# Sailboat perishes off Hatteras, USCG rescues crew



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Here is a more detailed article about the rescue of Andante II off Hatteras, during the Nor'easter in early March. Two experienced delivery captains ended up calling for a USCG rescue after rebuffed attempts to reach Pamlico Sound through Ocracoke, Hatteras, and Oregon Inlet.

Sailboat knocked down, lost diesel engine power, amidst 30 foot waves and gale conditions. Anyone know what kind of boat this is?

Survivors of March 6 shipwreck say they stand by the choices they made. - Page 3 - baltimoresun.com


----------



## jsaronson (Dec 13, 2011)

Artilce said it was an IP41, didn't it?
They made some questionable choices and didn't know a major inlet was closed.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Two of our delivery captains here on SailNet advise against all three of the inlets they wished to enter, even in calm conditions.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

The article says it is an Island Packet SP cruiser.


----------



## gtod25 (Aug 5, 2000)

""Even my father has said, 'Why go out in those conditions? Why not wait a few days?'" recalled Southward."

Duh!, on an Island Packet SP cruiser, which was designed for the ICW.


----------



## jsaronson (Dec 13, 2011)

Video of the rescue:


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

There have many posts on SailNet about Island Packets being blue-water boats. I don't get it.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

That part of Atlantic can be challenging even in good weather. I'm glad they got out of it alive.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

jameswilson29 said:


> There have many posts on SailNet about Island Packets being blue-water boats. I don't get it.


In 30 foot, breaking waves in a noreaster, even the toughest bluewater cruiser would likely get pummeled to the point of rescue.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

jameswilson29 said:


> There have many posts on SailNet about Island Packets being blue-water boats. I don't get it.


Not this boat Model Profile: Island Packet SP Cruiser


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

That's very confusing: they were experienced deliver skippers and went out of port with a not good forecast with half a tank of fuel, enough to reach destination if the boat could make 6K??????

And then it seems they started to run out of fuel because they could not make that speed motoring???? What about sailing? They don't talk about huge winds 40mph???? The boat is bouncing around because it is not stabilized and tied to a side by small storm sails. Very confusing all that.


----------



## Shinook (Jul 13, 2012)

jameswilson29 said:


> There have many posts on SailNet about Island Packets being blue-water boats. I don't get it.


The boat seemed fine to me and it doesn't sound like it was sinking.



> Thirty-eight hours later, a Coast Guard helicopter rescued them off Cape Lookout, N.C., amid pounding rain, 55-knot winds, 30-foot waves and the sensation, Southward said, that the ocean was tossing their 15-ton craft, Andante II, "like a cork in a hot tub."


How many boats would you want to be in those conditions in? How many would still be floating?

Sounds like they abandoned to reduce the risk, which wasn't a bad decision, but the fact the boat was still floating, had her rig, and hadn't capsized speaks highly of her, IMO anyway.


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

That was an incredible video, man, those USCG people are awesome!!!!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Waiting to see if jon or Dave know these delivery skippers. S/V Audsicious might as he is from Annapolis.

I dont have their experinece but I question anyones judgement to run Oregon Inlet even on a calm day. The other two Hatteras and Okrakoke are extremely dangerous also and have shifting bouys. I have gone out Okrakoke once in a large power boat and would never attempt it in a sailboat in any weather.

March,,,the season on Noreeasters.....passing around Hatterass.... storm potentiallly in a day.........not sound judgement IMHO.

I am glad they are alive.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

They were professionals....just doing the job that only professionals can do.

Let's see, the owner is out of a nice boat....half a million dollars. Or, perhaps it's the insurance company, which will increase rates the rest of us have to pay to cover their losses on such situations.

I wonder if the "professionals" will bill the owner for their services? And whether they will pay the Coast Guard for the rescue? And how much will the rescue swimmer get?

Now, I don't know much about blue water sailing, being just an inshore sailor, but from their own description, these professionals didn't seem very professional. Kind of stupid, actually. What was the urgency to sail with the forcast they had, why didn't they go inside down the ICW, how about fuel arrangements, and securing the boat so that things don't fly around?


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

night0wl said:


> In 30 foot, breaking waves in a noreaster, even the toughest bluewater cruiser would likely get pummeled to the point of rescue.


Really? So no one has ever survived those conditions?

Do you believe in summoning the USCG just because you are "pummeled"?

How about waiting until the boat is sinking, or is that too inconvenient?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Why did they not just put the sails up and head out to open water instead of risking the CG's lives in a dangerous night rescue. They say they are sailors- then sail......


The conditions do not look that bad, paper says 40 knot wind and 10 foot seas. That is a day sail. Why does the sailor say he was lifted 30 feet but when you see video, you do not see anything rising and falling 30 feet?


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

i will bet the salvage guys are already towing it in still floating. 1/2 mil for a days work


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

hubris comes to mind when taking a motor sailor out into a know storm ?


----------



## NautiG (Apr 23, 2007)

Clowns!

*Decided to sail with a questionable forecast (nor'easter in March!!?!) into the gulf stream and into the graveyard of the Atlantic.

*Motored. Didn't sail, hove to or try to ride out the storm in open water.

*Tried to enter an inlet during a storm. And the inlets mentioned aren't even recommended under calm conditions for a sailboat.

*Could have easily taken a different route with little loss of time. The ICW is right there. Many sailors take it to Beaufort and then pop out to the ocean, even when they could safely transit via the ocean.


The captain is really a graduate of the Merchant Marine academy and an experienced delivery captain? Doesn't sound like it. 

I'm not saying that I haven't made mistakes sailing. We all do. But it's this kind of ignorance that often leads to a dangerous Coast Guard rescue and loss of a half million dollar boat. 

Scott
Gemini Catamaran Split Decision


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

NautiG said:


> Clowns!
> 
> *Decided to sail with a questionable forecast (nor'easter in March!!?!) into the gulf stream and into the graveyard of the Atlantic.
> 
> ...


Also need to add they depended on their IPOD for weather forecast while at sea.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Plus, I am fairly certain their lines were not led back to the cockpit!


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

jameswilson29 said:


> Plus, I am fairly certain their lines were not led back to the cockpit!


No need for lines, looks like they were motoring.

Why did they not top off the fuel tanks prior to departure? Looks like they planned to motor most of the time. Would help to not loose fuel suction and they are lucky the rough weather did not churn up the crud in the tanks and clog the fuel filters.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

jsaronson said:


> Artilce said it was an IP41, didn't it?
> They made some questionable choices and didn't know a major inlet was closed.


From reading the article it seems both outlets were open earlier and only closed while they were in route to them, and that the CG would actually meet them at the entrance to guide them in. Looks like conditions deteriorated faster than expected.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

I suspect they avoided heading farther offshore because of their concern about entering the Gulf Stream during the storm.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

From Sun Paper:
"Even my father has said, 'Why go out in those conditions? Why not wait a few days?'" recalled Southward.

"*As professionals*, *our job is to deliver the vessel* as quickly and safely as possible," Schoenberger said.

Looks like they are no longer professionals.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

casey1999 said:


> Why did they not just put the sails up and head out to open water instead of risking the CG's lives in a dangerous night rescue. They say they are sailors- then sail......
> 
> The conditions do not look that bad, paper says 40 knot wind and 10 foot seas. That is a day sail. Why does the sailor say he was lifted 30 feet but when you see video, you do not see anything rising and falling 30 feet?


I wonder if they really knew much about sailboats. We had a captain for my agency who moved a sailboat we had seized. He was doing fine, motoring it in, until he put it in reverse, and couldn't understand why a 40 HP motor could stop a 20 ton vessel going six knots, in twenty feet. (Hey, it always worked when their was 1000 horsepower).

The concrete dock stopped it, only taking a medium sized chunk out of the bow.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Wow... just, _WOW_... Where does one even _begin?_



chef2sail said:


> Waiting to see if jon or Dave know these delivery skippers.


Nope, not me... I would remember if I had ever seen a yacht delivery captain who weighed 300 pounds...

Actually, one of the most surprising aspect of this sorry saga, is that these fools bypassed the legendary 32 oz. Prime Rib dinner at Coinjock Marina, in favor of the much longer route out around Hatteras...



NCC320 said:


> They were professionals....just doing the job that only professionals can do.


Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth... Rarely does one see an example of a more profound ignorance and dismissal of the risks of rounding Cape Hatteras in the winter. The fact that they even considered any of those inlets as viable bail-out options conclusively eliminates the possibility that they were anything remotely akin to "experienced East coast delivery captains". Despite the fact they may have possessed some sort of ticket from the Merchant Marine Academy, doesn't make some reporter's description accurate... _ANYONE_ can say they are a 'delivery captain', after all, plenty of folks out there making such a claim...



casey1999 said:


> Also need to add they depended on their IPOD for weather forecast while at sea.


Yeah, yet another example of an "advances in technology (that) only enhance safety, increase abilities and add enjoyment... And mean an increase in "seamanship" ..." (grin)



> "The storm went off-******", he said.


Yeah, don't you just hate it when that happens? Who'd a thunk _THAT_ could ever occur? "Hey, although a serious winter storm was drawing a bead on Hatteras before we would make it around Cape Lookout and cack into Morehead, my iPhone told me the 'waves' would be 'bumpy, but manageable'..."

Again, absolutely mind-boggling that a 'professsional mariner' would expect the most powerful winter storm of 2013 to that point, to behave precisely as forecast in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras...



> By 10 a.m. they'd pulled within a mile and a half - they could see the beach houses of Hatteras village.
> 
> "In our minds, this is almost over," Schoenberger said. "In an hour, we'll be standing on the deck with a cold drink."


One really has to wonder whether these clowns have ever run an East coast inlet... To be off Hatteras Inlet in a developing winter storm, and assume a safe entry is a done deal, or virtually guaranteed, well... Seriously?



> The choices were now two: eight hours north with a following sea to Oregon Inlet, or 12 hours into gale-force winds to Morehead City.
> 
> They headed north, the waves 14 feet high and breaking at the crests. An hour later came another call: "Andante, we have to tell you that Oregon Inlet has been closed to navigation."
> 
> ...


Actually, there may have been another option - to have run off to the north, and back towards Cape Henry and the Chesapeake Entrance...



casey1999 said:


> Why did they not just put the sails up and head out to open water instead of risking the CG's lives in a dangerous night rescue. They say they are sailors- then sail......
> 
> The conditions do not look that bad, paper says 40 knot wind and 10 foot seas. That is a day sail. Why does the sailor say he was lifted 30 feet but when you see video, you do not see anything rising and falling 30 feet?


Actually, after viewing the degree to which that boat is laid over on her ear by some of the gusts by the windage of the rig and freeboard/pilothouse alone, not sure unfurling any sail in those conditions on that thing would have been a particularly good idea... (grin)



jameswilson29 said:


> Plus, I am fairly certain their lines were not led back to the cockpit!


The first IP SP Kroozer I saw at the boat show a few years ago remains the only 'sailboat' I've ever seen with jib sheets led thru rope clutches in the aft cockpit... Not exactly the sort of rig I'd choose to attempt to beat a major winter storm out around Hatteras...

I could go on, and I no doubt will... (grin) Sure would love to hear their rationale for undertaking such a voyage, in such a boat that was ICW-capable, in the face of such weather, via a route offshore that was far longer than going south to Morehead inside on The Ditch... I'm sorry, but placing the lives of CG Rescue Swimmers and helo crews in such danger by the willful excercise of such stupidity, well... if it does not verge on the criminal, it certainly qualifies as amoral, in my book...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Their being out there shows a complete lack of knowledge of the most elemental common sense of sailing. "Delivery captains?".....please! Maybe they delivered pizzas somewhere.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

Jon, don't hold back, tell us what you really think about this. Seriously, to describe these guys as 'professionals' is ludicrous. Just so many bad decisions. They are extremely lucky to be alive.


----------



## canucksailorguy (Mar 2, 2006)

I sat at the docks at Great Bridge on the south side of the lock during this storm and watched the water drop over two feet due to the wind. Even inland, it was nasty. A delivery captain who chooses to go around Hatteras rather than take the ICW to Beaufort is not very bright in the first place, and in the face of that forecast - and that storm was forecast well in advance - needs to be examined for an IQ deficiency.
The article says "4 - 6 foot seas". No way. I took a sound recording of that forecast for my blog - the forecast was for 22 foot plus seas. No idea where they got their forecast from, unless they were mistakenly listening to the Albermarle Sound forecast, or the lower Chesapeake Bay. Even Pamlico sound was forecast 4 - 6 feet, so maybe that was it.
And as noted here, anyone who knows anything about that stretch of coast knows those are not sailboat inlets along there - the smart move was south to the Beaufort inlet or north back to the Chesapeake. 
This guy may have some experience, but he seems to lack good sense.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

So any news of what happened to the boat? Maybe heading to Europe?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I'd be curious to see what references these guys provide, if they advertise their services online or somewhere else. Seems they haven't had much experience with this kind of delivery. Had they even done an offshore delivery before? It seems pretty obvious that they've never sailed and only done power boats, where they may have had the benefit of greater power (and a hull designed to be more stable under power) to muscle their boat through difficult conditions.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

Is it possible that the owner offered a fixed amount for delivering the boat to FL? 
Say an amount like $3 - $5K. Is this kind of arrangement ever used for deliveries or is it almost always a per diem?

Sheer speculation but if it were a lump sum our intrepid yah... delivery captains decide to maximize their earnings per day by trying to do it as fast as possible by going outside straight down the coast instead of winding through the ICW.

With a water draft of 3'8" (< 4') I can't quite fathom what would induce them to have gone outside instead of using the ditch. There must have been some sort of motivation, however misguided.


----------



## Shinook (Jul 13, 2012)

CalebD said:


> Sheer speculation but if it were a lump sum our intrepid yah... delivery captains decide to maximize their earnings per day by trying to do it as fast as possible by going outside straight down the coast instead of winding through the ICW.
> 
> With a water draft of 3'8" (< 4') I can't quite fathom what would induce them to have gone outside instead of using the ditch. There must have been some sort of motivation, however misguided.


I think you answered your own question, the ICW is slow and there isn't much space. If you have a crew and experience, I don't know why you wouldn't go offshore for a couple of days, weather permitting of course.

That said, I think I'd soak up the time aboard a $500k boat as much as I could


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Just as in the "Bounty" situation, I see a lawsuit emerging from this fiasco.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

CalebD said:


> Is it possible that the owner offered a fixed amount for delivering the boat to FL?
> Say an amount like $3 - $5K. Is this kind of arrangement ever used for deliveries or is it almost always a per diem?
> 
> Sheer speculation but if it were a lump sum our intrepid yah... delivery captains decide to maximize their earnings per day by trying to do it as fast as possible by going outside straight down the coast instead of winding through the ICW.
> ...


An attempt to maximize their per diem earnings on a flat rate delivery might been their possible rationale for going around Hatteras - _IF, in fact, one would save a considerable amount of time and distance by doing so..._

However, it is quite the opposite... From Mile 0, the inside distance on the ICW to Morehead (where they would need to re-fuel that Island Packet trawler) is 204 statute miles... The distance out around Hatteras, Cape Lookout shoals, and back into Morehead is *70 statute miles longer*... The discrepancy from Hampton Roads/Thimble Shoals would be slightly less, but the fact that the outside distance is so much longer for a boat planning a stop in Morehead or Beaufort is what makes their choice particularly difficult to fathom, to me...

Sure, running the gauntlet of bridges on the first 20 miles of the Ditch can involve considerable delays, the primary reason why I often choose to do so at night, when they all open on demand... That's the only rationale I can come up with, these guys were afraid of running the ICW at night, and thought they'd reach Morehead sooner by running non-stop outside...

Again, difficult to fathom, considering the fact that once one makes it thru the industrialized section of the Elizabeth River to Great Bridge at Mile 12, the next 190 SM to Morehead is by far the easiest section of the entire Waterway to run after dark, in my opinion...


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

I wonder if that half million dollar boat had belonged to them, would they have still have attempted an outside trip in the face of the weather warnings? I am sure that there are lots of skilled, real professionals out there who deliver boats promptly, efficiently, and without damage. We never hear about them because there's nothing out of the ordinary...just a job completed without incident. But, in the two sailing magazines that I take, and, to a degree, on some of these forums, it seems that a high percentage of articles are "listen to me, here's what went wrong on my bluewater delivery...boats aren't up to standard, or weren't maintained properly". Never the delivery person's fault. Generally, the boats being delivered are really nice, expensive boats. Look down at the end of the article and usually article will have a little blurb about the delivery person/author and his boat. Most of the time, his personal boat is some old shoe not worth very much. I think some of these guys may intentionally stress the boats they are delivering....after all, if it breaks, they don't have to pay for it. Several years ago, one wrote an article about a 1600 mile offshore delivery of a friend's ten year old Catalina 320. That's the boat I have....I don't pretend that it is bluewater...I bought it for inshore boating, but I read the article to see what he would say. He trashed the C320 because a 10 year old boat had some port leaks...he didn't check before going out, engine was noisy, he had trouble heaving to and wound up on a forereach in the right direction, and lots of things like autopilots that he installed for the trip failed. Just as he suspected, it wasn't a good boat for offshore, and his piece of junk was. But the really telling thing was, the owner aranged insurance for the trip for up to 200 miles off shore....the delivery man/author promptly decided to go further out than that, just because he wanted to....not avoiding a storm. I think a lot of these guys would do differently if it was their boat.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> There have many posts on SailNet about Island Packets being blue-water boats. I don't get it.


I am not going to armchair QB these guys... I wasn't there at the time in those conditions. I'll leave it at that. Somewhere in the reading that I did, I picked up that these guys were getting paid $7K for the delivery, and that the owner is supportive of their efforts, and decision to ditch.

Island Packet DOES build SOME bluewater boats. However the SP Cruiser ain't one of 'em.

Essentially the SP cruiser is a trawler with a bigger mast and a sail;









These were introduced in 2008, and seem to be targeted at the crowd that can't decide if they want a sailboat, or a trawler (or a Winnebago). 41' LOA and 3' 8" draft, with 110HP diesel.

Not my cup of tea, but Island Packet seems to be selling a bunch of them. Prices in YW range from $300K to $625K.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

eherlihy said:


> .. and that the owner is supportive of their efforts, and decision to ditch...


So that means insurance will be covering this one?

I hope it is not Boat/US or my insurance will be going up next year thanks to these knuckleheads...


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

jameswilson29 said:


> So that means insurance will be covering this one?
> 
> I hope it is not Boat/US or my insurance will be going up next year thanks to these knuckleheads...


You realize that insurance costs get pooled by re-insurers.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

So rates will not be going up due to all the losses from Super Storm Sandy?

Similarly, if an insurance company sustains a number of significant losses paid out, there is no need to raise premiums?

Wow, I am learning something new every day!


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Kudos to that CG rescue team. Any confirmation that the boat sank?


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

beginner's luck...? disguised by false media reports of solid credentials? Or maybe just a piece of paper from ACME mail-order Capt's license Co. of Paramus,NJ..?...Either way they had some sensational luck to be in range of the fine life-saving services of US Coast Guard.
Thank god they apparently didn't try to raise the sails as Eisberg mentioned...wonder if they even knew how...


----------



## 34crealock (Dec 30, 2012)

My insurance rates went up $300 this year(Boat US). No claims. .??


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

After the loss of Bounty, some incidents out in California, and now this, all in such a short span of time, there are some experienced skippers out there, saying that we are nearing a tipping point where the government and USCG may start imposing more regulation on offshore operations, or even inshore recreational sailing.

We do NOT want this. There is an unwritten rule in the sport rock-climbing world that seems very appropriate to sailing as well:



> The rule is, "Don't make a mess, don't make the news, and don't make paperwork for authorities." Or fun-time goes away, my friends. For everyone.


This person also made the salient point:



> most of the population doesn't understand what we are doing. They are sitting on the couch staring at the tube, or sitting behind a desk goggling at the expense reports for SAR, or looking at your tattered slings marring the rock or abandoned sailboat on their beach, & certain ideas are forming in their heads. Like, "Why are we paying a ton of money to subsidize the crazy, irresponsible activities of a small group of people? Shut 'em down!"


We'd better clean up our act, or we're going to find our sport under attack, and our freedoms infringed upon.

Yes, we all make mistakes but the "Dial 911 for minor troubles" attitude is going to ruin it for all of us.

Spread the word.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> I am not going to armchair QB these guys... I wasn't there at the time in those conditions. I'll leave it at that. Somewhere in the reading that I did, I picked up that these guys were getting paid $7K for the delivery, and that the owner is supportive of their efforts, and decision to ditch.
> 
> Island Packet DOES build SOME bluewater boats. However the SP Cruiser ain't one of 'em.
> 
> ...


I think they are kind of cool.


----------



## Capt.Alex (Jan 22, 2013)

As a former delivery captain I can say I would NEVER round cape hatteras under any circumstances when on a delivery if the vessel was ICW capable. There are just too many unknowns on a boat that you are unfamiliar with. I can't tell you how many deliveries I have done when there were hidden issues with the boat that didn't show up until well into the trip. Contaminated fuel, battery issues, rigging issues, you name it. Part of the responsibility of a delivery captain is to minimize risk. Going outside Hatteras with few viable inlets in a coastal cruiser is just plain idiotic and irresponsible. Period.


----------



## Shinook (Jul 13, 2012)

BubbleheadMd said:


> After the loss of Bounty, some incidents out in California, and now this, all in such a short span of time, there are some experienced skippers out there, saying that we are nearing a tipping point where the government and USCG may start imposing more regulation on offshore operations, or even inshore recreational sailing.


If it becomes anything like the FAA.....

You think boating is expensive now? Just wait till the gov't gets their grimy hands on it!


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

BubbleheadMd said:


> After the loss of Bounty, some incidents out in California, and now this, all in such a short span of time, there are some experienced skippers out there, saying that we are nearing a tipping point where the government and USCG may start imposing more regulation on offshore operations, or even inshore recreational sailing.


Like who? Is this stuff in writing or just dock rats spicing up their rants? Any links you can share? You can find people saying every sorta BS around marinas and boatyards or . . ..


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> However, it is quite the opposite... From Mile 0, the inside distance on the ICW to Morehead (where they would need to re-fuel that Island Packet trawler) is 204 statute miles... The distance out around Hatteras, Cape Lookout shoals, and back into Morehead is *70 statute miles longer*... The discrepancy from Hampton Roads/Thimble Shoals would be slightly less, but the fact that the outside distance is so much longer for a boat planning a stop in Morehead or Beaufort is what makes their choice particularly difficult to fathom, to me...


x10.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

jameswilson29 said:


> So rates will not be going up due to all the losses from Super Storm Sandy?
> 
> Similarly, if an insurance company sustains a number of significant losses paid out, there is no need to raise premiums?
> 
> Wow, I am learning something new every day!


My point was that ALL insurance rates will be affected, not just Boat US.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

My point, which was partly in jest, is that a particular company that suffers sufficiently significant losses will have to raise premiums.

Losing a $500K boat, assuming its a complete loss, will be a significant hit for whichever company insured it.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

They are lucky to be alive. Glad they survived. Sad to lose a vessel. 

The decision making process there is beyond my comprehension. 

For an east coast captain to think Ocracoke, Oregon or Hatteras were viable inlets in those conditions is even scarier.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

The only reason to consider those inlets in a minimally powered vessel is to consider how to avoid them at all cost. Maybe you can think about it in a twin Cat diesel Blackfin that makes 30 knots, draws 3' and has the power to punch through but not with a sailboat with a little aux. diesel.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

smurphny said:


> The only reason to consider those inlets in a minimally powered vessel is to consider how to avoid them at all cost. Maybe you can think about it in a twin Cat diesel Blackfin that makes 30 knots, draws 3' and has the power to punch through but not with a sailboat with a little aux. diesel.


Yeah it's really skinny water behind Oregon.

I've made the cut through Roanoke channel and Old house channel behind Oregon Inlet drawing 3'11" and touched in a few spots when I let myself get distracted and the current pushed me toward the edge of the channel in flat calm conditions. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there inside or out in those conditions.

The recreational fishing fleet buzzed by me, in the wee hours heading out the inlet with a lot of local knowledge, no doubt.


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

There's now a $200 peak fee to climb Denali (Mt. McKinley) or Mt. Foraker in Alaska's Denali Nat'l Park. Used to be free. The money goes to defray the cost of the Park's 'Mountaineering Management Program' -- which is to say, rescue services. See, so many *doofuses* were getting themselves in trouble on Denali -- dozens every season -- and radioing for rescue, the Parkies were going broke. The situation was made worse, not better, by the medical research tent at 14,000' (called the 'rescue tent' by hacks) and by the high altitude helicopter ('the Denali Llama') out of Talkeetna. Now any peak-bagging idiot is willing to throw themselves at Denali, which is a very serious undertaking. If it goes bad, they can call for a rescue!

NPS shut down the entire peak after a season where some twenty people died, most of them manifestly unqualified to be on the mountain. Then they re-opened it with qualification check and a rescue insurance requirement. Now they've moved to a peak fee system.

Don't think they won't. Don't think they can't. And don't think our non-sailing fellow citizens are going to shoulder these costs forever.

So, question: How would y'all feel about a nationwide (or worldwide) sailing-specific rescue insurance program? It could be public, it could be private. Premiums could be quite low, if enuf sailors subscribed. But the upshot would be something like this: if you buy the insurance, we will respond to your distress call at no charge. But if you choose NOT to buy the insurance -- and it is entirely voluntary, unlike Liability in many countries -- you may, at our discretion, be charged by the responding agency or private party up to 75% of the actual costs of your rescue. Low six figures, possibly.

Do you think that would help the problem? Or would we just have what we have now -- people pulling the Panic Lever early because the insurance will bail them out?

Europe has used such a program for backcountry activities for many years; it's not clear what effect it has on rescue _rates_, but it does at least shift the cost of those rescues where it properly belongs. If we cannot police ourselves someone will offer to do that for us. Certificates of Competence. Mandatory inspections. Liferaft requirements.

Don't want that? Let's figure out a better way, then. That doesn't necessarily mean a return to the 'Iron Men on Wooden Ships' ethos -- but something better than the present "Marshmallow Twits on Plastic Condos" might be in order. Eh?


----------



## allio (Jun 25, 2012)

BubbleheadMd said:


> After the loss of Bounty, some incidents out in California, and now this, all in such a short span of time, there are some experienced skippers out there, saying that we are nearing a tipping point where the government and USCG may start imposing more regulation on offshore operations, or even inshore recreational sailing.
> 
> We do NOT want this. There is an unwritten rule in the sport rock-climbing world that seems very appropriate to sailing as well:
> 
> ...


This story seems a bit slow news day by the papers, or maybe not. The fact that the newsies here seemed to take the guys at their word re experience hints at a bit of fridge magnet journalism.

I'm pretty certain these guys would be a lot less in the focus if they had avoided press on the issue.

I presume delivery captains are licensed? Would an incident such as this invalidate their license, or have it revoked? Who's insurance covers the loss here? Would the delivery captain be required to have liability insurance as he is an independent contractor? Does he then take the hit? or is it all on the owner? I don't know if i'd hand over my boat to a contractor on my own insurance policy. Maybe if there was some fault with the boat then liability could be shared but that doesn't seem to be the case here, and the consensus here seems to be that they were wrong to take the route they did in those conditions.

If this is on his head financially, do the commercial sailors share insurance companies with the recreational? doesn't seem fair that the recreational boater should cover the expense of a commercial loss via his insurance policy. would have thought that the two would be ring fenced from each other. Seems a bit like a public tax bank bailout kinda situation to me....

anyway. just some random thoughts....
allio


----------



## allio (Jun 25, 2012)

bobmcgov said:


> There's now a $200 peak fee to climb Denali (Mt. McKinley) or Mt. Foraker in Alaska's Denali Nat'l Park. Used to be free. The money goes to defray the cost of the Park's 'Mountaineering Management Program' -- which is to say, rescue services. See, so many *doofuses* were getting themselves in trouble on Denali -- dozens every season -- and radioing for rescue, the Parkies were going broke. The situation was made worse, not better, by the medical research tent at 14,000' (called the 'rescue tent' by hacks) and by the high altitude helicopter ('the Denali Llama') out of Talkeetna. Now any peak-bagging idiot is willing to throw themselves at Denali, which is a very serious undertaking. If it goes bad, they can call for a rescue!
> 
> NPS shut down the entire peak after a season where some twenty people died, most of them manifestly unqualified to be on the mountain. Then they re-opened it with qualification check and a rescue insurance requirement. Now they've moved to a peak fee system.
> 
> ...


A worldwide system is patently absurd as the costs of the rescue would vary so much from place to place that you'd have people based in cheaper areas subsidizing people who live in expensive areas.

On the rock climbing front, america in particular seems to be privatizing all aspects of recreation. Soon, you won't be able to walk up the street without personal accident and liability insurance, further pushing the inactive obese populace away from the healthy excercise they need to keep them healthy.

Here (I believe), UK and europe, If it is a genuine emergency, where a person experienced in the environment would not be reasonably able to extricate themselves from the situation, the government picks up the tab for the rescue. If a person has knowingly, or through willful ignorance gotten themselves into a situation they can't handle or were unprepared for, and gotten in over their heads, they are expected to fork out for the rescue. AFAIK. At least I would expect to have to fork out for the rescue...

This can be assessed after the fact, and shouldn't mean that you have to restrict access....
Allio


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

hmm...Something to ponder.

I can remember a time when the coast guard would provide towing assistance and misc help to stranded vessels. As it became clear that the numbers of incidents were rising and CG stations were closing, they ceased and now we have Tow Boat US and Sea Tow etc. 

While those private companies fill that void nicely, at reasonable costs; I don't see the private sector doing what the coasties just did for these guys via helicopter rescue at great risk to themselves. Your point regarding regarding insurance creating a false sense of security and possibly encouraging more incidents is a good one. I think with epirb, sat phones and successful rescues, like this one, we've already created a false sense of security.

With rescue insurance, suddenly we'll have people trying to sue the coast guard for not rescuing them in a timely fashion. " I had insurance". 

With regard to folks buying " rescue insurance" ; one of the problems Hurricane Sandy has revealed here in NJ, at least, and undoubtedly elsewhere is that many of the lost boats were not even registered or insured. Which has led people to simply abandon them on the side of the road, in the middle of a wetland etc. some of them rather large vessels.
The reaction to that may eventually be mandatory insurance like we have with cars.
The marinas were supposed to check ( as per their insurance rules) but many of them were apparently not diligent in that. 

All that to say...I don't have any solutions..


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Unfortunately, we now live in a culture that has decided it will make the world safe for everyone in every situation, damned the cost, damned the idea of personal responsibility and consequences for raw stupidity. We've decided to protect the stupid and irresponsible at the expense of everyone else. I feel bad for the kids on USCG duty, ski patrols, and mountaineering patrols who have to risk their lives because of irresponsible, ignorant, idiots. Ask me how I feel about this issue.


----------



## allio (Jun 25, 2012)

I would say here that often the young people on rescue duty the thrill and experience of the job is why they do it, and they want to be called out, to test their skills etc. I'm into extreme whitewater kayaking and some of my best stories are where it all went tats up and we lived to tell the story.

edit: or when i dived into the midst of another trip that was going tats up and pulled their monkey asses out of the fire.....


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

34crealock said:


> My insurance rates went up $300 this year(Boat US). No claims. .??


Yeah. Mine went up by $200... Last year it went up by $50... Despite no claims in either year (never had a claim). 

So I called them and asked what was up with the premium? They told me that my deductible went down to $500. I asked them to raise the deductible back up to $1K. My net premium this year went down by $20...

Insurance is a racket...


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

eherlihy said:


> Yeah. Mine went up by $200... Last year it went up by $50... Despite no claims in either year (never had a claim).
> 
> So I called them and asked what was up with the premium? They told me that my deductible went down to $500. I asked them to raise the deductible back up to $1K. My net premium this year went down by $20...
> 
> Insurance is a racket...


Hmmm, that "diminishing deductible" was supposed to come at no extra charge. I never even thought of asking them to raise it up again. Thanks for the idea!

As for that IP boat, I'm no expert, but 110 HP sounds like very little power to keep a boat like that under control in tough conditions. If those delivery guys were powerboat guys, I suspect it was a very different situation than they were used to.

As for the issue of whether our insurance would go up because of these clowns, doesn't the insurance industry separate people into "risk pools" or something like that? I'd expect delivery captains to be in one risk pool with a certain rate structure (I assume their certifications requires them to carry professional liability insurance), and recreational boaters a totally different one. So while it's fun to vent about how a couple of clowns like there make all our rates go up, I'm not sure sure it would unless someone else here has direct knowledge of how the industry works.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Common, this is peanuts

Insurance went up because of Sandy. Think global.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Haaa another sinking awakens the armchair quarterbacks with the unfounded speculation stories. Soon it will hard to tell the true facts or the speculative "facts" ..grin. 

Stay tuned


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

WHAT A LOAD OF BS....Someone makes an error in judgement, gets in trouble and call's on the rescue authorities (in this case Coast Guard). I am almost amazed at the predictability of their cry's of foul from the obviously well informed and well traveled, seasoned sailors on this and every other similar forum. This in turn morphs into cost of the rescue and who should pay(No one should pay its humanity), followed by how this will effect ME in the pocket with increased insurance(bad luck if you want insurance pay you dues), and an atrocious drain on the public purse to fund these rescues of our fellow man( the cost of rescues has already been budgeted for in the yearly running cost). May I say If it is such an affront that our fellow man will at some time come unstuck and need help of some description then why not disband the Coast Guard and perhaps the Navy or all armed forces with a rescue component. Lets make it Law that only those that can pay to be rescued, be rescued. we could include Ambulance and fire fighters, No money no help. How about Police lets have them only protect the important people that can Pay for their time, If you dial 911 or 999 or 000 it will be $100 for the first 15min then $100 for each hour or part there of. Most of us are humanitarian and have ethics and will do what we can for our fellow man. People make mistakes and things do not always go as planed. Those guys would not have agreed with each other to go out and get rescued, loose the beautiful boat and be ridiculed by these adventurous folk bashing away on their keyboards. We have rescue services because we need them, the civilized world would be a sad place without these brave and caring souls who put their lives on the line for everyone, no questions asked. And they do it because they love it. Thanks for letting me rant I need it.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*ok*

Good


----------



## daledog (Oct 16, 2009)

They were at the corner of the Triangle. Any sailor who's been there knows Hattras and Oregon and never possible for sailboats (sure, they've been done...but stupid to try) and at Orcracoke (as the others) the channel changes daily. Prudent skippers approach and call the Coast Guard to lead them in (which despite what most say about the CG they do without hesitation). I want to add more about the CG, seriously, most people dread encounters and opine that they are rude, young and stupid...I've not at all found these to be true. One of the stupider things I've done added to my belief; I was leaving Atlantic Highlands and went to get a chart of Atlantic City. With the chart in my hand, the clerk said I didn't need it. He said Atlantic City's approach was straight forward and easy. So being poor I saved the money. Later, as it dawned on me why there were breakers all around me I ran aground on the shoal probably off Little Egg Inlet. I called the CG., gave them my position and they checked the chart for me and gave me a heading to get clear. Prompt and polite even tho I had obviously been an idiot. As for being aground, with each wave I'd be lifted off, so I'd motor until I got stuck again....several times till clear. Miles offshore, stuck, teetering on the keel...oh yeah, there was a mellow experience....my Airedale was looking for a new skipper....

But I've digressed. Never do what they did. Head to deep water and heave to....throw out a storm drogue....chill. I disagree with the gloom and doom. Every boat that hove to in the Gale 10 of Fastnet 79 came through it unscathed. Heave to!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

NCC320 said:


> They were professionals....just doing the job that only professionals can do.


There's a lot of delivery skipper bravado these days. Doesn't matter the weather we can do it, we're delivery skippers.

Like its something totally different from being a cruisng skipper? Like the weather abates, or the seas arnt as rough? Or delivery skippers make better decisions?

And why the word "delivery"? does that make you stronger, tougher than the word "passage", or "cruise"?

Its not been a good 12 months for the so called "professionals" what with the Bounty et al...

Mark


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

That was great coverage. You rarely see a detailed and knowledgable story like that in a daily. The links were great too. Thumbs up to the Baltimore Sun!


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Group9 said:


> eherlihy said:
> 
> 
> > I am not going to armchair QB these guys... I wasn't there at the time in those conditions. I'll leave it at that. Somewhere in the reading that I did, I picked up that these guys were getting paid $7K for the delivery, and that the owner is supportive of their efforts, and decision to ditch.
> ...


So, then... can we presume that the actual ability to _Sail_ may not top the list of priorities you'd have in the selection of a boat? (grin)

Still, one has to admire Alvah Simon's diplomacy in characterizing the SP Cruiser's hybrid nature in his review in CRUISING WORLD:



> The SP wasn't designed to sail to windward, and it didn't perform well on this point of sail, as the 714 square feet of sail area couldn't compensate for the substantial weight and windage. *The sail plan, however, does add stability, distance, and redundancy to the boat's motoring range.*


It's been my experience that, generally, powerboats tend not to function very well as sailing craft... And, the SP Cruiser is, first and foremost, a powerboat... IP also sells them without the rig, calling them a PY Cruiser, enough of a powerboat to be reviewed in POWER & MOTORYACHT magazine...

Island Packet PY 41

I found this little tidbit at the close of the review particularly interesting... Sounds like IP has their finger on the pulse of the future of sailing, alright:



> The PY Cruiser is not the only highly efficient vessel Island Packet's recently put on the market. There's also the SP (Sail Power) Cruiser, a sloop-rigged vessel that's virtually the same as the PY in terms of layout, design, and horsepower as well as speed and fuel burn under power. But the SP also sails almost effortlessly.* Say you're chugging along and decide to nix the Yanmar and switch to wind power.* Simply round up into the breeze, leave the helm for the cockpit momentarily, load the lines into the Lewmar electric winch, and then return to the helm to tweak arrangements with push buttons as you proceed. *Could there be anything as easy-and as fuel efficient-as fully electric sail controls? Well, yeah. According to Island Packet, the company will introduce a version of the SP Cruiser within a year or so that will virtually sail herself. Thanks to constant digital input from a wind indicator at the top of the mast as well as some serious computer firepower, the boat will electrically operate her own winches, trim her own sheets, perhaps even decide when to tack based on course information arriving via GPS. All you'll have to do is steer!*


Still, hard to imagine a less suitable vessel for being outside of Hatteras when the view from space looks like this:










On a 'sailboat' with that sort of windage, and a Ballast/Displacement Ratio of *TWENTY-FOUR Percent*??? Seriously?

Not to mention, that jacuzzi-style cockpit behind the mast, above deck level? Bet that sucker could capture a significant amount of water in heavy weather, and the only real means of evacuating it quickly would be to 'spill' it out under an extreme angle of heel...


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> So, then... can we presume that the actual ability to _Sail_ may not top the list of priorities you'd have in the selection of a boat? (grin)
> 
> Still, one has to admire Alvah Simon's diplomacy in characterizing the SP Cruiser's hybrid nature in his review in CRUISING WORLD:
> 
> ...


I hope you posted all of that with your little pinky stuck out, and a cup of tea in your hand. 

This is going to come as a HUGE SHOCK to you. But, many people sail in very fairly protected waters, and they are not bad people. Many people sail, who are older, again, and they are not bad people, and with a protected cockpit, can sail in more inclement weather. And, some people, after years of sailing to weather on the high moral principal of it, now are older and prefer to just motor into it. They are not bad people.

I think we are in agreement that you probably shouldn't try and sail the IP SP around Cape Horn in the winter.

But, I have seen nothing in your argument to refute my comment that it is a cool boat, other than your opinion that any sailboat not ready to take on Force 10 conditions, is a silly piece of pooh.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Group9 said:


> This is going to come as a HUGE SHOCK to you. But, many people sail in very fairly protected waters, and they are not bad people. Many people sail, who are older, again, and they are not bad people, and with a protected cockpit, can sail in more inclement weather. And, some people, after years of sailing to weather on the high moral principal of it, now are older and prefer to just motor into it. They are not bad people.
> 
> I think we are in agreement that you probably shouldn't try and sail the IP SP around Cape Horn in the winter.
> 
> But, I have seen nothing in your argument to refute my comment that it is a cool boat, other than your opinion that any sailboat not ready to take on Force 10 conditions, is a silly piece of pooh.


Actually, I am in agreement with you that it is a pretty cool boat (although how they command prices of $500K or more is completely beyond me). If I were to ever have the means to afford any boat to do the Great Loop, for example, that boat could very well be on the short list - without the mast, of course (grin)... But perhaps you've missed the point both eherlihy and myself are trying to make...

Namely, that hybrid is not a "sailboat", but rather a 'semi-displacement' trawler with a mast, or perhaps what many might classify as a motorsailer... And, there's good reason why 'motor' comes before 'sailer' in that terminology... You're right, there's definitely a place in the market for such boats, there's nothing 'wrong' with the people to whom they appeal, and I will consider myself lucky should I ever live long enough to consider owning such a boat... But, that time will not come for me, until such time as I've reached the point where I'm resigned to the fact that it's time to give up _Sailing_, aside from the occasional burst of the illusion of doing so, and only under the most optimal conditions imaginable...

So, in summary, I just think it's a pretty safe bet, that I am unlikely to _EVER_ see a SP Cruiser under sail alone.... (grin)


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

SimonV said:


> WHAT A LOAD OF BS....Someone makes an error in judgement, gets in trouble and call's on the rescue authorities (in this case Coast Guard). I am almost amazed at the predictability of their cry's of foul from the obviously well informed and well traveled, seasoned sailors on this and every other similar forum. This in turn morphs into cost of the rescue and who should pay(No one should pay its humanity), followed by how this will effect ME in the pocket with increased insurance(bad luck if you want insurance pay you dues), and an atrocious drain on the public purse to fund these rescues of our fellow man( the cost of rescues has already been budgeted for in the yearly running cost). May I say If it is such an affront that our fellow man will at some time come unstuck and need help of some description then why not disband the Coast Guard and perhaps the Navy or all armed forces with a rescue component. Lets make it Law that only those that can pay to be rescued, be rescued. we could include Ambulance and fire fighters, No money no help. How about Police lets have them only protect the important people that can Pay for their time, If you dial 911 or 999 or 000 it will be $100 for the first 15min then $100 for each hour or part there of. Most of us are humanitarian and have ethics and will do what we can for our fellow man. People make mistakes and things do not always go as planed. Those guys would not have agreed with each other to go out and get rescued, loose the beautiful boat and be ridiculed by these adventurous folk bashing away on their keyboards. We have rescue services because we need them, the civilized world would be a sad place without these brave and caring souls who put their lives on the line for everyone, no questions asked. And they do it because they love it. Thanks for letting me rant I need it.


It is always good to hear the other side of the argument; it is refreshing. The down side of reading too much of the forum is that we begin to scare of our own shadow. It certainly sucks the fun out of sailing. I certainly would not go out purposely to kill myself and looking for rescue. However, I would not feel guilty if I need to be rescued since I have pay my share of taxes. Besides, CG has strict protocols not to ensure the safety of the crews and equipment.

I am just sayin'.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Would they have been so quick to call the Coast Guard if they knew they would have to reimburse the costs?

The Coast Guardsman puts their lives in danger every time they have to go out and save some fools who shouldn't be out there in the first place and is calling as a matter of convenience rather than necessity. These delivery captains could have toughed it out and avoided this whole rescue, or better yet, not departed when they did.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

jameswilson29 said:


> Would they have been so quick to call the Coast Guard if they knew they would have to reimburse the costs?
> 
> The Coast Guardsman puts their lives in danger every time they have to go out and save some fools who shouldn't be out there in the first place and is calling as a matter of convenience rather than necessity. These delivery captains could have toughed it out and avoided this whole rescue, or better yet, not departed when they did.


Under international law mariners are required to come to the assistance of others. Some countries have severe penalties for not doing so. In Canada the maximum fine is $1,000,000.

But discretion does need to be the better part of valour.


----------



## kjango (Apr 18, 2008)

interesting thread....a couple thoughts....I've never once heard a coastie express any resentment over having to go out because some shoe clerk made a bad decision.....I don't believe in " blue water boats " per se.....I believe in blue water sailors & any boat in the right hands is a blue water boat . If anything the " blue water boat " is more a function of the seamanship of who's handling it & less about the boat . Finally....people who think all problems can be solved with more regulation should grow a brain .


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Appreciate kjano's point of view but do believe certain boats are created with the intention of blue water passagemaking and others are not. Agree the crew must have the knowledge base to utillize the design but if the vessel is not suitable what maybe uncomfortable on a Valiant,Swan, Passport,Hylas,Outbound,Trinella etc. (pick your poison) is untenable on this particular IP design. From what little I understand motorboats "hove to" by heading into the wave front (at a slight angle) and varying throttle as the waves come through or lying to a sea anchor. Agree with suitiable searoom they could run under bare poles and drogues. Suspect they did not have suitable equipment and had limited fuel. Hence, with this design their options were limited.Others have commented they had no business being-
out there
on this design
without full tanks
without safety equipment ( e.g. drogues/sea anchor etc) - (My presumption)

All may be true (but wonder is there "the rest of the story"). Of more concern is my uncertainty as to how to vet transport captains. This story serves as an example how "professionals" placed themselves, others and the vessel under their charge in harms way. Any advice on how owners can protect themselves from similar occurences? If you are vetting a captain could you ask your insurance company or the CG or other agency to see if that individual had been involved in such an event?


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

I am fairly certain a Google search on their names would reveal this event, so they can now be vetted.

When hiring a delivery captain for a sailboat delivery, it may be a good idea to find out if the captain can actually sail a boat.

How about posing a hypothetical question to the delivery captain? Let's say you get caught offshore in a gale, no engine, no battery, and one of you who weighs 300 lbs. rebounds off the cabin bulkhead (pretty much what you should expect in any storm). What do you do?

If they answer, call the Coast Guard to come pick me up pretty please, and leave your $500K yacht to fend for itself, you hire someone else.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

5yrs. from now not certain these folks will be listing this event on their C.V.s. If they were crew not captain google search may be uninformative as their name may not have appeared in the lay press.Would also suspect not all such events are reported. Unfortunate events occur where it is appropriate that the captain/crew be held harmless. What I'm asking is there a record of a Court of Inquiry or other public record of formal judgment on such events one can refer to in vetting these "professionals". Agree there is amble reason to believe the owner of the IP did not do his due diligence befoe hiring these guys.


----------



## allio (Jun 25, 2012)

Here's a question that I'm sure I'll get abuse for.

If I am engaged in a potentially dangerous, *commercial* venture, should I, or my insurance be expected to foot the rescue bill if it all goes wrong?

As an aside, If the carcass of the boat is now coughed up on an eastern seaboard shore, who foots the bill for the recovery/cleanup/disposal? The delivery captain who abandoned her, or the the owner?


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Allio,

There are plenty of private and commercial enterprises that receive assistance from 1st responders: Fire Fighters, EMT's, Police, etc. without receiving an invoice for their services. The Coast Guard has a long history of assisting mariners ( 1830's). I suppose you could consider state, local or federal taxes as the bill, if you wanted. 

I'm just guessing that an insurance claim has been filed and it's now a salvage job. I don't know all the ins and outs of that. I suppose the ins. could hire a salver to retrieve the vessel if they chose. I believe if someone gets their 1st, it's their claim.


----------



## One (Mar 20, 2013)

allio said:


> Here's a question that I'm sure I'll get abuse for.
> 
> If I am engaged in a potentially dangerous, *commercial* venture, should I, or my insurance be expected to foot the rescue bill if it all goes wrong?


Yes, that's why you have insurance as a commercial operator to begin with (assuming you're insured in the first place).



> As an aside, If the carcass of the boat is now coughed up on an eastern seaboard shore, who foots the bill for the recovery/cleanup/disposal? The delivery captain who abandoned her, or the the owner?


I would assume that the insurer would pay for that, and that the insurance rates for that particular commercial venture takes such things into account.

Nevermind, I see you specifically said _rescue _bill, which is another matter. I'm not so sure on where I stand on that.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

outbound said:


> 5yrs. from now not certain these folks will be listing this event on their C.V.s. If they were crew not captain google search may be uninformative as their name may not have appeared in the lay press.Would also suspect not all such events are reported. Unfortunate events occur where it is appropriate that the captain/crew be held harmless. What I'm asking is there a record of a Court of Inquiry or other public record of formal judgment on such events one can refer to in vetting these "professionals". Agree there is amble reason to believe the owner of the IP did not do his due diligence befoe hiring these guys.


Then again people do learn from their mistakes.
At least some do.
Was Washington a bad general during civil war

_What was Washington's real strength was that he never gave up. He kept an army in the field for six years, against numerous defeats and extreme difficulties and hardships. As one of his men said "We fight, get beat, rise up and fight again". Eventually this convinced the British that they could never subdue the vast territory of America, and so they finally gave up._

I'm just saying that the chances of a delivery captain getting a run on perfectly good weather, with no time limits, with favorable prevailing wind and current at the right time of year, with plenty of easy to access ports on the way is pretty slim.

That is when the owner grabs a couple of buddies and goes for a fun sail.
No the delivery skipper gets called when the boat has just been bought, the yard finished up yesterday, against the current and prevailing wind, unsettled weather and a deadline.

So now this delivery skipper has to decide if his mortgage being late three months is more of a risk to his health that a particular delivery.
In one sense it is their job to push the boundaries, they should be able to pull it off as they are professionals but they are not going to win every time.


----------



## allio (Jun 25, 2012)

Exemptions could always be built in for acts of god. Striking a whale that rips off your keel for example. But weather is, by and large now, a quantifiable and predictable thing. And therefore the fact that your government has placed at your free disposal, access to this knowledge, makes you even more liable if you ignore such services.

As regards emt's/police etc etc, All of these services now implement a bill for services rendered if fault is found in the US I believe. If you have a car crash, and require emergency transport to the hospital, does your insurance not get a bill? Someone pays for the treatment you receive at the hospital. And this is why we have investigations after the fact, to determine if someone was at fault. And should therefore be liable.

Either way, I'm just playing a bit of devils advocate here.....


----------



## Sanduskysailor (Aug 1, 2008)

Wow, you guys are tough. If you have never experienced those conditions you can't believe how hard it is on your body and how mentally taxing it is. I don't think the delivery captain exhibited good judgement but I don't fault him for making the call to get rescued.

I was in a similar situation in conditions a little worse 8 years ago. Delivery from St. Thomas to the Chesapeake- all off shore in the first week of April. Brutal gale for 3 days. The boat was fine but we got pretty beat up even though we had a pilothouse on boat with a 10-1/2 foot keel. Trying making a sandwich in those conditions. Forget about sleeping. Taking a crap is strenuous exercise. I went air born more than once including crashing through the mid ship head door.

Doing it in an IP semi-trawler is quite another thing. I'd be scared that the boat would trip on the occasional rogue wave for starters. The motion must be rolly as all hell. Anything in the tank would get sucked into the filters without a doubt. We had 4 tanks, a tank mender, pumps etc so that we could switch fuel sources and filter systems on the fly.

Bottom line is that these guys made some wrong calls due to inexperience and/or fatigue. It might be a while before they would even consider another delivery job on a similar route.


----------



## allio (Jun 25, 2012)

davidpm said:


> No the delivery skipper gets called when the boat has just been bought, the yard finished up yesterday, against the current and prevailing wind, unsettled weather and a deadline.
> 
> So now this delivery skipper has to decide if his mortgage being late three months is more of a risk to his health that a particular delivery.
> In one sense it is their job to push the boundaries, they should be able to pull it off as they are professionals but they are not going to win every time.


In this circumstance, the delivery captain had alternatives, The ICW, staying in port, heaving to. Eitherway, any business dependent on weather for delivery schedule, will have a clause in the purchase contract re weather disruption. If the the boat has not left the yard with enough time to spare for a safe delivery then the yard should be liable. In your scenario the yard also had options. But here I believe it was the owner who hired the delivery crew?

I completely disagree that commercial delivery services should be looking to "push the boundaries". Remembering that they are delivering someone elses property (and dreams!) should be front and foremost.

I doubt anyone here who has large sums of money invested in marine hardware is looking for a crew who pushes the boundaries.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Wthout knowning the interactions of the parties involved I believe I am not in a position to be judgmental beyond noting from what information is available the owner hired these guys to deliever his boat and his boat was lost. I don't think it is appropriate to question their judgement if they felt their lives were at risk. You can replace a material object but not lives. I am interested in how the judgement was made to leave on that day, by that route, in that boat at that level of preparation. I'm am interested in what factors were in play. I'm also interested beyond google search and references what an owner should and can do to protect such a major asset.


----------



## Capt. Gary Randall (Jun 1, 2012)

I have delivered many boats since the mid-70s. I always make sure that the owner or owners understand that different routes may be taken for valid reasons such as weather or shallow water and currents. This holds true for both sailboats and power vessels. It is the captains duty to use more than one means of predicting weather for different routes as well as the depth of the water,and navigation waypoints. The first question that is always asked is how long will it take, as I always have charged by the day. That is the time to make it perfectly clear that it depends on many factors, as well as possible breakdowns. I will give them they estimated time of arrival, in reality that is all anyone can do.

As far as judging whether or not to abandon ship the rule of thum usually is, (was human life in intimate danger? Were there any injuries to any of the crew or Capt., was the vessel in seaworthy condition such as maybe changing course to mitigate the circumstances. Am I able to anchor the vessel to also mitigate the circumstances? In history there have been many decisions Made under a panic or extreme pressure that may not turn out to be the correct decision. Only the captain and the crew can make that decision, whether to abandon ship or not. I myself cannot make any judgment because I wasn't there, and I definitely don't have all the information. CaptG


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

SimonV said:


> WHAT A LOAD OF BS....Someone makes an error in judgement, gets in trouble and call's on the rescue authorities (in this case Coast Guard). I am almost amazed at the predictability of their cry's of foul from the obviously well informed and well traveled, seasoned sailors on this and every other similar forum. This in turn morphs into *cost of the rescue and who should pay(No one should pay its humanity)*, followed by how this will effect ME in the pocket with increased insurance(bad luck if you want insurance pay you dues), and an atrocious drain on the public purse to fund these rescues of our fellow man( the cost of rescues has already been budgeted for in the yearly running cost). May I say If it is such an affront that our fellow man will at some time come unstuck and need help of some description then why not disband the Coast Guard and perhaps the Navy or all armed forces with a rescue component. Lets make it Law that only those that can pay to be rescued, be rescued. we could include Ambulance and fire fighters, No money no help. How about Police lets have them only protect the important people that can Pay for their time, If you dial 911 or 999 or 000 it will be $100 for the first 15min then $100 for each hour or part there of. Most of us are humanitarian and have ethics and will do what we can for our fellow man. *People make mistakes and things do not always go as planed. *Those guys would not have agreed with each other to go out and get rescued, loose the beautiful boat and be ridiculed by these adventurous folk bashing away on their keyboards. We have rescue services because we need them, the civilized world would be a sad place without these brave and caring souls who put their lives on the line for everyone, no questions asked. And they do it because they love it. Thanks for letting me rant I need it.


Simon,

I share some of your feelings, but you have to look at the reality of the situation. I'm addressing some of your bolded comments.

1. It would be nice if humanitarian services were free, but in this era of poor economic growth, and slashed budgets, pay for SAR workers, fuel for planes and rescue vessels has to come from somewhere. Wishing for it to be free, simply won't make it so.

2. I agree that people make mistakes but really, you have to admit that we, mariners, (recreational, commercial, power or sail) have a duty to go to sea responsibly. We can't carelessly hurl ourselves "into the void" because "I pay taxes, so someone has to rescue me!".

We have more tools and technology than ever before which should enable us to make better informed decisions, exercise better judgement, and be more self-reliant, yet more and more people are setting off under dubious conditions and simply punching the "rescue button" without making any serious attempt at self-rescue. "Stop the ride, I want to get off!"

I don't know what's going to happen "globally", but in the U.S., the media is going to sell this to our couch-potato public into "Why are we spending $800,000 to rescue one fool who set off into a storm?"

They will (falsely) make it look like an epidemic that needs dealt with, and we'll all pay the consequences.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

BubbleheadMd said:


> ...We have more tools and technology than ever before which should enable us to make better informed decisions, exercise better judgement, and be more self-reliant, yet more and more people are setting off under dubious conditions and simply punching the "rescue button" without making any serious attempt at self-rescue. "Stop the ride, I want to get off!"...


I agree with the need to act responsibly and not put our SAR people in unnecessary danger.

But while it's tempting to think that technology is emboldening people to take more and more dubious risks, US DOT data show quite clearly that this is not true. From 1985-2010, the number of cases declined by as much as 75% in all metrics: SAR cases, sorties, lives lost, etc.

I think that there's a natural tendency for people to think that "I use this new technology wisely, but that other clown over there probably abuses it." The data overwhelmingly show that the number of accidents has shown a steady decline, and I suspect that the availability of better technology and safety awareness play a role in this improvement.

I also think that the proliferation of videos via YouTube and shows like Coast Guard Alaska create the impression that these incidents are on the increase because we see a lot more of them. However, the statistics seem to show that this is a false impression created by the greater availability of videos and related information, rather than an increase in the actual incidents. This greater availability is a good thing, because we can learn from it and adjust our behavior accordingly. But don't go thinking that there are more rescues occurring just because there are more videos available.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

SimonV said:


> WHAT A LOAD OF BS....Someone makes an error in judgement, gets in trouble and call's on the rescue authorities (in this case Coast Guard). I am almost amazed at the predictability of their cry's of foul from the obviously well informed and well traveled, seasoned sailors on this and every other similar forum.


Perhaps, that is why we are not the ones out there calling for help?



SimonV said:


> This in turn morphs into cost of the rescue and who should pay(No one should pay its humanity), followed by how this will effect ME in the pocket with increased insurance(bad luck if you want insurance pay you dues), and an atrocious drain on the public purse to fund these rescues of our fellow man( the cost of rescues has already been budgeted for in the yearly running cost). May I say If it is such an affront that our fellow man will at some time come unstuck and need help of some description then why not disband the Coast Guard and perhaps the Navy or all armed forces with a rescue component. Lets make it Law that only those that can pay to be rescued, be rescued. we could include Ambulance and fire fighters, No money no help. How about Police lets have them only protect the important people that can Pay for their time, If you dial 911 or 999 or 000 it will be $100 for the first 15min then $100 for each hour or part there of.


It's not that black or white, or that extreme. This is quite different from police, armed forces, paramedics or firefighter work. Besides, no one said they shouldn't be rescued, only that they should reimburse the costs when they call for help out of convenience rather than necessity.



SimonV said:


> Most of us are humanitarian and have ethics and will do what we can for our fellow man. People make mistakes and things do not always go as planed. Those guys would not have agreed with each other to go out and get rescued, loose the beautiful boat and be ridiculed by these adventurous folk bashing away on their keyboards. We have rescue services because we need them, the civilized world would be a sad place without these brave and caring souls who put their lives on the line for everyone, no questions asked.


Most of us recognize the difference between an amateur and a professional. Professionals are held to a higher standard and are legally liable for the damages caused by their failure to live up to that higher standard. You are exaggerating for effect, but it is backfiring. No one is calling for the abolishment of rescue services. Some believe the users should accept some responsibility for the costs in situations like this. They weren't planning to share their fees with us, were they? Why should we as taxpayers bear the costs of their poor judgment and mistakes, particularly when any experienced boater recognizes their foolishness?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Phenomena is called ascertainment bias when doing epidemiology. In medicine when you have a technology that improves ability to Dx. a particular illness both incidence and prevalence of that illness seems to sky rocket when often nothing has changed. Same thing occurs with accidents and untoward events in our "tuned in" world.


----------



## cheoah (Jul 5, 2011)

A little late to the party here, but imagine my surprise to see one of the guys in the article, and he looks incredibly familiar. Sure enough, we crossed paths in Annapolis this summer. I was singlehanding up from NC, doing a little Chesapeake tour, and he was the water taxi captain the day I sailed in. Nice guy, the first mate. I remember his commentary about being able to see the remnants of the old name of my vessel (I renamed her). He asked if I was superstitious -I'm not- but he did warn me about that. Well I just didn't want to grind a bunch of gelcoat off to make it disappear, and nor did/will I. The sun is handling it at a snails pace. 

I'm in awe of their decisions. Running down the ICW there is gravy, more direct, and going south to boot. I think they just did not really understand the situation along this stretch of coastline. Is it possible that people can have lots of sailing experience but just not understand the stakes of this stretch of ocean and it's multiple taciturn inlets? Or was it just bad judgement, being a little cavalier about the horror that the Cape can be in even more moderate conditions, coupled with some mis-placed confidence in a heavy displacement cruiser? I'm not judging them, none of my business, but I simply can't fathom why they did it, unless they just really needed an adventure? A book deal?

I'm glad they did not try to get through some of those inlets. A grounding could have been tragic, with some hard ground under the washing machine that Oregon Inlet could have been. Too bad they did not have propulsion to get them to Cape Lookout. Cape Lookout is a great place to tuck behind there if winds were NE. 

These aren't bad guys, but they most certainly lack(ed) respect for this stretch of water. While it is hard to understand, I hope newer sailors understand that there can be a lot of nuance to coastal sailing; information that is not printed on charts or programmed into your chartplotters. While a sound vessel with a skilled captain and crew can handle these situations, heaving to, running, sea anchors, etc, the stakes are incredibly high. If one thing goes wrong - like fuel pickup issue they had - your options are limited. What these guys did was dumb, I don't see how anyone could say otherwise, but we all do dumb stuff from time to time, just not enough to get in the newspaper for all to read about, and publicly comment on your judgement.


----------



## fullcastle (Jul 3, 2013)

I found Andante 2 in the North Atlantic on June 10, 2013. I was on the way to New Brunswick, Canada from Montserrat and sighted her 230 miles north-northeast of Bermuda. She is dismasted but is riding high with her entire bootstrap showing. Both the full height aft door and the closed cockpit hatch were open yet she has not taken on water and even appeared dry within. Cushions are still in the shallow seating area just aft the mast.

Her broken mast took out most of the tubular rail on the starboard side with the trailing wires. She also had a missing davit on the port side. Other than that she was in fine condition and looked good.

I was solo in an angry sea that day so did not want to risk boarding her although I regret the loss of obvious salvage. I circled her and took photos then carried on in foul weather.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

fullcastle said:


> I found Andante 2 in the North Atlantic on June 10, 2013. I was on the way to New Brunswick, Canada from Montserrat and sighted her 230 miles north-northeast of Bermuda. She is dismasted but is riding high with her entire bootstrap showing. Both the full height aft door and the closed cockpit hatch were open yet she has not taken on water and even appeared dry within. Cushions are still in the shallow seating area just aft the mast.
> 
> Her broken mast took out most of the tubular rail on the starboard side with the trailing wires. She also had a missing davit on the port side. Other than that she was in fine condition and looked good.
> 
> I was solo in an angry sea that day so did not want to risk boarding her although I regret the loss of obvious salvage. I circled her and took photos then carried on in foul weather.


This is why I love this forum. People definitely sail around here! Welcome to SN full. And thanks for the update.

It would be great if you could post those pics at some point.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Yup, there's all sorts of stuff floating around out there these days...

But, definitely NOT representative of any _trend_... (grin)

this is a strange one, for sure... Seems to have all the signs of an abandonment, we can only hope the crew is safe somewhere, and their rescue simply didn't make it onto our radar screen...

Celebrity Summit finds derelict sailboat in Atlantic - CNN iReport


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonE - you are one OC kind of trendy cat. I gotta give that to you.

Would that be spooky or what having to be the guy to go below and search? Eeh.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

That's quite a mystery Jon. Dated mid-June, I wonder what became of the crew. Who investigates for evidence of foul play in cases such as this? Some sort of crime has got to be high on the list of possibilities. People don't just leave boats like that floating in the Atlantic for no reason.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

wow..i remember this thread from March...Now is that cruise ship pic Jon posted the same IP abandoned off Hatteras...or is it the BTB...(Bermuda Triangle boat) reported by the single-hander 230 miles from Bermuda? It doesnt appear to be the IP abandoned off Hatteras...that had some funky hot-tub looking cockpit-well forward of the dodger...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> That's quite a mystery Jon. Dated mid-June, I wonder what became of the crew. Who investigates for evidence of foul play in cases such as this? Some sort of crime has got to be high on the list of possibilities. People don't just leave boats like that floating in the Atlantic for no reason.


yeah, this one seems VERY strange... most indications seem to point to a deliberate abandonment, to me...

She was obviously not abandoned while under sail, every thing is furled... A plausible explanation could be a singlehander gone overboard while under power, but then where is the dinghy? There are davits on the stern, so one would presume he was using a substantial tender, and not a roll-up that might be stored below deck, as roll-ups and davits don't match up very well... No visible sign of an empty liferaft cradle, either...

Weird... Again, I can only hope this was a deliberate abandonment in conjunction with a rescue by another vessel, using the tender to shuttle between the two, an occurrence that never made the news, or we've simply never heard about...

It's not been a good summer for yachts named RUNNING FREE... A Freedom 40 with the same name had to abandon their voyage to Ireland, and return to Newfoundland after suffering some damage in heavy weather 1/3 of the way across... This one is a Pearson 36, the only reference I can find to her is an Abaco regatta report from SOUTHWINDS back in '07, her owner at that time was a gentleman named Bill Powell... Anyone know anything more about the boat or her owner?

Based upon fullcastle's report on the IP, it would appear that since the cushions were still sitting in place in that jacuzzi cockpit forward, the lives of that crew might not have been in quite the amount of jeopardy they apparently felt at the time... (grin)


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

The boat is listed as a documented vessel. I hope someone was tasked with tracking him down to see if either he or whomever was using the boat is missing. I'm surprised media has not followed up on this. Another possibility is that the boat was used to traffic drugs and then abandoned.


----------



## fullcastle (Jul 3, 2013)

It was indeed "Andante 2" out of Virginia Beach, Virginia and was an "SP Cruiser" based on the tags on either side of her closed in cockpit that were quite visible as I circled the boat. 

I tried attaching a few photos for your enjoyment but have an issue with a missing security token. The photo files are too large to send and exceed the Sailnet limitation even when I try to reduce their resolution. If any are interested drop a note here with an email address and I will send them off.

She was at position (N36 05.977 W63 40.122) on June 10 at 1358 hours (UTC -4) if anyone is willing to calculate her new drift position and go look for her.

Good luck


----------



## Shinook (Jul 13, 2012)

JonEisberg said:


> yeah, this one seems VERY strange... most indications seem to point to a deliberate abandonment, to me...


Is it possible she came off her anchor and drifted that far?

I see one anchor hanging off the bow, but there seems to be a line trailing off the other side, maybe indicating it was deployed and the rope broke?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

fullcastle said:


> It was indeed "Andante 2" out of Virginia Beach, Virginia and was an "SP Cruiser" based on the tags on either side of her closed in cockpit that were quite visible as I circled the boat.
> 
> I tried attaching a few photos for your enjoyment but have an issue with a missing security token. The photo files are too large to send and exceed the Sailnet limitation even when I try to reduce their resolution. If any are interested drop a note here with an email address and I will send them off.
> 
> ...


Full - send them to >smackdaddy at bfsshop dt com< and I'll get them posted.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Is there an AMVER report.?
I am hospitalized and using my smartphone. Hard for me to look up.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

jackdale said:


> Is there an AMVER report.?
> I am hospitalized and using my smartphone. Hard for me to look up.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2


Are you okay Jack? I hope it's not serious.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Hi smacky.

A joint in the small toe of my left foot became infected and was removed. Sailing will have to wait. I have powerboat course at the end of August.

Any AMVER reports for the vessel?

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

jackdale said:


> Hi smacky.
> 
> A joint in the small toe of my left foot became infected and was removed. Sailing will have to wait. I have powerboat course at the end of August.
> 
> ...


Ouch! Get well brother.

I'll check AMVER.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Hmmm, another 'cautionary tale' to add to the list...

Too bad _the Tao_ apparently never mentions anything regarding the value of a _Shakedown Cruise_...

TPEP: Beginning of the End | Zen's Sekai II - By Sea



> I am not a sailor, l guess that is one lesson from this. I can sail, I can handle the boat well and blend with the element, however the moments of pleasure have been slight. There was a few moments when the flow was there, the sequencing , the harmony of movement, with water, wind and self was balanced, beauty. However a real sailor would live for this adventure. I have been measurable since we left. I guess I am just a weekend sailor. I do not want to do this passage stuff again. I would love to fly someplace, rent a boat and explore, then fly home. That would be excellent. Sail around the inland sea, exploring, yup I want that. Weeks at sea, wet, drifting, sleepless, tired, with a broken boat sucks.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> Too bad _the Tao_ apparently never mentions anything regarding the value of a _Shakedown Cruise_...


Yes, but the Buddha did say "Life is suffering".


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Well, look where the mystery vessel RUNNING FREE finally fetched up...

Stranded Yacht Resists Removal Efforts in Edgartown - Around Town - Martha's Vineyard, MA Patch

The article appears to be filled with inaccuracies, however... It links to a blog of another RUNNING FREE, the 40' Freedom I referred to earlier, that is now on its way back to Lake Superior on a truck...

It also apparently confuses RUNNING FREE with the abandonment/rescue of the 4 sailors off Charleston during TS Andrea a month ago... Unless, there was _another_ rescue of 4 sailors during that time, that we never heard about...

strange one, indeed... Perhaps this mystery is a bit closer to being solved, however...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

> Weeks at sea, wet, drifting, sleepless, tired, with a broken boat sucks.


That should be a cautionary statement to anyone looking to do passages. I know it is to me. At this point in my life, I have no desire to cross oceans.


----------



## BluemanSailor (Apr 28, 2009)

Well she's got some of the facts WRONG - way wrong, typical media screw up. I guess the writer thinks there can be only "one" vessel named "Running Free". 

>Until they lost their engine during rough weather associated with tropical storm Andrea June 7, the owners of Running Free had enjoyed more than four years of cruising the U.S. and nearby islands from Newfoundland to the Bahamas, as chronicled on the website runningfree.us.<< 

My friends that own "Running Free" on the website, they and their boat are doing fine back home in Minnesota! I guess the writer isn't much of a sailor and can't tell the difference between a ketch and wishboned rigged free standing rig.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> > Weeks at sea, wet, drifting, sleepless, tired, with a broken boat sucks.
> 
> 
> That should be a cautionary statement to anyone looking to do passages. I know it is to me. At this point in my life, I have no desire to cross oceans.


Yup, bluewater passagemaking certainly ain't for everybody, and yet many wannabees seem strangely steadfast in their refusal to acknowledge that simple reality... (grin)

His one comment pretty much says it all:



> "When does the Magazine Fun begin?"


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

The Pacific Eco Passage catamaran had been sailed from San Francisco (Alameda Island) to Ensenada, which would have been a shakedown cruise for many -- but it seems perhaps to have not been enough shaking compared to what was dealt out further offshore.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

rgscpat said:


> The Pacific Eco Passage catamaran had been sailed from San Francisco (Alameda Island) to Ensenada, which would have been a shakedown cruise for many -- but it seems perhaps to have not been enough shaking compared to what was dealt out further offshore.


Thanks, I'd missed that part...

Sounds like they had an extraordinarily tame trip down the coast, a motor job virtually the entire way, harbor-hopping in company with other boats, featuring only one overnight passage...

Not many people get a view of Point Conception in conditions this placid...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Ahhh, mystery solved... it involves _The Bermuda Triangle_, naturally...

Hmmm, wonder how many other sailboats have been abandoned offshore by "novice sailors" recently, that we never heard about? Yup, _"the facts & statistics"_ clearly indicate this sort of thing is on the decline, alright... (grin, bigtime)

Seriously, however, one really has to wonder whether _anyone_ is really keeping track of all these abandoned vessels? Presumably, when that Carnival cruise ship encountered RUNNING FREE at sea a couple of weeks ago and stopped to investigate, they would have contacted the USCG, don't you think? And, that maybe, just maybe, the CG might have informed them she had been abandoned weeks before, and that there would have been nobody aboard, and hence no need to stop and deploy a boarding party?



> Abandoned Sailboat Washes Ashore at Norton Point
> 
> Mark Alan Lovewell
> Updated
> ...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, mystery solved... it involves _The Bermuda Triangle_, naturally...
> 
> Hmmm, wonder how many other sailboats have been abandoned offshore by "novice sailors" recently, that we never heard about? Yup, _"the facts & statistics"_ clearly indicate this sort of thing is on the decline, alright... (grin, bigtime)
> 
> Seriously, however, one really has to wonder whether _anyone_ is really keeping track of all these abandoned vessels? Presumably, when that Carnival cruise ship encountered RUNNING FREE at sea a couple of weeks ago and stopped to investigate, they would have contacted the USCG, don't you think? And, that maybe, just maybe, the CG might have informed them she had been abandoned weeks before, and that there would have been nobody aboard, and hence no need to stop and deploy a boarding party?


I think I need to set up a chair on the Jersey shore beaches and watch the abandoned sailboats come rolling in since its now deterrmined by 6 published incidences its now on the increase.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> I think I need to set up a chair on the Jersey shore beaches and watch the abandoned sailboats come rolling in since its now deterrmined by 6 published incidences its now on the increase.


LOL! Actually, I'd give that some serious consideration, if I thought a boat like WOLFHOUND might be among them...










Permit me to remind you again, that I have never claimed anything more specific than the number of these sort of abandonments _SEEM TO BE_ on the rise, that is simply my _IMPRESSION_...

I'm hard pressed to recall another season where we've seen as many yachts abandoned in the North Atlantic, as we have over the past 6 months or so... Of course, I must acknowledge the possibility that this year has simply been a statistical anomaly, and there may not be as many sailing yachts abandoned off the East coast for years to come...

However, based on what I'm seeing these days - how 'casually' some of these boats seem to be abandoned, and how many of them are still afloat months afterward - I wouldn't bet on it... (grin)


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Could part of this equation be that there SEEM to be more boats manned by the nouveau riche, with often less experienced crews? Those with big bucks have little incentive to risk staying aboard when it gets a bit uncomfortable.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Should the title of this thread be changed to:

"Sailboat pauses off Hatteras, USCG rescues crew, Sailboat keeps sailing"


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Should the title of this thread be changed to:
> 
> "Sailboat pauses off Hatteras, USCG rescues crew, Sailboat *keeps sailing"*


LOL! If so, that might be a first for a SP Cruiser... (grin)


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

And Sail Magazine published a new article, "Life At 55",

Life at 55 | Sail Magazine

about how 55 footers are the new 45 footers, now manageable thanks to all the advances in electronics and gear!


----------



## Seaduction (Oct 24, 2011)

I would like to publish the letter from the captain of the SP Cruiser that was abandoned. This was on the IP Owners forum:
_*All,

Many of you are aware of the SP Cruiser that was abandoned by the delivery crew off of Cape Lookout, NC earlier this month. Dramatic FLIR video from the USCG helicopter that pulled the crew to safety is now on YouTube, among other places. One of the crew members called me yesterday to tell me of the events leading to their abandonment. The call was because he felt he needed to thank the people that built the yacht that took care of them through the storm with 55+ knot winds and 30+ foot seas. I asked for a brief written report that I could share with our owners. His email is below:

Dear Bill :

I want to recap briefly the events that lead to us abandoning the Island Packet SP Cruiser off the coast of North Carolina on March 7, 2013. This is a major endorsement for your boat and I was very thankful to be on an Island Packet during that storm.

First, it was the hope of the delivery crew that we would be able to get south of the predicted storm before it pushed offshore. Unfortunately, the storm didn't watch TV and know it was projected to follow a more northwesterly path. It caught us with winds over Force 8 and seas in the 30 foot plus range approximately 25 miles off Cape Lookout.

We lost engine power due to a fuel starvation issue (although the generator worked continually). Without power and way on we lost steerage. We were at the mercy of the storm. The yacht was knocked down at least once under bare poles and the windows in the cabin house were remarkably leak free even under when submerged under a foot of water. I fell from the high (starboard) side seat across the boat landing on the windows during a knockdown and was surprised the windows took my roughly 300 pounds of weight.

The USCG report of the yacht "taking on water" was an exaggeration. To me, "taking on water" means more water is coming aboard than can be pumped out. We were taking about ½ gallon of water aboard every time a 30 foot sea would break over the boat, some of it through the bell ringer tube! I suspect that the yacht is still intact and afloat out there somewhere.

I would recommend a better defroster system be installed on the SP Cruiser, as we had to contend with constantly fogging up windows in the conditions we encountered. More handholds everywhere (there never seem to be enough) and please check the security/durability of your push button latches. We had a lot of loose gear rattling around after the cabinets below opened up during the knockdown and severe rolling.

Thanks, again, for a terrific yacht!

Capt. JS

Of further interest, one of the USCG rescue crew (who also happens to be a sailor and ocean racer with trans-Pacific experience) passed along his assessment that the vessel was not taking on water and that the rescue was more likely driven by crew exhaustion after the engine failure. All of this is a real world endorsement of the seakeeping ability of the SP Cruiser!
All the best,

Bill
*_


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Seaduction said:


> I would like to publish the letter from the captain of the SP Cruiser that was abandoned. This was on the IP Owners forum:
> _*All,
> 
> Many of you are aware of the SP Cruiser that was abandoned by the delivery crew off of Cape Lookout, NC earlier this month. Dramatic FLIR video from the USCG helicopter that pulled the crew to safety is now on YouTube, among other places. One of the crew members called me yesterday to tell me of the events leading to their abandonment. The call was because he felt he needed to thank the people that built the yacht that took care of them through the storm with 55+ knot winds and 30+ foot seas. I asked for a brief written report that I could share with our owners. His email is below:
> ...


Good write up. The red line for rescue always seems to be "We're taking on water."

It's interesting that he says the USCG report is exaggerating this. My hunch is that the skipper/crew on the boat made this statement in the discussion with the CG - as it is that clear red line for rescue.

That's what I respect most about the CG. They won't argue with you, they'll just rescue you.

But if anyone is going to exaggerate, it will likely be the skipper on that boat in tough conditions. We've seen that a lot.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jameswilson29 said:


> And Sail Magazine published a new article, "Life At 55",
> 
> Life at 55 | Sail Magazine
> 
> about how 55 footers are the new 45 footers, now manageable thanks to all the advances in electronics and gear!


Ah, yes... the _New Normal_...



> Stewart agrees. "The customers for our Moody DS54 aren't going to cruise around the world," she says. "They don't have the time, so they aren't interested in a captain's cabin."


Amazing to hear how _"easily"_ boats of this size can be sailed... Especially by couples pushing 60... the forces involved apparently so modest, and _"manageable"_, all it takes is the push of a button from time to time...

Still, I'll take mine with a carbon fiber pole, please...


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Jon- You sound like the Who- "I hope I die before I get old". We are on the wrong side of sixty and hope to sail including passage making into our mid seventies. We have done things I think you think unwise from your statements on other threads such as leading everything aft. Still the Dutchman, powered winches and Autopilot make the day in and day sailing feasible for us. We kept it down to 46' in the belief that if all the "advances"( all winches are powered) fail even in our decrepitude we could still sail the boat. Believe it's much harder (but not impossible) once you get above the mid forties LOA to have a boat that runs on muscle power alone. We have mast pulpits and winches on the mast with the sails rigged to be reefable from there if necessary. Hell the main and genny weigh so much I can't get them off without help from a whippersnapper. I would have no problem with a 50'er with split rig but agree with you many of the 50'er now are unsailable by even a bunch of 30 somethings once the power fails. 
What I don't get about the IP post is I thought it was a sailboat. ?What about putting up a storm jib/trysail BEFORE it got untenable and fore reaching out to sea if there wasn't enough room for a run with a drogue out.

P.S.- two days ago spent the night in Bristol, R.I. near an Amel. Folks in the dinghy looked to have ten years on me. Looked like the boat has done and will do some miles.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

outbound said:


> Jon- You sound like the Who- "I hope I die before I get old". We are on the wrong side of sixty and hope to sail including passage making into our mid seventies. We have done things I think you think unwise from your statements on other threads such as leading everything aft. Still the Dutchman, powered winches and Autopilot make the day in and day sailing feasible for us. We kept it down to 46' in the belief that if all the "advances"( all winches are powered) fail even in our decrepitude we could still sail the boat. Believe it's much harder (but not impossible) once you get above the mid forties LOA to have a boat that runs on muscle power alone. We have mast pulpits and winches on the mast with the sails rigged to be reefable from there if necessary. Hell the main and genny weigh so much I can't get them off without help from a whippersnapper. I would have no problem with a 50'er with split rig but agree with you many of the 50'er now are unsailable by even a bunch of 30 somethings once the power fails.
> What I don't get about the IP post is I thought it was a sailboat. ?What about putting up a storm jib/trysail BEFORE it got untenable and fore reaching out to sea if there wasn't enough room for a run with a drogue out.
> 
> P.S.- two days ago spent the night in Bristol, R.I. near an Amel. Folks in the dinghy looked to have ten years on me. Looked like the boat has done and will do some miles.


LOL! Hey, what can I say, I'm just a wimp about this, I suppose...

We all have different comfort levels about the sizes of boats we're comfortable sailing shorthanded, is all... Mine now roundabout 40-42 feet, the H-R 43 I recently ran up from Trinidad is about the upper limit of what I'd care to sail regularly (66+ feet above the water is about as high as I EVER want to go up a rig, for one thing (grin)) 80 lb anchors are about as much as I care to deal with, and so on... The main on this H-R is pretty big, about as much as I'd care to deal with in a tropical squall in the middle of the night, and so on... (No moon, no radar on that trip, we came close to getting caught with our pants down a couple of times) Oh, and I probably should mention, I'm one of those wusses who considers 30 knots to be a LOT of wind, and frankly - the forces involved on 50+ footers in such conditions, whether aided by powered winches or not, simply scare me...

Unfortunately, the boats I'm asked to deliver keep getting bigger, yet I keep getting older... Not the ideal trend, over the long haul... (grin)

We all have different levels of comfort regarding this stuff, it's as simple as that... My 'threshold' seems a bit more conservative than most, is all...

I've no doubt you've made a superb choice with your Outbound, however... A 40-42' version of the same would come as close as anything out there now to being my own Dream Boat...


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Hey, what can I say, I'm just a wimp about this, I suppose...
> 
> We all have different comfort levels about the sizes of boats we're comfortable sailing shorthanded, is all... Mine now roundabout 40-42 feet, the H-R 43 I recently ran up from Trinidad is about the upper limit of what I'd care to sail regularly (66+ feet above the water is about as high as I EVER want to go up a rig, for one thing (grin)) 80 lb anchors are about as much as I care to deal with, and so on... The main on this H-R is pretty big, about as much as I'd care to deal with in a tropical squall in the middle of the night, and so on... (No moon, no radar on that trip, we came close to getting caught with our pants down a couple of times) Oh, and I probably should mention, I'm one of those wusses who considers 30 knots to be a LOT of wind, and frankly - the forces involved on 50+ footers in such conditions, whether aided by powered winches or not, simply scare me...
> 
> ...


Thing I don't understand is why go so big? It seems every time I hear about "how easy it is to handle the boats" it is about how a couple has gone around the world in one, but why? What do you need all that room for? Sure if you have several children with you all the time and visitors and what not, but it is always a picture of an old couple, or an old guy and a younger woman. Of course I don't understand the need for a big house either. I outgrew the need to impress others, and guess I am not trying to make up for other short comings! 

I just don't see much to be gained by going over 40 foot for a couple.

Now if money were no object and I had a full time crew then sure, but for just a couple it does not look fun.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Thing is when first marketed before they added the sugar scoop it was 44 Come on Jon what's 2 ft. Among friends.
Also most boats boast a wAtertight bulkhead forward (Hylas,pAssport etc.).in mine it's 7ft back. Other than rode try to weight out of the ends so it pretty much empty. Agree with you guys low forties,high thirties is about right.
Still,nothing like lwl for speed.


----------



## sailguy40 (Feb 6, 2010)

From the article I see two problems here...

1) Both knew forecasts called for a serious storm to move across Virginia, Maryland and the north-central Atlantic by late Tuesday, but every weather model said waves would top out at 4 to 6 feet — bumpy, but manageable

2) "Even my father has said, 'Why go out in those conditions? Why not wait a few days?'" recalled Southward.

"As professionals, our job is to deliver the vessel as quickly and safely as possible," Schoenberger said.

Regarding #1, if forecast calls for a serious storm, watch out because
a serious storm is just that serious. They can usually kick up gale force winds and god only knows how big the seas can get in the Atlantic. The weather models are not always accurate.

Regarding #2 I look at this..."As professionals, our job is to deliver the vessel as quickly and safely as possible," Schoenberger said. 

I understand they have a job to do. If it needs to be quickly and safely as possible let it be just that. Safe as possible should not include having to chance it in stormy conditions. If it was me I would tell my client hey forecast is not so good, we are going to wait a couple days to make sure we can get your vessel to you safe and sound. I don't see why the owner of the vessel would have a problem if professional captains recommend waiting a day or two. 

This all said, glad the crew is alive and well. In the end that is what matters the most.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

Lot's of Monday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread regarding the rescue of the crew of this boat. As I sit here a week after two highly experienced airline captains managed to reach the ground before they reached the airport, driving their jumbo jet into the ground at SFO, I can only think what most other pilots are thinking about that situation - There but for the grace of God go I.

I would imagine that everyone here has been caught out, so to speak, and gotten themselves into situations they wish they hadn't. Certainly most of us have been in situations we are glad we didn't have to explain ourselves for later. We either pulled if off or got away with it depending on your POV. I would give the delivery captains some slack here. Too easy to say shoulda coulda.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

A question about these abandoned boats - regarding salvage rights: Is it finders keepers or, if salvaged/found/towed in etc, would the finder expect a fight from the owners/ insurance companies?


----------



## Shinook (Jul 13, 2012)

TJC45 said:


> Lot's of Monday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread regarding the rescue of the crew of this boat. As I sit here a week after two highly experienced airline captains managed to reach the ground before they reached the airport, driving their jumbo jet into the ground at SFO, I can only think what most other pilots are thinking about that situation - There but for the grace of God go I.


Pilots do the same thing on various message boards. Try to remember that there are somewhere in the realm of 3-5 general aviation accidents per day (most minor or non-fatal), so there are usually a bunch of posts with a bunch of responses on different boards.

I've found the replies there to be more educated and informative than on sailing boards when it comes to accident response, but at the same time, you usually have more information available (NTSB investigates all accidents and does a good job, most of the time) and the factors involved in 90% of accidents are usually the same (fuel exhaustion, VFR into IMC, flying into thundestorms). I think the quality of the responses is a result of the required education it takes to fly an airplane vs. sail a boat, most people on those boards will at least have 50 or 60 hours, with a likely average of around 1000, and there are a lot more experienced people (charter pilots, instructors, etc), resulting in better responses.

That said, you still get the long schpeals about "I'd never do this" or "I'd never do that" or "What a fool, I do x, y, and z so this never happens". What someone told me a long time ago is that no one departs with the intent of getting into an accident or intentionally does something stupid to kill themselves, it's always a chain of decisions that lead to the point of the accident and it is foolish to assume that you can't find yourself in the same situation. It only takes a few minor lapses in judgement to get you in a bad place, no matter how well you prepared.

You also have to question your decisions after the fact, even if you survive. These guys may have made the same trip in the same conditions 10 times before and been fine, but a few strokes of bad luck or mistakes this time lead them to needing rescue. I frequently found that NTSB reports indicate pilots in accidents had done what resulted in the accident several times before without incident. For example, I had a friend's instructor that flew a non-deiced A36 Bonanza into known icing conditions. When I called him out on it, he told me he had done it before and that the conditions at the time didn't meet the regulatory requirement for known icing. The fact was, there were pilot reports of icing along his route of flight for the 5 hours before he took off, airports along his route of flight reporting could cover and moisture at his altitude, and temps aloft were below freezing. The icing charts showed ice at his altitude. The worst decision of all was not diverting when he encountered the situation, rather he descended to below the minimum en route altitude along his route and flew that way for several hours. This could have killed him and everyone on board, but he survived. He had done it several times before and been fine. The arrogance of this situation aside, some people assume that because they did it once, it's therefore safe, which is not accurate. If you do something 100 times, it doesn't mean it won't kill you the 101st. In some situations, people rely on these experiences and go with it, rather than question the decision to they made on instance #1. You always need to question yourself and your decisions, no matter the result.

We are all accident prone based on our decisions and there are always factors that go into it. You do the best you can to mitigate your risks, but the reason these accidents happen are flaws in human nature. They will continue, all we can do is try to learn from them and call ourselves out on the stupid things we do, but that's not a guarantee.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

TJC45 said:


> Lot's of Monday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread regarding the rescue of the crew of this boat. As I sit here a week after two highly experienced airline captains managed to reach the ground before they reached the airport, driving their jumbo jet into the ground at SFO, I can only think what most other pilots are thinking about that situation - There but for the grace of God go I.
> 
> I would imagine that everyone here has been caught out, so to speak, and gotten themselves into situations they wish they hadn't. Certainly most of us have been in situations we are glad we didn't have to explain ourselves for later. We either pulled if off or got away with it depending on your POV. I would give the delivery captains some slack here. Too easy to say shoulda coulda.


Well, that's very gentlemanly and generous of you, but I would simply suggest you may be seriously underestimating the sheer stupidity of taking a boat best suited for the ICW out around Hatteras - _a far LONGER route than inside, along one of the deadliest lee shores in the entire North Atlantic_ - in the dead of winter, just as the most powerful winter storm of the year is drawing a bead on the region, while hoping one of of 3 most treacherous and changeable inlets on the entire East coast might represent a reasonable bail-out option...

Sorry, I've done some pretty stupid things with boats over the years, but I have little problem saying "coulda shoulda" in this case...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

TJC45 said:


> Lot's of Monday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread regarding the rescue of the crew of this boat. As I sit here a week after two highly experienced airline captains managed to reach the ground before they reached the airport, driving their jumbo jet into the ground at SFO, I can only think what most other pilots are thinking about that situation - There but for the grace of God go I.
> 
> I would imagine that everyone here has been caught out, so to speak, and gotten themselves into situations they wish they hadn't. Certainly most of us have been in situations we are glad we didn't have to explain ourselves for later. We either pulled if off or got away with it depending on your POV. I would give the delivery captains some slack here. Too easy to say shoulda coulda.


I generally agree with you. At some point, you get caught no matter how perfect you are in your own mind.

But I also like the MMQing. It's just a way to learn. I just try to be careful never to call the rescuees "idiots". That kind of thing always comes back to bite you.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

sailguy40 said:


> From the article I see two problems here...
> 
> 1) Both knew forecasts called for a serious storm to move across Virginia, Maryland and the north-central Atlantic by late Tuesday, but every weather model said waves would top out at 4 to 6 feet - bumpy, but manageable
> 
> ...


Now they may have a schedule to keep, but I believe the primary goal is to actually delver the yacht. Hard to do that when you abandon it out in the storm you knew was coming! I know if I got my boat delivered and it had ripped sails and a trashed motor because they left when they knew there was a storm coming I would be withholding my payment till I discussed with a lawyer.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

miatapaul said:


> Now they may have a schedule to keep, but I believe the primary goal is to actually delver the yacht.


The most dangerous item on a boat is a calendar.


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

jackdale said:


> The most dangerous item on a boat is a calendar.


Awesome quote, that one I am going to keep.

While taking RYA classes the instructors' classic quote was always "the decision made five hours ago could be the thing that kills you tomorrow".


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

miatapaul said:


> Thing I don't understand is why go so big? It seems every time I hear about "how easy it is to handle the boats" it is about how a couple has gone around the world in one, but why? What do you need all that room for? Sure if you have several children with you all the time and visitors and what not, but it is always a picture of an old couple, or an old guy and a younger woman. Of course I don't understand the need for a big house either. I outgrew the need to impress others, and guess I am not trying to make up for other short comings!
> 
> I just don't see much to be gained by going over 40 foot for a couple.
> 
> Now if money were no object and I had a full time crew then sure, but for just a couple it does not look fun.


5 or 6 years ago, CRUISING WORLD went through a spell where it seemed as if almost every cover story, or their newly-minted "Yacht Style" section, featured the latest and greatest _*"Globe-Girdling"*_ Ultimate Cruising Yacht... The stories behind the creation of these boats were always deeply personal, and portraying the yacht as the ultimate reflection and expression of the owner's experience, and desires/plans for the future...

In hindsight, however, many of these boats turn out to be far more about the _PROJECT_ itself, than what will actually be done with it after its completion... Like virtually every new 200' megayacht launched today, within a year it will show up in the Brokerage Section of the magazines that so breathlessly trumpeted its launch only months before, while the owner embarks on the creation of a newer, far more impressive 250-footer...

A few of the boats I remember from that time, all featured in CW Cover or lead Feature stories:

This was FAIRWEATHER, the magnificent S&S Seguin 52 from Lyman-Morse that I once had the honor of taking around Hatteras one winter on a delivery south...










I suspect I sailed her almost as much as the owner himself ever did, she was rather quickly listed for sale for a few years before finally changing hands during the past year...

Then, there was the story of "The Mighty Mights", a couple who selected a Globe-Girdling Hallberg-Rassy 62 as their _first boat_... It's been sitting on the hard in Jabin's in Annapolis for quite some time, now...

Then there's a magnificent Kanter 62, one of her more memorable features was the big-screen Plasma TV that stowed away inside a bulkhead by virtue of a cleverly-arranged hydraulic mechanism... That's the main thing I remember about that boat, which you can now see on Yachtworld...

Finally, there's NEW MORNING, another 54-foot Lyman-Morse "circumnavigator", designed to be "comfortable to 50 degrees N or S of the equator", featured just a few years ago...

Up and At 'Em | Cruising World

She, too, is already for sale...

Now, of course, there could be any number of compelling reasons why any of these owners' plans may have changed - financial reversals since the recession, illness, whatever... But I've had more than one client over the years, whose primary interest in boat ownership seemed to be always focused on 'The Next One', or 'The Ultimate Boat' where they were going to get _everything right_, and yet... once the project was finished, they really didn't know what to do with the damn thing... Well, beyond having me take it to places for them to fly into and sit on, for awhile...

One of the primary reasons I so love cruising in Maine, is for the boats you see up there... Boats like the one below, that may have been sailed by the same owner for decades, or perhaps passed down from one generation to the next in the same family... I encountered a couple in Nova Scotia once who were celebrating their 40th summer of sailing their Concordia yawl... Such a boat is pitifully cramped and tiny below, hopelessly 'outmoded' by modern standards, of course... but she still sails like a witch, and there will be few boats in any harbor more beautiful...

Thinking back, I'd have to rate that pair as very likely the most contented boat owners I have ever met...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Jon, I love going 'round with you on these fine forums - in fun. But I will honestly tell you - I am both amazed and envious of the experiences you've had on the number of boats you've sailed.

You're the man.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, I love going 'round with you on these fine forums - in fun. But I will honestly tell you - I am both amazed and envious of the experiences you've had on the number of boats you've sailed.
> 
> You're the man.


I agree. Its important to have someone who is kind of a historian with the experience Jon has had who can put it into words elequently.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, that's very gentlemanly and generous of you, but I would simply suggest you may be seriously underestimating the sheer stupidity of taking a boat best suited for the ICW out around Hatteras - _a far LONGER route than inside, along one of the deadliest lee shores in the entire North Atlantic_ - in the dead of winter, just as the most powerful winter storm of the year is drawing a bead on the region, while hoping one of of 3 most treacherous and changeable inlets on the entire East coast might represent a reasonable bail-out option...
> 
> Sorry, I've done some pretty stupid things with boats over the years, but I have little problem saying "coulda shoulda" in this case...


Jon, when first read of this incident I agreed with you 100%. And, i agree there was no reason to go outside, imo, for any reason. Buttttt! But then i read the captain's acct. Truthfully, while I still don't like some of the decisions that were made. My own conclusion is what we have here is a Domino Effect incident. Same as many aircraft crashes. In this case take away one Domino and we never hear about a boat named Adante 2. Storm takes it's projected path to the northwest, no rescue. Captain's forecast of 6 to 8 holds we have no rescue. The boats engine doesn't hit the crapper we don't have a rescue. They are somehow able to shoot the inlet, (yeah i know)we don't have a rescue.

In hindsight these captains look downright incompetent. They sit right at the intersection of poor judgement and bad luck. Truth is, maybe they are incompetent. Key word here "maybe." AS i said in my previous post the line between pulling it off and getting away with it is razor thin. We have all been there! And i agree my take is generous. But lacking an NTSB level investigation we've got to draw our own conclusions.

That said, i would never hire these guys to move a boat.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

The flying analogy only goes so far. There is mandatory licensing for pilots. Pilots must master a complex body of technical knowledge to perform adequately. There are regulations, mandatory oversight and inspections of commercial planes. An aircraft accident can cause damage not only to the captain and passengers, but also innocent third parties on the ground. The explosive nature of fuel creates far greater risks than a boat sinking at sea. Passenger planes carry indestructible black boxes that record every decision made in flight. A federal agency conducts post-accident investigations.

In contrast, recreational boating is largely unlicensed and unregulated, which is great. Anyone can buy a boat and sail anywhere he or she chooses, no matter how foolish that decision may be. While there is a body of technical knowledge that should be understood, some learn on the fly or not at all. In the absence of any strict regulatory scheme and licensing, common sense, problem solving and good judgment become critically important. Many of us believe experience is not the be-all and the end-all for good decision-making on the water.

Yes, the Coast Guard requires certain licenses for those professionals who take on greater responsibilities, but almost anyone can get a license with study and the requisite time on the water.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. All humans make mistakes. This listserv serves an extremely important educational function in analyzing these incidents. We all benefit. Many of us have internalized the lessons learned and naturally view those who ignore them as deficient. We usually only learn about these incidents because the Coast Guard has to step in and rescue the offenders.

The common refrain of "I wasn't there so I won't judge their decisions" is B.S. Hey, most of the boat owners on this listserv are at least moderately financial successful people in life. Many of us serve as researchers, analysts, consultants and advisers. We give opinions everyday on things of which we have no first-hand knowledge or observation, but which have learned about through research and analysis. Get over it. That is the way the world works. If only those with first-hand observation are qualified to comment on an incident, 99% of our advances in life would disappear...

Finally, there is not a person here who has not acted like an idiot at some point in their lives (or every day for that matter). Calling someone an idiot is hardly an offense or a hindrance to learning. Often it is merely humorous and entertaining. If one has an ego so inflated that one's self-image is punctured by name-calling, perhaps ongoing therapy should be in the cards.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

TJC45 said:


> Jon, when first read of this incident I agreed with you 100%. And, i agree there was no reason to go outside, imo, for any reason. Buttttt! But then i read the captain's acct. Truthfully, while I still don't like some of the decisions that were made. My own conclusion is what we have here is a Domino Effect incident. Same as many aircraft crashes. In this case take away one Domino and we never hear about a boat named Adante 2. Storm takes it's projected path to the northwest, no rescue. Captain's forecast of 6 to 8 holds we have no rescue. The boats engine doesn't hit the crapper we don't have a rescue. They are somehow able to shoot the inlet, (yeah i know)we don't have a rescue.
> 
> That said, i would never hire these guys to move a boat.


Bingo.

The double-edged sword is risk evaluation. There is not one of us here who haven't done something that we knew was risky. In most of those cases, we skated by - because we didn't have the cascade of many things going wrong at once. But, we also likely didn't think of all of those things that _could have_ gone wrong either.

The bottom line is that there is _no way_ to get it exactly right. It's simply an exercise of minimizing the risk as much as possible without going overboard and getting frozen at the dock while you're thinking through every possible scenario.

The one element that trumps everything else in the equation of sailing is the *weather*. I can't know when my engine is going to suddenly take a crap, or when my electrical system is going to die - but I can absolutely know, ALWAYS, that I don't want to be anywhere near a TS. There's plenty of evidence that forecasts are not always right.

That's my lesson here. Stay the hell away.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> Bingo.
> 
> The double-edged sword is risk evaluation. There is not one of us here who haven't done something that we knew was risky. In most of those cases, we skated by - because we didn't have the cascade of many things going wrong at once. But, we also likely didn't think of all of those things that _could have_ gone wrong either.
> 
> ...


Now there it is in a nutshell. A fairly simple concept.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

chef2sail said:


> I agree. Its important to have someone who is kind of a historian with the experience Jon has had who can put it into words elequently.


Dave, I do not disagree with you at all about this. It's great to have someone of his experience who is willing to take the time to explain things for us novices (speaking for myself, not you). That is absolutely true.

But I want to re-emphasize this part of Smack's post...



smackdaddy said:


> ...But I will honestly tell you - I am both amazed and envious of the experiences you've had on the number of boats you've sailed.
> 
> You're the man.


...it's just really cool to get paid to captain other people's yachts. We're fortunate that he's an articulate and charitable blogger, since that enables us to share in his experience. I suspect there are mundane parts too, and some downright unpleasant work that needs to get done, but the whole concept of getting paid to captain others' yachts is about as cool as it gets.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Good advice....Practical advice...Common sense advice

We travel to New England and the LI Sound every summer for 3 weeks starting in the m middle of August to past Labor day. This is the heart of TS season. Most TS and hurricanes do not travel up the East Coast this far north, but there has been a change in the last few years and while most deal an offshore component, a few have actually targeted these areas.

In our trip planning I keep a wary eye south. We have bailout points north like the Hudson River, Connecticut River, Providence River should the need arise for us to head inland away from tidal surges should one of these storms head up the coast and we cannot get back to the Delaware River in a safe manner. This may even include a storm coming inland in NC many miles south, but affecting ocean conditions for 1500 miles, and it could even turn north.

Its important in that risk analysis scenario that's you have alternatives to choose rather than EVER risk weather situations. TS/ Hurricanes movements are not predictable in pinpoint accuracy like weather fronts and large leeway must given. Why risk it. Easier to stand pat or hide than outthink a named storm. No schedule should override that risk and enter the equation.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

TakeFive said:


> Dave, I do not disagree with you at all about this. It's great to have someone of his experience who is willing to take the time to explain things for us novices (speaking for myself, not you). That is absolutely true.
> 
> But I want to re-emphasize this part of Smack's post...
> 
> ...it's just really cool to get paid to captain other people's yachts. We're fortunate that he's an articulate and charitable blogger, since that enables us to share in his experience. I suspect there are mundane parts too, and some downright unpleasant work that needs to get done, but the whole concept of getting paid to captain others' yachts is about as cool as it gets.


Agreed. Not sure why you put so much emphasis with the but attached?

BTW I feel like I am a novice compared to Jon in terms of the ocean. He is *one *of the people I have learned a great deal of factual information from on SN.

An analogy. Everybody proffers they can cook and they make excellent food. Many people write about their enjoyment of cooking and prowess at it, even exchanging recipes. Only a very small percentage of them could hold a candle to a professional chef. And only a very small percentage of that percentage could ever do it as a career or get others to give up their hard earned money for their own original creations. That doesn't mean the amateur cooks and chefs aren't able to critique of have valid opinions about food.

Personally I wouldn't want to captain others yachts and am very happy with the professions I chose. Captaining for a living would ruin for me one of the most important aspects of sailing for me. Relaxation. Its much different if you have a schedule and that kind of responsibility I am sure. Its one reason why Jon is so passionate about the amateur F..ups who may give him a bad name as a professional or the bonehead moves some of us amateurs make. I fully appreciate that.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, I love going 'round with you on these fine forums - in fun. But I will honestly tell you - I am both amazed and envious of the experiences you've had on the number of boats you've sailed.
> 
> You're the man.


Thanks for the kind words, Smack, but that's far too generous an assesment, I'm afraid...

Sure, I've been very fortunate to get paid to run others' boats, and that work has taken me to some great places, meet some incredible people, and have rides on some beautiful boats, no question...

But, my experience pales in comparison to some of the other captains and sailors out there... While I've sailed all my life, most of my miles on the water have come aboard stinkpots, after all. Though I doubt there are too many out there who have made more trips up and down the East coast over the past 30 years than I've managed to rack up, it's easy to 'pad' the numbers somewhat by running so many boats capable of making the trip from NJ to Lauderdale in 4 or 5 days... 

Only in recent years have I had the time to do many of the longer, more time-consuming passagemaking deliveries under sail that my schedule may not have previously allowed... Even though running boats has occupied a considerable amount of the time I've spent over the years 'working', I've always considered my delivery work to somewhat of a sideline to what until recently was my 'Real' profession...

Shooting racing is how I really achieved Fame & Fortune, after all... 










Getting to play with a boat like FAIRWEATHER as if it were my own is a rare privilege, alright... But it doesn't offer quite the same rush as being permitted to be within a couple of meters of F1 cars blasting through the tunnel at Monaco, or being stationed at the exit of Turn 1 at Indy...


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

You must have every respect for Jon.
Hard on personal/family life. Not in control of his schedule. Not there for some of the little moments that bind us together. S. O. In fear "will he come home?".
Need to deal with owners. Some are entitled jerks. Some are scared. Some think they know more than him. 
Need to deal with an unfamiliar boat every time. . What's broken? Where are things?
Responsible for all souls on board. Fiscally responsible for the vessel and needs to deal with the authorities.
Income unpredictable and dependent on word of mouth/reputation.
Then there is seamanship and weather.
I listen closely when Jon posts.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

TJC45 said:


> Jon, when first read of this incident I agreed with you 100%. And, i agree there was no reason to go outside, imo, for any reason. Buttttt! But then i read the captain's acct. Truthfully, while I still don't like some of the decisions that were made. My own conclusion is what we have here is a Domino Effect incident. Same as many aircraft crashes. In this case take away one Domino and we never hear about a boat named Adante 2. *Storm takes it's projected path to the northwest, no rescue.*


Again, THIS was the weather they sailed into... I seriously doubt had this massive system taken a slightly different track, the outcome would have been much different...










I can't even begin to imagine the thinking behind taking such a boat around Hatteras in January when that was the view of the Eastern seaboard from space... It's as unfathomable to me as Captain Walbridge's decision to sail the BOUNTY straight into the path of Hurricane Sandy... The only thing I can imagine, is that they were totally unaware of the bigger weather picture, and were solely relying on VHF forecasts for local waters as they progressed down the Bay, and then on down outside towards Hatteras...



TJC45 said:


> Captain's forecast of 6 to 8 holds we have no rescue. The boats engine doesn't hit the crapper we don't have a rescue. They are somehow able to shoot the inlet, (yeah i know)we don't have a rescue.
> 
> In hindsight these captains look downright incompetent. They sit right at the intersection of poor judgement and bad luck. Truth is, maybe they are incompetent. Key word here "maybe." AS i said in my previous post the line between pulling it off and getting away with it is razor thin. We have all been there! And i agree my take is generous. But lacking an NTSB level investigation we've got to draw our own conclusions.


As always, however, I think we make a mistake in looking at these sorts of events in terms of such specific "Dominoes", or decisions made... I think such a tendency to focus on the "of only they hadn't...", _'For Want of a Nail'_ type of analysis so often disguises the broader, more important lessons to be learned from these sorts of events...

Again, I'll refer to the RULE 62 tragedy... Most people would probably say the mistake made there was the skipper's attempt to enter that Bahamian cut, at night, in those conditions...

I, on the other hand, think it's more instructive to try to analyze the root causes that led up to the making of such a poor decision... In my opinion, the fate of RULE 62 was determined by decisions and choices the skipper made long before the boat ever left Hampon, perhaps years before that year's Caribbean 1500... The obvious lack of offshore experience on the part of both skipper and crew, for one - THAT is what led to such an unseamanlike maneuver being made, in the end...

The inexperience of these guys off Hatteras, their inability to appreciate the bigger picture of what they were getting into - the inherent illogic of the route, a lack of appreciation of how such large and complex lows can literally 'explode' in the vicinity of Hatteras, how irrevocably they would be committed to their route once rounding Diamond Shoals, and so on - is what led to the loss of this boat... Not any of the cascading failures that followed, they were almost inevitable, or at least should certainly not have been surprising...


----------



## Shinook (Jul 13, 2012)

jameswilson29 said:


> The flying analogy only goes so far. There is mandatory licensing for pilots. Pilots must master a complex body of technical knowledge to perform adequately. There are regulations, mandatory oversight and inspections of commercial planes.


I think this proves the point all the more, that despite complex regulations and knowledge/licensing requirements, the same stupid decisions are still made by people that know better. It represents human nature and faults in decision making happen regardless of skill level or experience.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

outbound said:


> You must have every respect for Jon.
> Hard on personal/family life. Not in control of his schedule. Not there for some of the little moments that bind us together. S. O. In fear "will he come home?".
> Need to deal with owners. Some are entitled jerks. Some are scared. Some think they know more than him.
> Need to deal with an unfamiliar boat every time. . What's broken? Where are things?
> ...


Again, thanks for the kind words, but the delivery business hasn't been _THAT_ tough... 

True, my lifestyle would not suit a family man very well, but has suited me just fine... And, I've probably still had far more control over my schedule than most in the workaday world, my schedule as always been somewhat self-imposed, to a large extent...

As far as my clients, I have been remarkably lucky over the years... Sure, there are plenty of horror stories re owners out there, but I could probably count my bad experiences on one hand... Overall, my clients have been absolutely wonderful to deal with, and many of the finest people I have ever known, and have treated me exceptionally well...

Pretty much the same thing with boats, though you do get a pretty good sense of those to be avoided early on in the business... These days, it's the new-fangled, state-of-the-art Latest & Greatest marked by their incredible _complexity_ that scare me... 

if there's _one thing_ I've learned over my time delivering yachts, it's the value of the *KISS* principle...


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> .. The obvious lack of offshore experience on the part of both skipper and crew, for one - THAT is what led to such an unseamanlike maneuver being made, in the end...
> 
> The inexperience of these guys off Hatteras, their inability to appreciate the bigger picture of what they were getting into - the inherent illogic of the route, a lack of appreciation of how such large and complex lows can literally 'explode' in the vicinity of Hatteras, how irrevocably they would be committed to their route once rounding Diamond Shoals, and so on - is what led to the loss of this boat... Not any of the cascading failures that followed, they were almost inevitable, or at least should certainly not have been surprising...


You pin it on lack of experience, but consider all the reading material available to sailors on weather, route planning, heavy weather sailing, and how not to handle a sailboat in distress.

Why couldn't a careful sailor with good judgment, common sense and preparation, who researches these critical areas before undertaking a voyage, perform just as well or better than a more experienced skipper who develops a cavalier attitude toward passagemaking, or never really learned these lessons in the first place?

Doesn't this really come down to respect for the sea and the weather, that these voyages are not to be taken lightly, as so many of the novices seem to ignore?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jameswilson29 said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> > .. The obvious lack of offshore experience on the part of both skipper and crew, for one - THAT is what led to such an unseamanlike maneuver being made, in the end...
> >
> > The inexperience of these guys off Hatteras, their inability to appreciate the bigger picture of what they were getting into - the inherent illogic of the route, a lack of appreciation of how such large and complex lows can literally 'explode' in the vicinity of Hatteras, how irrevocably they would be committed to their route once rounding Diamond Shoals, and so on - is what led to the loss of this boat... Not any of the cascading failures that followed, they were almost inevitable, or at least should certainly not have been surprising...
> ...


Absolutely... But, perhaps you're looking at what I mean by "experience" too narrowly...

I certainly consider a significant portion of the body of my own experience to include things I've read, or studied, or discussed with others, or simply included in 'stories' I've heard from other sailors... Hell, a 10-15 minute chat with a charter boat captain at Oregon Inlet Fishing Center, for example, could have proven to have been the most valuable "experience" these guys might have gained, prior to this ill-fated venture... 

And, yes - such "experience" might even be gleaned from internet sailing forums, from time to time... 

You're right, however, with the incredible wealth of information so easily available today, there's little excuse for ignorance of so much of this stuff, at least on a 'theoretical' level...


----------



## cheoah (Jul 5, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> The only thing I can imagine, is that they were totally unaware of the bigger weather picture, and were solely relying on VHF forecasts for local waters as they progressed down the Bay, and then on down outside towards Hatteras...


I really think that this may have had a lot to do with it, and that still reflects a lack of judgement and experience. People who sail this stretch of water know that the inlets are mostly unusable, and know the risks in sailing these waters in unsettled weather. Much less with a big Low like that....

I use my iphone for coastal sailing a lot now. A couple of apps would have provided them all the big picture info they needed to just point their boat down the Elizabeth River and avoid failure off Cape Lookout.

Then there was the not fueling up part. Am I remembering that correctly, that they did not bother to tank up before putting out Chesapeake? That was not a conservative approach.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> You pin it on lack of experience, but consider all the reading material available to sailors on weather, route planning, heavy weather sailing, and how not to handle a sailboat in distress.
> 
> Why couldn't a careful sailor with good judgment, common sense and preparation, who researches these critical areas before undertaking a voyage, perform just as well or better than a more experienced skipper who develops a cavalier attitude toward passagemaking, or never really learned these lessons in the first place?
> 
> Doesn't this really come down to respect for the sea and the weather, that these voyages are not to be taken lightly, as so many of the novices seem to ignore?


Experience is a broad term which should include intellectual ( reading, research, theoretical) and hands on. Intellectual experience alone is no substitute for hands on. A competent safe sailor has both and knows the limits of safety, not necessarily their perceived limits which can be inflated by ther own misconceptions. There are many book smart and computer smart sailors.

Experience offshore is Not just in the sailing aspect but also should include maintainence of the boat inclusive of all of its systems. I have friends who re darn good sailors. Finish first in competitive races, but wouldn't know hw to troubleshoot and repair their own electrical systems of diesels. They always pay others to do his. To me this is not a good formula to have as n offshore sailor.

This is where someone like Jon or Dave excell. Thy have an all around combination of many facets of experiences it appears.


----------

