudder and let him drift off to our port. He then managed to snag my anchor line retrieving his. Had to dive again to slide his anchor off my line. Amazing how many boaters do not know how to properly anchor.

In the 30 years we have been anchoring, I have never lost or destroyed a pulpit in spite of anchoring in upwards of 45 mph winds. I have also retreived anchors in the same conditions usually because it is often uncomfortable anchoring in such conditions.


----------



## BryceGTX

chrisncate said:


> Mph? Hmm..


My cars are in mph, my motorcycles are in mph, my snowmobiles are in mph.. my motorhome is in mph.. my ATVs are in mph.. somehow I have gotten used to mph... my mapping GPS is in mph.. whenever I read my knotmeter or wind speed, I instinctively convert to mph.

I like mph... its my choice.. after 59 years, I am not likely to change.

Oh.. forgot.. those of us that have actually plotted on real paper charts.. know that the legend distance was in miles. So it was natural for me to calculate distances when speeds are in mph.



chrisncate said:


> Anyhow - I have to take both of your words for it I suppose, and I freely admit that I am basing my thought on the small keel/high freeboard of the boat in question. Seems like a planing hull like that (I know, I know, it's not a planing hull...) coupled to a small keel would make it easy to sideslip in oncoming hurricane conditions, but maybe not.


His keel is probably much the same as mine. 5'6". His freeboard is not that much higher. His beam is only 6" wider and our hull design is not that different. And we both have large biminis. On the other hand, he has quite a bit more HP than me. I would not expect his boat would have any motoring problems in 55 mph winds (other than waves).


----------



## BryceGTX

chrisncate said:


> I say do whatever works for you, but I also say using the correct unit of measurement for any given recreation is not a bad thing either...


Excellent point.. so for boating the "correct" unit of measure is "Knots" even though every chart provided to us in the US gives distance in miles?? So the process of calculating distance on a chart is to take my speed in knots, convert to mph, determine the time. Multiply the time by the speed in mph to get distance on a chart.

Interesting argument.... hey.. why "knot" skip the conversion and just use mph.

If I am to go to knots as a unit of speed.. I want a chart that shows distance in lengths related to knots.. know where I can get such a chart?

In the old days.. I used to record my time on compass course. Charts are in miles.. I knew that so many rpms gave me so much speed in mph. Time and speed gave me distance in miles directly on the chart. In those days, I had no knot meter, no gps and could not afford loran. Given those tools, knots made no sense. Seems to make no sense even now. Although when I want to impress my non-boating friends it is always interesting to use knots just to confuse them.

And of course when I want to rile the sailing community.. refuse to use knots..
works well doesn't it


----------



## MikeWhy

BryceGTX said:


> Excellent point.. so for boating the "correct" unit of measure is "Knots" even though every chart provided to us in the US gives distance in miles??
> 
> Interesting argument....
> 
> If I am to go to knots as a unit of speed.. I want a chart that shows distance in lengths related to knots.. know where I can get such a chart?


(whisper) Psst. Bryce. Every last NOAA chart published, Mate, is marked in nautical miles. (One knot is 1 nautical mile per hour.) The latitude scale also serves as a usable scale. 1 minute of latitude equals 1 nautical mile. But you knew that...
(/whisper)



BryceGTX said:


> In the old days.. I used to record my time on compass course. Charts are in miles.. I knew that so many rpms gave me so much speed in mph. Time and speed gave me distance in miles directly on the chart. In those days, I had no knot meter, no gps and could not afford loran. Given those tools, knots made no sense. Seems to make no sense even now. Although when I want to impress my non-boating friends it is always interesting to use knots just to confuse them.
> 
> And of course when I want to rile the sailing community.. refuse to use knots..
> works well doesn't it


----------



## BryceGTX

chrisncate said:


> You are correct, I learned something new tonight. Kph is bad usage on my part:


I would have even less of a problem with kph (kilometers per hour) as a speed because the US charts also showed the distance in meters. Easy to multiply time, distance and kph.

Knots... a knot is something I tie in my shoe. Ah ha.. speaking of shoes.. we could use the unit of distance "feet". Feet is also listed as a unit of measure on US charts.

But alas.. no knot...


----------



## TakeFive

BryceGTX said:


> .. so for boating the "correct" unit of measure is "Knots" even though every chart provided to us in the US gives distance in miles?? So the process of calculating distance on a chart is to take my speed in knots, convert to mph, determine the time. Multiply the time by the speed in mph to get distance on a chart...


Uh, sorry, NOAA chart scales are in nautical miles. Latitude minutes are also the same.

If you've been converting to mph to determine time, you've been consistently off by 15%.


----------



## BryceGTX

MikeWhy said:


> <whisper>Psst. Bryce. Every last NOAA chart published, Mate, is marked in nautical miles. (One knot is 1 nautical mile per hour.) The latitude scale also serves as a usable scale. 1 minute of latitude equals 1 nautical mile. But you knew that...
> </whisper>


Sorry, my charts are "Statute Mile". 5280 feet is one statute mile. Have a chart on the wall. Chart number 42 Lake St Clair dated 1962. Clearly shows distance in "Statute mile", not nautical mile.

Newer charts often show nautical mile, but statute mile is always given.


----------



## jackdale

MikeWhy said:


> <whisper>Psst. Bryce. Every last NOAA chart published, Mate, is marked in nautical miles. (One knot is 1 nautical mile per hour.) The latitude scale also serves as a usable scale. 1 minute of latitude equals 1 nautical mile. But you knew that...
> </whisper>


In Canada, most of our charts say "metric". But that is depths. Distances are measured in nautical miles (1852 meters or one minute of latitude) and boat and wind speeds are in nautical miles per hour (knots). The difference is about 800 feet.

We are an SI country; we use the metric system.

Every chart world-wide uses the nautical mile.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> Sorry, my charts are "Statute Mile". 5280 feet is one statute mile. Have a chart on the wall. Chart number 42 Lake St Clair dated 1962. Clearly shows distance in "Statute mile", not nautical mile.


Is that a polyconic chart? They have to use distance scales.


----------



## TakeFive

BryceGTX said:


> Chart number 42 Lake St Clair dated 1962. Clearly shows distance in "Statute mile", not nautical mile.


Might be time to update.


----------



## BryceGTX

RhythmDoctor said:


> Might be time to update.


Newer charts list first Statute mile, then may also show Nautical Mile. Look at chart 14820 of Lake Erie dated 2005.


----------



## jackdale

jackdale said:


> Is that a polyconic chart? They have to use distance scales.


Yes it is polyconic. (Chart 14850)

It does show a distance scale in statute miles, yards and meters.

However, in the nautical world we use nautical miles. Use the latitude scale to measure distance.


----------



## MikeWhy

Latest issue, NOAA chart 14850.

Chart 14850

Come to think of it, many current charts for Great Lakes are in statute miles. Some also are marked with a nautical mile scale.


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> However, in the nautical world we use nautical miles.


When in Rome do as the romans do.. when in Lake St Clair.. measure in mph and miles.


----------



## jackdale

Here is the weather forecast for your neck of woods (I think). Winds speeds in knots.

National Weather Service Marine Forecast



> LCZ460-080800-
> LAKE ST CLAIR-
> 940 PM EDT WED SEP 7 2011
> 
> SMALL CRAFT ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 8 PM THURSDAY
> 
> OVERNIGHT
> NORTH WINDS 20 TO 25 KNOTS...BECOMING NORTHEAST 15 TO
> 20 KNOTS LATE. GUSTS TO 25 KNOTS. NUMEROUS SHOWERS. WAVES 3 TO 4
> FEET.
> 
> THURSDAY
> NORTHEAST WINDS 15 TO 20 KNOTS WITH GUSTS TO 25 KNOTS
> DIMINISHING TO 10 TO 15 KNOTS. SHOWERS LIKELY. WAVES 2 TO 3 FEET.
> 
> THURSDAY NIGHT
> NORTHEAST WINDS 5 TO 15 KNOTS. MOSTLY CLOUDY. A
> CHANCE OF SHOWERS. WAVES 1 TO 2 FEET.


----------



## chrisncate

BryceGTX said:


> I would have even less of a problem with kph (kilometers per hour) as a speed because the US charts also showed the distance in meters. Easy to multiply time, distance and kph.
> 
> Knots... a knot is something I tie in my shoe. Ah ha.. speaking of shoes.. we could use the unit of distance "feet". Feet is also listed as a unit of measure on US charts.
> 
> But alas.. no knot...


I see the issue: You're using charts from the Santa Maria..


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> Feet is also listed as a unit of measure on US charts.
> 
> But alas.. no knot...


US charts are in generally in fathoms and feet (Lake St. Clair is in feet); the rest of the world is metric.


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> Here is the weather forecast for your neck of woods (I think). Winds speeds in knots.


I often look at the bouy data in Lake St Clair to get wind speed. Easy to convert to mph.


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> US charts are in generally in fathoms and feet (Lake St. Clair is in feet); the rest of the world is metric.


I was talking about distance, not depth. Although some charts give distance in yards, some in feet.


----------



## chrisncate

BryceGTX said:


> I was talking about distance, not depth. Although some charts give distance in yards, some in feet.


Jack knows his stuff Bryce, careful...


----------



## jackdale

chrisncate said:


> Jack knows his stuff Bryce, careful...


Trying to make up for the haarp comment


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> I often look at the bouy data in Lake St Clair to get wind speed. Easy to convert to mph.


 à chacun son goût


----------



## chrisncate

jackdale said:


> Trying to make up for the haarp comment


Omg...


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> à chacun son goût


Yes.. I said the same thing in post number 309.


----------



## chrisncate

BryceGTX said:


> Yes.. I said the same thing in post number 309.


Damn, I hate trying to read Spanish...


----------



## jackdale

chrisncate said:


> Fixed
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/politics-religion-war-government/78448-haarp.html


Too late.

I have the original email in saved folder.


----------



## jackdale

From NOAA



> Calculate distances using latitude scales


http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/alligator/lessonspdf/chartInterpretation_lesson.pdf


----------



## BryceGTX

MikeWhy said:


> Come to think of it, many current charts for Great Lakes are in statute miles. Some also are marked with a nautical mile scale.


Yes they are..


----------



## chamonix

Just new to sailing but all the data I've read on charts state that the standard unit of measure on Great lakes charts are in statute miles rather than nauticle miles. Don't know why this is the case. Since I use the latitude to measure distance on a chart, and since I assume that doesn't change no matter where you are, I still do everything in knots.


----------



## BryceGTX

chamonix said:


> Just new to sailing but all the data I've read on charts state that the standard unit of measure on Great lakes charts are in statute miles rather than nauticle miles. Don't know why this is the case. Since I use the latitude to measure distance on a chart, and since I assume that doesn't change no matter where you are, I still do everything in knots.


Since various posts on this thread referred to the cat on the boat.. I guess I'll have to let the cat out of the bag and admit our cat handles the navigation chores.


----------



## BryceGTX

And of course he adjusts the sails.. here he is taking a short cat-nap


----------



## BryceGTX

And you guessed it.. anchor watch.. who needs GPS drag alarm?


----------



## BryceGTX

And he is the first one on the kayak


----------



## jackdale

It's a cat boat.


----------



## chrisncate

BryceGTX said:


> And of course he adjusts the sails.. here he is taking a short cat-nap


Hmm... no Flemish coil on the lines huh?


----------



## jackdale

chrisncate said:


> Hmm... no Flemish coil on the lines huh?


Its a cat's nest.


----------



## BryceGTX

chrisncate said:


> Hmm... no Flemish coil on the lines huh?


It seems sometimes he can't wait to get his paws on a job, but then fails to follow through. Clearly, its this kind of laziness that sinks the ship. This halyard clearly belongs hung on the deck winch.

No doubt the beached boat on this thread was the result of the cat.

It seems he has the gen down pat though.


----------



## jackdale

Forgot to take the winch handle out, too.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Do they use nautical miles in space?


----------



## jackdale

LandLocked66c said:


> Do they use nautical miles in space?


Not sure about space, but aircraft use nautical miles. BTW - aircraft lights are similar to nav lights on a vessel.


----------



## LandLocked66c

It appears they do!



> Mission name STS-118
> Space shuttle Endeavour
> Launch pad LC-39A
> Launch date 8 August 2007, 18:36:42 EDT (22:36:42 UTC)
> Landing 21 August 2007, 12:33:20 EDT (16:33:20 UTC)
> Mission duration 12 days, 17 hours, 55 minutes, 34 seconds
> Number of orbits 201
> Orbital altitude 122 nautical miles


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Two days and no arrests??

I'm worried...


----------



## chrisncate

Sad, he (Calabrese) tried to kill himself. 

I wonder where all the helpful cruisers are to lend a hand to a fellow sailor in need.


----------



## LauderBoy

chrisncate said:


> Sad, he (Calabrese) tried to kill himself.
> 
> I wonder where all the helpful cruisers are to lend a hand to a fellow sailor in need.


They're lending a hand to the sailors who take a little personal responsibility in their lives.


----------



## LandLocked66c

chrisncate said:


> Sad, he (Calabrese) tried to kill himself.
> 
> I wonder where all the helpful cruisers are to lend a hand to a fellow sailor in need.


I'll help throw the yucklite away!


----------



## casey1999

chrisncate said:


> You can pull up 100' of 3/8 chain along with the 35# hook in 25k of air? I find that impressive to say the least.
> 
> I haven't heard nor read many stories of manual windlasses breaking, the only one I could see busting up is the Lofrans manual windlass. I held one of those with my own paws, and I believe it might be junk (god, here come the pro Lofrans folks...look out..).
> 
> If I ever had to bug out quick and I couldn't get the hook up, I just attach a float to it, release the whole works (rode and all), then come back later for the thing. I carry enough spare rode and anchors to do that though.


Keep in mind I am not actually pulling a 35 lb load, there are bouyant forces at work till the anchor and chain clear the water. I also come from a windsurfing background where your arms are your main sheets and also you stays and shrouds. I also like to practice a somewhat modified form of Parkour while sailing Parkour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , that is using your body in the most efficient form to do physical work. I never really liked big boat sailing (my love was windsurfing) but it is a way to get my kids involved together on the water, I like to figure out a way to work myself while sailing a big boat. Like I said, I rarely use a winch, work the lines bare handed to get the workout. My 34 allows me to do this, anything bigger or more beamy, could not be done easily. My 34 also has very minimal windage area (also why it is more like a narrow beamed 30 footer inside) so a 25 knot wind and 2 foot waves is actually very little load that I need to work against. When I first anchored in this manual way, I was a little concerned if I could get the anchor back, but it has been no problem. Also, anchor bed here is sand, don't get that suction effect of the Chesapeake bay sludge, also my anchor comes up clean, no need to wash. As far as failures of windlasses, found those threads right here on sailnet, especially on the electric versions, manuals not so bad. As far as fixing mine, no need, got the bronze mooring bit that I can use in many ways, including towing my boat into her slip if my engine fails (got unlimited sea tow for that), and the cost for parts and shipping have gone through the roof (HI must go air freight), I would purchase one like yours if I went that route- then I could have a readily available parts supply.

At the end of a day of sailing, I am pretty beat, but I sleep good.
Good luck with the Heron


----------



## chrisncate

LauderBoy said:


> They're lending a hand to the sailors who take a little personal responsibility in their lives.


Help those who need no help... shun those who do.

Makes sense..


----------



## chrisncate

casey1999 said:


> Keep in mind I am not actually pulling a 35 lb load, there are bouyant forces at work till the anchor and chain clear the water. I also come from a windsurfing background where your arms are your main sheets and also you stays and shrouds. I also like to practice a somewhat modified form of Parkour while sailing Parkour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , that is using your body in the most efficient form to do physical work. I never really liked big boat sailing (my love was windsurfing) but it is a way to get my kids involved together on the water, I like to figure out a way to work myself while sailing a big boat. Like I said, I rarely use a winch, work the lines bare handed to get the workout. My 34 allows me to do this, anything bigger or more beamy, could not be done easily. My 34 also has very minimal windage area (also why it is more like a narrow beamed 30 footer inside) so a 25 knot wind and 2 foot waves is actually very little load that I need to work against. When I first anchored in this manual way, I was a little concerned if I could get the anchor back, but it has been no problem. Also, anchor bed here is sand, don't get that suction effect of the Chesapeake bay sludge, also my anchor comes up clean, no need to wash. As far as failures of windlasses, found those threads right here on sailnet, especially on the electric versions, manuals not so bad. As far as fixing mine, no need, got the bronze mooring bit that I can use in many ways, including towing my boat into her slip if my engine fails (got unlimited sea tow for that), and the cost for parts and shipping have gone through the roof (HI must go air freight), I would purchase one like yours if I went that route- then I could have a readily available parts supply.
> 
> At the end of a day of sailing, I am pretty beat, but I sleep good.
> Good luck with the Heron


Interesting on all counts (and thanks!).

Whatcha gonna do with that busted windlass?..


----------



## casey1999

chrisncate said:


> Interesting on all counts (and thanks!).
> 
> Whatcha gonna do with that busted windlass?..


I was planning on just hanging on to it, I don't throw much away. Not really worth much, has a rusty carbon steel wildcat. Make me an offer, shipping paid by buyer. The problem is the wild cat is locked (probably rusted) and is seems the rachet is broken as it free wheels when pumping the handle. The case is aluminum, I see no model on it but a while back my research indicated it was made in England. You are better offer with your bronze piece of art IMO.


----------



## casey1999

chrisncate said:


> Naa, not for my boat, for a pals boat...
> 
> No rush or anything, but if you ever decide to take a few closeup pics of it, I'd show them to my friend and see if wants a project...


Will do, try in the next few weeks


----------



## chrisncate

casey1999 said:


> Will do, try in the next few weeks


Cool, thanks 

It probably won't go anywhere, but what the hey... I'm Mr. helpful today, so..:laugher


----------



## aeventyr60

My SL 555 is 35 years old. Have only ever repacked the housing with grease and replace some rubber seals and the grease nipple. Have close to 3000 nights on the hook as well...Guess it's all in the way you treat your gear. I was also a big windsurfer in the "Gorge" so can understand the fitness thing. However, I have a better understanding of mechanical advantage....


----------



## casey1999

aeventyr60 said:


> My SL 555 is 35 years old. Have only ever repacked the housing with grease and replace some rubber seals and the grease nipple. Have close to 3000 nights on the hook as well...Guess it's all in the way you treat your gear. I was also a big windsurfer in the "Gorge" so can understand the fitness thing. However, I have a better understanding of mechanical advantage....


I've sailed the gorge, never really liked it, short runs with only windswell, and you need to wear a helment so the crazies don't run into you- not really my thing. I like some nice blue water windsurfing then riding the wave in and jumping on the way out. I like north shore of maui the best, strong winds and real ground swell that turn into real waves. Like I say, I am a licensed mechanical engineer and what I have been doing for over 30 years, live by mechanical advantage and machine design. Know what you mean about taking care of your gear. Not one of my cars or trucks is less than 23 years old and they run like new with each nearly at 200k miles on odometer. I have brought my 31 year old yanmar raw water cooled engine back to life and she runs like a kitten. My windlass was seized up when I bought the boat, but found I don't need it, but a big bronze mooring bit at the bow, now that's got some uses in anchoring, towing, sea anchor, jack lines among others. On top of all that, a boat should sail rather than be at anchor.


----------



## aeventyr60

Way too much attitude in Hawaii, Bro! WSF there a few times, sure blue water, nice waves, everybody thinks their a local...my wave, my surf, my beach, my wind and this i got from the haoles...Forget it. I won't talk about all the crap going on at Ali Wai marina either....
yep, you'll be fine with your mooring bit, hopefully you'll get off the beaten track someday...


----------



## casey1999

aeventyr60 said:


> Way too much attitude in Hawaii, Bro! WSF there a few times, sure blue water, nice waves, everybody thinks their a local...my wave, my surf, my beach, my wind and this i got from the haoles...Forget it. I won't talk about all the crap going on at Ali Wai marina either....
> yep, you'll be fine with your mooring bit, hopefully you'll get off the beaten track someday...


A lot of people come here with your attitude, people sense your karma. If you treat them with respect, they will return the respect. Sometimes you need to respect them first, fair or not that is the way it is (in fact a lot of places in this world is like that), one needs to earn respect. Once your earn it, people would do anything for you. Me myself, never have seen what you describe, yet I hear the stories, and I am haole and been living here 10 years. BTW, I would stay clear of the Ala Wai Marina also (in fact all of Honolulu and Waikiki), I keep my boat at Haleiwa Small boat harbor on the north shore of Oahu, real laid back at that spot.


----------



## aeventyr60

Not my attitude Bro....guess i wasn't smoking enough of the maui waui dude...


----------



## bljones

> No. I mean yes...


That right there is the phrase that launched a thousand shotgun weddings.


----------



## casey1999

aeventyr60 said:


> Not my attitude Bro....guess i wasn't smoking enough of the maui waui dude...


That could have been your problem, actually looked down upon here. Good luck with your rehab. In ten years, never seen or heard anyone doing that stuff, only when you hang out with the wrong crowd.


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> Is that a polyconic chart? They have to use distance scales.


After doing a bit of reasearch. I would say we can calculate distance on a Polyconic projection chart using either a longitude and latitude calculation or a mesurement using a scale.

We can also do a calculation on a Mercator projection chart using a longitude-latitude calculation or a direct measurement by scale in the north-south direction. However, we cannot use a scale to measure distance on an arbitrary Mercator projection chart in an arbitrary direction.

Interestingly enough 1 inch in the east west direction at the top of the Mercator chart is not the same miles as 1 inch in east west direction at the bottom of the chart. Now thats the kind of map I want to use the nm on.

Probably the reason the Great lakes charts are polyconic is because a Mercator chart would distort the distances so bad that no mariner on the great lakes would accept it. Or maybe we just like to have charts we can actually use dividers to calculate distance.

Now given all that, it seems as long as we use Mecator projected charts at the lower scale factors.. say 50,000 instead of 1,200,000.. then the error in the distance measurement will be minimal.

However, given that the nautical mile as 1 arc minute is already in error, it should be no big deal to assume the additional error created by the mercator chart measurement is also acceptable.

On the other hand, a mile is always a mile..


----------



## BryceGTX

LandLocked66c said:


> Do they use nautical miles in space?
> 
> It appears they do!


"Scheduled for launch no earlier than June 2011, Aquarius/SAC-D is designed to measure ocean surface salinity for at least three years, repeating its global pattern every seven days. During its lifetime, the mission will provide monthly maps of global changes in ocean surface salinity with a resolution of 150 kilometers (93 miles), showing how salinity changes from month-to-month, season-to-season and year-to-year. The spacecraft will fly in a sun-synchronous orbit 657 kilometers (408 miles) above Earth's surface. "

Here NASA is talking about measuring the nautical domain with miles

It seems that NASA is just as confused about distance measurement as NOAA. NOAA gives us miles in the great lakes and some charts have miles in the atlantic and other places. And they give us nautical miles in other charts.

The only consistent measurement appears to be meters. Should we all use meters and kph.. how about wind speed in meters-per-second


----------



## chrisncate

It's not the length of the mile, it's how you sail it...


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> After doing a bit of reasearch. I would say we can calculate distance on a Polyconic projection chart using either a longitude and latitude calculation or a mesurement using a scale.
> 
> We can also do a calculation on a Mercator projection chart using a longitude-latitude calculation or a direct measurement by scale in the north-south direction. However, we cannot use a scale to measure distance on an arbitrary Mercator projection chart in an arbitrary direction.
> 
> Interestingly enough 1 inch in the east west direction at the top of the Mercator chart is not the same miles as 1 inch in east west direction at the bottom of the chart. Now thats the kind of map I want to use the nm on.
> 
> Probably the reason the Great lakes charts are polyconic is because a Mercator chart would distort the distances so bad that no mariner on the great lakes would accept it. Or maybe we just like to have charts we can actually use dividers to calculate distance.
> 
> Now given all that, it seems as long as we use Mecator projected charts at the lower scale factors.. say 50,000 instead of 1,200,000.. then the error in the distance measurement will be minimal.
> 
> However, given that the nautical mile as 1 arc minute is already in error, it should be no big deal to assume the additional error created by the mercator chart measurement is also acceptable.
> 
> On the other hand, a mile is always a mile..


I teach coastal navigation. I have done a lot of sailing (33,000 miles) and a lot research myself.

I have used charts with scales that range from 1:4,860,700 (San Diego to Aleutians and Hawaiian Islands) to 1:8,000 (Tsehum Harbour)

Distance is measured on a Mercator chart using the latitude scale. You cannot use the longitude scale to determine anything other than longitude.

The scales on the chart is not inches. It is latitude and longitude. While latitude is somewhat constant as the parallels are parallel, meridians of longitude convergence at the poles.

And I actually use dividers to measure distance, using the latitude scale only.

As a Canadian, I am very familiar with polyconic charts, almost all maps of Canada are polyconic. They retain shape a little better than Mercator projections.

You might wish to read Mercator: The Man Who Mapped the Planet. Then you might understand how brilliant this concept was and how important it is to the world of marine navigation.

Actually there are numerous miles:

Statute
Nautical
Sea
Roman
Arab 
Danish
Portuguese
Russian 
Croatian
Irish
Scottish
Radar

I have not sailed the Great Lakes, but I did understand the charts are polyconic.

The West Coast of Canada uses primarily Mercator projections with the exception of a few SMALL areas, such as Sea Otter Cove.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> "Scheduled for launch no earlier than June 2011, Aquarius/SAC-D is designed to measure ocean surface salinity for at least three years, repeating its global pattern every seven days. During its lifetime, the mission will provide monthly maps of global changes in ocean surface salinity with a resolution of 150 kilometers (93 miles), showing how salinity changes from month-to-month, season-to-season and year-to-year. The spacecraft will fly in a sun-synchronous orbit 657 kilometers (408 miles) above Earth's surface. "
> 
> Here NASA is talking about measuring the nautical domain with miles


Actually they are measuring in kilometers, an SI unit. Only the US, Myanmar, and Liberia have not adopted that standard. The scientific world has.



> It seems that NASA is just as confused about distance measurement as NOAA. NOAA gives us miles in the great lakes and some charts have miles in the atlantic and other places. And they give us nautical miles in other charts.
> 
> The only consistent measurement appears to be meters. Should we all use meters and kph.. how about wind speed in meters-per-second


Meteorologists actually use meters per second for wind speed.

The nautical world uses the nautical mile.



> The nautical mile (symbol M, NM or nmi) is a unit of length that is about one minute of arc of latitude along any meridian, but is approximately one minute of arc of longitude only at the equator. By international agreement it is exactly 1,852 metres (approximately 6,076 feet).
> It is a non-SI unit (although accepted for use in the International System of Units by the BIPM) used especially by navigators in the shipping and aviation industries,[1] and also in polar exploration. It is commonly used in international law and treaties, especially regarding the limits of territorial waters. It developed from the sea mile and the related geographical mile.
> The nautical mile remains in use by sea and air navigators worldwide because of its convenience when working with charts. Most nautical charts are constructed on the Mercator projection whose scale varies by approximately a factor of six from the equator to 80° north or south latitude. It is, therefore, impossible to show a single linear scale for use on charts on scales smaller than about 1/80,000.[2] Since a nautical mile is, for practical navigation, the same as a minute of latitude, it is easy to measure a distance on a chart with dividers, using the latitude scale on the side of the chart directly to the east or west of the distance being measured.


Nautical mile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> Distance is measured on a Mercator chart using the latitude scale. You cannot use the longitude scale to determine anything other than longitude.
> 
> The scales on the chart is not inches. It is latitude and longitude. While latitude is somewhat constant as the parallels are parallel, meridians of longitude convergence at the poles.
> 
> And I actually use dividers to measure distance, using the latitude scale only.


Good to see we are in agreement. My only comment is that if you use dividers to measure at the top of the chart, that same divider setting is a different distance at the bottom of the chart for east west directions for a Mercator projection chart.. YES??

However, I did not say the scale is inches. I said "1 inch on the chart".


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> Meteorologists actually use meters per second for wind speed.


LOL.. that's why I said it.. My wind speed can be set to units of Knots or m/s. I know a few German sailors that often use m/s.



> The nautical world uses the nautical mile.


Well that settles it.. I am not part of the nautical world.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> Good to see we are in agreement. My only comment is that if you use dividers to measure at the top of the chart, that same divider setting is a different distance at the bottom of the chart for east west directions for a Mercator projection chart.. YES??


It is also different on any projection, other than a oblate ellipsoid globe.

An example

I use Canadian chart 3462 to teach my nav class. It is a 1:80,000 chart at 49 degree 30 minutes north; which is not on the chart. You must use that latitude scale to measure distance.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> LOL.. that's why I said it.. My wind speed can be set to units of Knots or m/s. I know a few German sailors that often use m/s.


NOAA uses knots for nautical wind speeds, as does Environment Canada


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> It is also different on any projection, other than a oblate ellipsoid globe.


It is a particular problem for a Mercator projection chart because the chart shows the meridians as parallel. Clearly that cannot be because the meridians get closer together on an oblate ellipsoid as we move more northerly from the equator. So on the same chart, the same chart distance east to west at the top versus the bottom yeilds different actual distances.

On the other hand, the polyconic chart shows the meridians slowly converging as we go north on the chart... as we expect. Now east west measurements are consistent. So we can measure with a scale, dividers or whatever you chose at any angle (east-west, north-south) to get a reasonable distance.

The only true way to get arbitrary distance on a Mercator chart is to calculate a difference between longitude/latitude positions over a spherical or oblate ellipsoid. We can also use this same calculation on a polyconic chart.

The big benefit of a Mercator projection chart is not the ability to determine distance, but rather its ability to determine direction and course.

The big benefit of a polyconic chart is to determine distance. All chart projections have their benefits. And no one projection has all benefits.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> The big benefit of a Mercator projection chart is not the ability to determine distance, but rather its ability to determine direction and course.


My biggest concern



> The big benefit of a polyconic chart is to determine distance.





> It still needs distance scale, unlike a Mercator
> 
> All chart projections have their benefits. And no one projection has all benefits.


Yep.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> On the other hand, the polyconic chart shows the meridians slowly converging as we go north on the chart... as we expect. Now east west measurements are consistent. So we can measure with a scale, dividers or whatever you chose at any angle (east-west, north-south) to get a reasonable distance.


How would you measure east -west distances on the map of Canada? The parallels are curved.


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> How would you measure east -west distances on the map of Canada? The parallels are curved.


Just because the parallels are curved does not mean you cannot measure east-west directions. It only means the path will not follow a parallel. Which is not something we want to do anyways.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> Just because the parallels are curved does not mean you cannot measure east-west directions. It only means the path will not follow a parallel. Which is not something we want to do anyways.


East - west, by definition, follows a parallel.



> Curves of constant latitude on the Earth (running east-west) are referred to as lines of latitude.


Latitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> East - west, by definition, follows a parallel.


Sematics.. we have not even begun to determine a compass course across Canada untill we consider the magnetic deviation. That will force us to run a compass course a short distance along the rhumb. Then plot a new compass course. If I prefer to use the distance I measure on the chart.

Now if we choose our rhumb to be on a parallel, we still have to run short compass runs and then correct for magnetic deviation.

I have needed to do this even in the great lakes due to the magnetic deviation on some 60 mile runs.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> Sematics.. we have not even begun to determine a compass course across Canada untill we consider the magnetic deviation. That will force us to run a compass course a short distance along the rhumb. Then plot a new compass course. If I prefer to use the distance I measure on the chart.
> 
> Now if we choose our rhumb to be on a parallel, we still have to run short compass runs and then correct for magnetic deviation.
> 
> I have needed to do this even in the great lakes due to the magnetic deviation on some 60 mile runs.


You are joking, right?

Distance has nothing to do with deviation.

Deviation is the deflection of the ship's compass due to the magnetic influences on the boat.

Magnetic deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> You are joking, right?


You are right.. it should be magnetic variation.. but then you knew that didn't you?


----------



## chrisncate

I smell nerds...


----------



## LandLocked66c




----------



## TQA

Bit of thread drift here, must be the magnetic deviation.


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> You are right.. it should be magnetic variation.. but then you knew that didn't you?


Variation has nothing to do with measuring distances. It is used to determine courses.

From Bowditch



> Measure distances using the chart's latitude scale.
> Although not technically true, assuming that one minute of
> latitude equals one nautical mile introduces no significant
> error. Since the Mercator chart's latitude scale expands as
> latitude increases, on small scale charts one must measure
> distances on the latitude scale closest to the area of interest,
> that is, at the same latitude, or directly to the side. On large
> scale charts, such as harbor charts, one can use either the
> latitude scale or the distance scale provided. To measure long
> distances on small-scale charts, break the distance into a
> number of segments and measure each segment at its midlatitude


----------



## Nautichthys

TQA said:


> Bit of thread drift here, must be the magnetic deviation.


Yep. I think technically though it's set, not drift, since it's mainly the direction we're concerned about:

Set and drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do agree about the deviants, myself included.


----------



## aeventyr60

I like the drift part, mostly aimlessly across the sea. Tomorrow diving in the south china sea, I'd tell you but then it would set this thread adrift.....


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> Variation has nothing to do with measuring distances. It is used to determine courses.


Still waiting for a distance measure?


----------



## BryceGTX

jackdale said:


> From Bowditch





> Measure distances using the chart's latitude scale.
> Although not technically true, assuming that one minute of
> latitude equals one nautical mile introduces no significant
> error. Since the Mercator chart's latitude scale expands as
> latitude increases, on small scale charts one must measure
> distances on the latitude scale closest to the area of interest,
> that is, at the same latitude, or directly to the side. On large
> scale charts, such as harbor charts, one can use either the
> latitude scale or the distance scale provided. To measure long
> distances on small-scale charts, break the distance into a
> number of segments and measure each segment at its midlatitude


What critical point is missing from this?


----------



## jackdale

BryceGTX said:


> What critical point is missing from this?


Do tell.


----------



## bljones

FFS, you two, get a room!


----------



## jackdale

bljones said:


> FFS, you two, get a room!


OK let's do this PM.


----------



## BryceGTX

bljones said:


> FFS, you two, get a room!


Just a bit of patience please..

The missing point from the post is a consideration of the errors using the approximations that are suggested. Anytime someone says "no significant error", my first question is what is the error..



> Although not technically true, assuming that one minute of
> latitude equals one nautical mile introduces no significant
> error.


The first source of error is this assumption. The agreed upon distance for one nautical mile is 1852 meters. The distance near the equator of a minute of arc is 1843 meters. And it does not change linearly with angle as we go north. So near Florida, the error is 10 meters in 1852 or about 0.54%.

To put this into numbers, think of 1 mile in 200 miles. So if we are happy with being off by 1 mile in a 200 mile distance, then this error is fine.



> Since the Mercator chart's latitude scale expands as
> latitude increases, on small scale charts one must measure
> distances on the latitude scale closest to the area of interest,
> that is, at the same latitude, or directly to the side.


In this case, we should first consider what the true distance is, then we can determine the error. To calculate the true distance in an arbitrary direction, we must use the Mercatorial Principal using the Meridional parts. The best description of how to do this is to download an old copy of the "American Practical Navigator" from google books to get a detailed explaination of the formulas. Then down load the latest version from below to get the most up-to-date Meridional Parts tables. To calculate the distance described above, we must recognize, this description is a description of mid-latitude sailing calculated graphically.

http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=msi_portal_page_62&pubCode=0002

The easiest way to compare the error is to consider the distance diagonally between two points opposite on a mercator chart. I chose the chart off of Florida. 76W, 28N to 74W, 26N. This is 2 degrees east-west and two degrees north-south.

Using the calculations outlined in the "American Practical Navigator", we get the following values:
Course = 41.85 degrees
Distance = 161.08 nautical miles
Departure = 107.46 nautical miles

Applying the mid-latitude sailing calculation, we get the following values:
Course = 41.70 degrees
Distance = 160.72 nautical miles
Departure = 106.92 miles

We see that the distance is only in error by 0.16 miles or about 0.1%. This is a quite good error. No doubt the transcription error caused by using the dividers will be more than this. A transcription error could result from not measuring exactly at the mid-latitude in addition to measurement along the rhumb.



> To measure long
> distances on small-scale charts, break the distance into a
> number of segments and measure each segment at its midlatitude


This error is affected by both errors above, plus a transcription error caused by measuring multiple different diatances using dividers. Consider if we can place our dividers within 10 thousandths on the chart. Each point of the divider is off by 10 thousandths. Then we transcribe that distance to our rhumb line. We have an additional 10 thousandths on each point of the divider.

So now we have a possible total error of 40 thousandths. Consider that each segment is 1 inch long. Our error is then 4%. This error is 8 miles in 200 miles.

We could be off by 8 miles plus 1 mile or 9 miles out of 200 miles. This represents a total error of about 5% (at Florida) mostly due to transcription errors.

Question is, do we consider this insignificant?


----------



## fryewe

*What bl said...*

Wow.

Been navigating with dividers and nautical slide rule on charts of the world for 40 plus years. Teaching nav. Being taught nav. Never ran aground or hit anything I wasn't trying to hit. Never got lost. Never have heard (or seen, in this case) a conversation about it like this.

Navigation is a practical skill. Simplicity and good enough are key parameters of its design.

Choose the right chart. Use knots. Use nautical miles. Get and plot fixes at appropriate intervals. Take soundings when possible. Leave dimensional analysis to the classroom and drafting tables.


----------



## MikeWhy

It's good to go through the exercise, to better understand the accuracy afforded by printed charts. It's also good to keep in mind everything else that would be relevant if you're measuring distance. In the end, even distances measured on the crappy charts are better than everything else involved.

The practical application of distance measurements on a chart is to solve time and distance equations. Everything else conspires against accuracy here. Set and drift, knotmeter error, compass deviation, leeway, variable winds and sea state, changes in variation over time, ... Charted distance is the least of your problems.

For long distances, straight spherical trig is close enough for planning. If you need closer, you can apply corrections for oblateness. The simplest way to do that is to punch latitude and longitude into a specialized calculator (the GPS). The problem is, your 1962 chart for sure isn't referenced to the same coordinate system.

Map projections have known limitations. Nigel Calder's "How to Read a Nautical Chart" explains in excruciating detail the problems and limitations, basically answering the questions you're raising, as well as questions you haven't thought to ask yet. A good text on cartography would be useful background. Wikipedia pages on WGS84 and map projections might be more accessible for a first look at the size of the problem.

Amazon.com: How to Read a Nautical Chart : A Complete Guide to the Symbols, Abbreviations, and Data Displayed on Nautical Charts (0639785802174): Nigel Calder: Books


----------



## BryceGTX

MikeWhy said:


> For long distances, straight spherical trig is close enough for planning. If you need closer, you can apply corrections for oblateness. The simplest way to do that is to punch latitude and longitude into a specialized calculator (the GPS).


That makes sense, I agree, it would seem quite simple to apply a correction to nm based on the parallel for the minute-to-nm conversion.

For cases of high latitudes, or higher precision is required for mid-latitude sailing, there is a correction factor to adust the mid latitude direction to reduce the error caused by the an arithmetic mid latitude. THis table is given in the "American Practical Navigator"

I am curious why for distance along the parallel, why not simply multiply the minute-to-nm along the parallel by the cos of the parallel to get distance along the parallel, rather than a somewhat error prone measurement and transcription of the meridian?

It turns out this calculation is just fine as long as the mid-latitude parallel is used rather than the parallel colinear with the departure. The reason is, that the course is defined by two points of a trapazoid rather than two points of a rectangle. In such case, the midlatitude defines the width of an equivalent rectangle.

Then given the above calculation, I wondered why any one would calculate angular distance using piecewise fit when a square root of the sum of the squares is so much simpler, faster and considerably more accurate.

This calculation is fine as long as the mid latitude distance is used. Then it is equivalent to mid-latitude sailing. However, the most accurate way to calculate is with the Mercator Principal using meridional parts.

A good source is "The American Practical Navigator"

http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=msi_portal_page_62&pubCode=0002

A good source for a more detailed set of equations is to look at an older version of the above from google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ho...&resnum=9&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false



> Map projections have known limitations. Nigel Calder's "How to Read a Nautical Chart" explains in excruciating detail the problems and limitations, basically answering the questions you're raising, as well as questions you haven't thought to ask yet.


I am curious to look at this reference. I have Chapmans, but it does not provide any where near the detail that we are discussing.


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> 2. At least these people were out doing somthing, and not living in a condo and watching TV or playing video games all the time.


Doesn't look like they were doing much sailing of late, according to their blog:

***************************************Bella - Home

So, how many people who have "been sailing for 20 years" do you suppose are under the impression that ships usually anchor facing a particular direction, or would still refer to "heeling" as "leaning over"?



> I had a blast sailing around huge cargo ships in Norfolk (they were anchored facing east, go figure).
> 
> ok ok, I grounded again, last night, over shot the marina entrance, good thing I think, we were safe and didn't lean over, it was difficult to sleep though, well enough for now untill the next 'event'.


----------



## MikeWhy

The cat wrote it, maybe?

I absolutely hate being the apologist for anyone, but yer all looking for reasons to not like the guy.


----------



## PorFin

MikeWhy said:


> The cat wrote it, maybe?
> 
> I absolutely hate being the apologist for anyone, but yer all looking for reasons to not like the guy.


+1. This is getting stale, and the "holier than thou" attitudes are growing tiresome. I don't understand why some folks enjoy schadenfreude as much as they do.

I feel sorry for them, even if they were the architects of their own troubles. No need to run them down any more than they already are.

Jon -- if it will get you to stop, then you are hereby officially the smartest, wisest, most experienced, and best all round sailor I've ever known or will ever meet. Good enough for you?


----------



## MikeWhy

(Jon has a lot to contribute. Getting him riled is the surest way to learn something.  )


----------



## JonEisberg

PorFin said:


> +1. This is getting stale, and the "holier than thou" attitudes are growing tiresome. I don't understand why some folks enjoy schadenfreude as much as they do.
> 
> I feel sorry for them, even if they were the architects of their own troubles. No need to run them down any more than they already are.
> 
> Jon -- if it will get you to stop, then you are hereby officially the smartest, wisest, most experienced, and best all round sailor I've ever known or will ever meet. Good enough for you?


Thanks, but you would be quite mistaken about that, of course... (grin)

Given the level of interest in this story, I thought some might be curious to view their blog...

It corrects some misinformation previously reported (they departed Florida in July of 2010, and not this summer, for example)

And it would appear to confirm what some of us have suspected, the boat was primarily a _dwelling_, rather than a boat seeing regular use and ready to outrun a major storm... And, obviously, not under the command of a skipper with 20 years of sailing experience, as originally claimed...

Not to mention, his blog answers the question so many have asked - what sort of anchors was he using? (grin)


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks, but you would be quite mistaken about that, of course... (grin)
> 
> Given the level of interest in this story, I thought some might be curious to view their blog...
> 
> It corrects some misinformation previously reported (they departed Florida in July of 2010, and not this summer, for example)
> 
> And it would appear to confirm what some of us have suspected, the boat was primarily a _dwelling_, rather than a boat seeing regular use and ready to outrun a major storm... And, obviously, not under the command of a skipper with 20 years of sailing experience, as originally claimed...
> 
> Not to mention, his blog answers the question so many have asked - what sort of anchors was he using? (grin)


I am a little confused, is the boats name "Bella" or "Maybe Tomorrow"? From what I see Mike did do some sailing. Actually probably a lot more than most people that call themselves "sailors". Blog has not been updated for a while so leaves some questions. Looks like he has had is share of problems that some routine maintenace and some more sailing experience/lessons would take care of. Looks like the boat has seen more use than the average boat. Take a look at the boats at your marina, I'll bet 50% only move once a year or less.


----------



## CalebD

Yes, these were written a number of years ago but I am sure that Jon's cat did not write them:
An Insider's ICW | Cruising World
Captain Jon's Murderers' Row | Cruising World
Through the Croatian Looking Glass | Cruising World
The Winter Thaw | Cruising World

So all I want to know is when you (Jon) are heading down to the Bahamas again? November or December?


----------



## JonEisberg

CalebD said:


> So all I want to know is when you (Jon) are heading down to the Bahamas again? November or December?


November??? You're kidding, right? Maybe in my next life, will I be able to head south with my own boat that early in the fall... (grin)

Once again, probably won't be until close to or after the Holidays before I get going - weather permitting, of course...

So, when are YOU gonna make the trip?


----------



## JonEisberg

chrisncate said:


> Are you going south on the ICW this year Jon? Just wondering..


Well, I plan to head south, but hopefully not too much via The Ditch... South of Morehead City, I try to stay outside as much as possible, but of course the Weather Gods usually have something to say about that during the winter...

As much as I love my engine, doesn't mean I enjoy motoring... (grin) And as much as I love the Waterway, given the late start I typically get headed south, I'd rather be making tracks under sail outside...


----------



## xymotic

And the plot Thickens:
Sailboat beached during Irene destroyed by fire


----------



## rgscpat

Given that most cats are decent navigators, I don't think Meka the cat was in charge or should be blamed for the wreck of the Hunter.

Sailing this boat with this crew off the anchor would seem unlikely to have succeeded. 

Cutting the chain with an angle grinder in any sort of wind and seaway seems extremely unlikely to work. 

The modern Hunters may actually be better built and engineered than the ones of the 80s; familiarity with the older models might account for some "bashing". 

After slogging through this and other threads and related articles, it seems we still don't have answers to some basic questions about what happened. Do we know exactly why the boat left the marina initially and its exact condition? Also, do we know much about Michael's sailing experience before he got the boat in January 2010 (beyond the "20 years")? 

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether some of the speculation is subject to set, drift, leeway, deviation, variation, projection or scale error. But it does seem to at least have plenty of scope out.


----------



## melee401

well he is dead now.
A final posting on is FB by a friend points out his body was found in a marina. Despite any and all mistakes he may have made in his life he was sailor who loved sailing. RIP Capt,,,,,fair winds and following seas.


----------



## randyrhines

smackdaddy said:


> Anybody know what make of boat that is?


Looks like one of those Hunter special offshore models......


----------

