# S/V Triumph lost in the atlantic



## rmeador

Details are still sketchy, but S/V Triumph, a Gulfstar 50 ketch that was based at my marina, has been lost somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. The couple on board was rescued by a passing cargo vessel and is safe and unharmed, but lost everything they own. They departed for Europe on 7/10 from Boston. All we know is they had some trouble with the headsail which they thought they fixed, but ended up losing the sail, and the mast was also questionable at that point. They eventually ended up taking on water and abandoned ship on 7/27. That's literally all the details I have.


----------



## Ajax_MD

Popcorn: Check.
Cold beer: Check.
Cozy armchair: Check.

I'm ready.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Wow, sounds like they were lucky! Glad they are ok, look forward to more details...


----------



## Skipper Jer

Color me overly cautious but what are they doing in the middle of the Atlantic during hurricane season? Glad they are ok.


----------



## souljour2000

*S/V Triumph lost during atlantic Xing*

Leaving July 10th is abit risky but it is hardly the middle of Hurricane season...certainly that date is towards the "end of the beginning " of hurricane season..remember..the season ends on Nov 30... almost 4 months from now...and it technically began June 1st ..or 2 months ago..splitting hairs...?...Yes..I am guilty... ....Are the crew of S/V Triumph mentally unstable. for doing so...? No. Probably not... Do We need more info before further commentary....definitely. Will we blabber and speculate indiscriminately anyway whether more hard info is forthcoming soon...or not....affirmative....we will..that's a large imperative for coming to this site.


----------



## MARC2012

Sorry for the loss,glad all ok.marc


----------



## HPLou

Sorry to hear they lost their vessel but glad they are ok. Looking forward to hearing about the the events that lead to the loss. Fortunate that the cargo ship was there for them.


----------



## rockDAWG

Sorry to hear their loss, I am glad they are safe. This could happen to me so I like to learn more from their mishaps. 

Was a hurricane posted during the time they were crossing?


----------



## TQA

Some one was asking about crewing on a boat crossing at that time and I think it was a Gulfstar. Same boat?


----------



## smackdaddy

Amver, Saving Lives at Sea Since 1958: Amver ship saves two sailors in dramatic Atlantic rescue

THREE FREAKIN' HOURS IN THE WATER???? Yowza!


----------



## rmeador

Wow, smacky, you sure do have a way of finding things. I've been googling for an article like that every couple hours all day. That's them all right. I haven't heard anything about the weather except what was stated in the article smacky just linked (why is it so hard to find historical weather online?). 30kts and 8' seas doesn't sound too bad.


----------



## rockDAWG

TQA said:


> Some one was asking about crewing on a boat crossing at that time and I think it was a Gulfstar. Same boat?


I would if this one is relative to this thread:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...79-real-life-weather-scenario.html#post751655

*With tropical storm Bret moving north in the Atlantic, I have two questions for you guys to kick around.

1.) My friends are in the midst of an Atlantic crossing. Their last known position (8 hours ago) was 39°53'45.71"N, 64°25'4.80"W, with a heading of approximately 100. If they slow down... Bret will hit them (Tropical Storm Bret : 5 Day Forecast Map : Weather Underground). If they continue as they are... they should make it to the far side of the projection cone by Friday when Bret arrives, but that seems risky. Is the best solution to turn back? What would you do and why? They're in a Gulfstar 50 ketch.
*

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/76094-am-i-crazy-if.html


----------



## turbulicity

Glad that they are safe. As a fellow Gulfstar 50 owner, it is sad to see one lost. As anyone else, I am curious about the series of events that led to the engine loss, sail loss, taking in water. Sounds like a streak of bad luck.


----------



## smackdaddy

rmeador said:


> Wow, smacky, you sure do have a way of finding things. I've been googling for an article like that every couple hours all day. That's them all right. I haven't heard anything about the weather except what was stated in the article smacky just linked (why is it so hard to find historical weather online?). 30kts and 8' seas doesn't sound too bad.


No worries rm. It's just awesomeness.

So, from what I heard in the audio, an oil cooler malfunction filled the engine with seawater, then the starboard main stays (shrouds?) parted...leaving them drifting on a sea anchor.

I didn't hear anything about them actively taking on water (apart from the oil cooler thing which happened a couple of days prior to the call according to the audio).

Regardless, definitely a bad day as he says.


----------



## jcalvinmarks

The AMVER blog seems to indicate that the boat was still afloat and was cast adrift, so here's hoping we'll see a S/V Satori/_Perfect Storm_ situation. Maybe it'll wash up on a beach in Newfoundland and they can get at least some of their possessions back, and maybe even refloat the boat.


----------



## hellosailor

Hurricane season?!

Might as well ask why they were sailing near giant narwhals during mating season.

We do know there were no hurricanes mid-Atlantic this month. 
We don't know if they were sunk by giant narwhals.

Colluding with that whale that sank _Ishmael _in just one shot up in Alaska.


----------



## rmeador

rockDAWG, I think you're right that those posts are related. I believe they've even given me enough information to know who CambridgeKid is. I am nearly certain I've met him around the marina.


----------



## smackdaddy

rmeador said:


> rockDAWG, I think you're right that those posts are related. I believe they've even given me enough information to know who CambridgeKid is. I am nearly certain I've met him around the marina.


I bet he's glad he turned down the gig at this point.

Looks like he generally got some pretty good advice in those threads.


----------



## rockDAWG

smackdaddy said:


> I bet he's glad he turned down the gig at this point.
> 
> Looks like he generally got some pretty good advice in those threads.


I believe CambridgeKid boarded another boat to Iceland. Damn, he is a lucky dog. I wish I had a chance like this. I don't even mind to beon the ill-fated Triumph as long as I get recused. Can you image, I can brag about it all over sailnet.

Ok I will embellish a bit for the dramatic effect


----------



## Slayer

Sounds like the vessel wasn't that sound.


----------



## JonEisberg

jcalvinmarks said:


> The AMVER blog seems to indicate that the boat was still afloat and was cast adrift, so here's hoping we'll see a S/V Satori/_Perfect Storm_ situation. *Maybe it'll wash up on a beach in Newfoundland* and they can get at least some of their possessions back, and maybe even refloat the boat.


Unfortunately, the odds of that would appear to be slim, to none...

Wild Cove is one of the TWO stretches of sandy beach to be found on the entire south coast of Newfoundland...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So, from what I heard in the audio, an oil cooler malfunction filled the engine with seawater, then the starboard main stays (shrouds?) parted...leaving them drifting on a sea anchor.
> 
> I didn't hear anything about them actively taking on water (apart from the oil cooler thing which happened a couple of days prior to the call according to the audio).
> 
> Regardless, definitely a bad day as he says.


Sounds like the classic case of a series of cascading failures... Never ceases to amaze, how many losses of cruising sailboats begin with an _engine failure_... (grin)

With such sketchy details available, we're all just guessing, of course... But abandoning a boat due to the loss of a _shroud_, but with the rig still in the boat, has got to be a tough one to swallow, surely there must be more to this story...


----------



## tdw

Sorry to interupt but nice spot John. Your boat ? If yes , how on earth did you get the pic ?

I'm not going to dump on the poor souls who have just lost their boat but something goes awry with the engine and it floods with saltwater, the headsail is destroyed and either a lower or a shroud has let go. Either very bad luck or poor management it would seem.

JE said what I was typing pretty much. So take the above as agreement. I didn't hear specifically the word 'shroud' only 'side stay' or so I thought.


----------



## rockDAWG

Sailnet needs to have a full time reporter to investigate and report back to us.


----------



## JonEisberg

tdw said:


> Sorry to interupt but nice spot John. Your boat ? If yes , how on earth did you get the pic ?


The shot was just taken from some high ground that forms the opposite side of the cove. I landed my dinghy at a point just beyond the lower right corner of the pic, and hiked up from there&#8230;

Newfoundland is definitely one of those places you've really got to trust your ground tackle when leaving the boat to explore ashore&#8230; Not a lot of margin for error in most spots, it's characteristic of the topography of fjords that very often your only option is to anchor closer than you'd like to a rather unforgiving shoreline&#8230;


----------



## JonEisberg

Captainmeme said:


> Color me overly cautious but what are they doing in the middle of the Atlantic during hurricane season? Glad they are ok.


It would be interesting to know exactly where they were, but the CG's description of "780 miles NE of Cape Cod" is hardly the middle of the Atlantic...

In fact, such a position doesn't even place them at a longitude E of Cape Race...

If you were gonna have a rigging failure out there, you'd have to consider yourself lucky if it occurred on the starboard side, as reported...

With the prevailing southwesterlies this time of year, port tack takes you right back towards Newfoundland or Cape Breton, no?

Who knows, just sayin'... (grin)


----------



## LauderBoy

Slayer said:


> Sounds like the vessel wasn't that sound.


From googling around, it doesn't sound like the Gulfstar 50's were the sturdiest of construction. I don't know much about the 40ft plus boat scene, but in the sub 40's build quality talk is pretty much everything when it comes to blue water.

Do most people figure once you're past 40ft the hardware gets big enough build quality isn't as important?


----------



## rmeador

Gulfstars were very hit or miss in their design and build quality. In general, the ones from ~1975-1983 were very well designed and quite well built, but those before and after were shoddy. For instance, my surveyor said he would feel comfortable taking my boat to Bermuda, and my rigger says he would feel comfortable taking it around the world. I wouldn't consider it a blue-water cruiser though, and I doubt I'll ever take it further than Bermuda.

I don't know what vintage Triumph was, but it probably falls into the good range. That said, my research into the 50s in particular has turned up many references to wildly varying build quality boat to boat in that model, regardless of year.

I don't think once you cross a certain size threshold, any boat becomes safe for blue water. I think you'll find most people (on this board, at least) would agree that a Hunter of any size is unsuitable for crossing an ocean. You'll also find plenty of people who have made such crossings in Hunters and done just fine, so that doesn't mean the boat can't do it, it's just that it might not have as much margin for safety when things go wrong. I'm hardly an expert on this subject, and I have nothing against Hunters, I was just using that as a common example.


----------



## Barquito

I can't link to the article on the rescue here at work, but, did it say they were rescued from the water... and that the boat was still floating... am I missing something?


----------



## rmeador

Barquito said:


> I can't link to the article on the rescue here at work, but, did it say they were rescued from the water... and that the boat was still floating... am I missing something?


From the audio recording, it would appear that the Kim Jacob came to get them off their boat, and while climbing aboard, one of the Triumph crew fell into the water and wasn't retrieved for 3 hours. Triumph was still afloat when they left it (they marked it as a hazard to navigation).


----------



## smackdaddy

From the Amver article...



> Monday, August 1, 2011
> Amver ship saves two sailors in dramatic Atlantic rescue
> Two people were rescued from the sailboat Triumph on Wednesday July 27, 2011 approximatley 780 miles northeast of Cape Cod, Mass. after their boat began taking on water.
> 
> The sailors sent a distress call to U.S. Coast Guard rescue personnel in Boston stating their sails were torn, their engine was disabled, and they were taking on water. Coast Guard rescue authorities immediately queried the Amver system and requested the tanker Kim Jacob divert to rescue the duo.
> 
> The rescue was complicated by the size of the Liberian flagged tanker and the worsening weather conditions as winds over 30 knots and waves over 8 feet hampered the the operation. One of the Triumph sailors fell into the ocean while attempting to climb aboard the Kim Jacob but the crew kept a sharp lookout and recovered the survivor three hours after he fell into the water.
> 
> Once onboard the Kim Jacob the survivors received medical attention, food, and talked to Coast Guard personnel. The survivors were equipped with an Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) and life jackets. Their preparation, coupled with the skill and seamanship of the Kim Jacob crew, resulted in their rescue.
> 
> The survivors stayed aboard the Kim Jacob until it reaches its next port in Port Tupper, Nova Scotia. Their boat was marked as a hazard to navigation and left adrift.
> 
> The Kim Jacob is managed by Ernst Jacob GmbH and Company of Hamburg, Germany and enrolled in the Amver system on May 11, 1998. The Kim Jacob has earned 13 awards for for Amver participation.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> From the Amver article...
> 
> 
> 
> Monday, August 1, 2011
> Amver ship saves two sailors in dramatic Atlantic rescue
> Two people were rescued from the sailboat Triumph on Wednesday July 27, 2011 approximatley 780 miles northeast of Cape Cod, Mass. after their boat began taking on water.
Click to expand...

Funny how often the whole "taking on water" thing turns out to be the final straw, the last in the chain of events to arise on one of those "unlucky days"...

Odd, that in the skipper's initial communication with the CG and request for assistance, there was no mention whatsoever of the fact they were taking on water... He actually sounds remarkably composed, as he describes the succession of engine problems, rigging failure, and their current situation of lying to a sea anchor...

"Taking on water" is not the sort of thing one would likely forget to mention in such a scenario, so one can only presume the decision to abandon was made prior to the discovery of a subsequent development with water ingress...


----------



## smackdaddy

Could sea water have still been coming through the "malfunctioning oil cooler" (as he mentioned in the recording)? I'm not a diesel dude - so I have no idea. But I'd not heard of this kind of set up before. Heat exchanger yes, but not oil cooler.

I'm with you though on it being curious that this wasn't mentioned in the call.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Could sea water have still been coming through the "malfunctioning oil cooler" (as he mentioned in the recording)? I'm not a diesel dude - so I have no idea. But I'd not heard of this kind of set up before. Heat exchanger yes, but not oil cooler.


Well, anything's possible, of course&#8230; However, since the problem with the oil cooler had occurred a couple of days previously, one would think one of the first things to have been done once the engine was deemed inoperable, would be to close the raw water intake seacock&#8230;

Really, we have so little to go on here, it rarely fails that these initial reports contain some pretty gross misinformation, and to try to parse meaning from even the sort of nonsense that appears on the CG Northeast District's Facebook page can lead to some pretty wild speculation&#8230;

Really, who writes this sort of stuff?



> Watchstanders at the First Coast Guard District command center in Boston received a report from a man aboard the Triumph, stating that he and his wife were aboard, *the sails were broken*, the engine was disabled and the boat was taking on water.


LOL! Hmmm, he had rigid wing sails, perhaps?


----------



## turbulicity

smackdaddy said:


> Could sea water have still been coming through the "malfunctioning oil cooler" (as he mentioned in the recording)? I'm not a diesel dude - so I have no idea. But I'd not heard of this kind of set up before. Heat exchanger yes, but not oil cooler.
> 
> I'm with you though on it being curious that this wasn't mentioned in the call.


Gulfstar 50 originally had a Perkins 4.154. Oil cooler he refers to is probably the heat exchanger, the end goal being oil cooling and all.


----------



## veprjack

Doug and Evelyn are friends of mine, and I was just on their boat last month. Doug told me that they were having some "issues", but that he was addressing them before they left for the Azores to Gibraltar. Both of them are Coast Guard licensed captains and Doug has lived aboard for 20+ years. 

I have not spoken with them, but am glad that they are at least safe! If I get in touch, I'll let you guys know the details!

Thanks to Chuck for letting me know!


----------



## veprjack

Their cell phone is giving me a message that they cannot receive calls. Again, I'll let you know what I find out - just emailed them. Whew, scary. Doug put about $100,000 into that boat over the past years and did most of the work himself (cosmetic). One can't possibly add up the sweat equity! Again, it's their LIVES that are important, but that boat meant so much to them.

I know they are my friends, but they were VERY competent and NEVER took chances - but once you are 500+ miles out in the ocean, there's not much you can do about the weather. Anyway, I can tell you that (again, I'm biased but...) Doug is as good a captain as anyone. Doug and Evelyn *are the main reason* I'm on this board and looking for a boat in the first place! I'm glad that the report mentioned their good preparation as being a reason they were saved.

Doug has a wicked sense of humor, but the loss of his HOME may prevent him from using it for a while. Again, I'll let you know if and when I get ahold of him. I remember him telling me that he had memories of taking the wheel of a sailboat when he was FOUR! Knowing them both, I'll be this won't prevent them from fulfilling their dream of sailing to Europe and having an extended stay; they saved up and trained for YEARS for this.


----------



## rmeador

The information I've received through the Boston Liveaboards mailing list indicates they lost their cell phones (and everything else they own; as you said, they, or at least Doug, lived aboard). I have no further info on the rescue or events leading up to it.


----------



## smackdaddy

veprjack said:


> Doug and Evelyn are friends of mine, and I was just on their boat last month. Doug told me that they were having some "issues", but that he was addressing them before they left for the Azores to Gibraltar. Both of them are Coast Guard licensed captains and Doug has lived aboard for 20+ years.
> 
> I have not spoken with them, but am glad that they are at least safe! If I get in touch, I'll let you guys know the details!
> 
> Thanks to Chuck for letting me know!


Cool. Thanks Vep. It really sucks that he/they lost their home and investment. I'm just glad they're safe.

I'll look forward to more info.


----------



## veprjack

Since they are alive, and Doug has a WICKED sense of humor, I have to mention that I hope Doug had the decency to save my favorite rain poncho that I let him "borrow". lol 

Doug has lived aboard for 20+ years and Evelyn at least the last 4, I believe. Doug has rebuilt engines, done fiberglass work, climbed the mast like a monkey, etc. Of course, being a newbie, I was in awe of his abilities. Last month, he walked me around his deck and showed me what to look for when I started getting serious about buying a boat. He was extremely generous with his time and PATIENCE with me. He and Evelyn are a GREAT couple and, as I said, accomplished sailors. They've lived on both coasts of Florida and traveled extensively up and down the east coast. They arrived in Boston last November and were making preparations since then to go to the Azores, Gibraltar and wherever the wind would take them (within reason).

Losing the boat is just awful and it was THEIR HOME - he absolutely loved every square inch of it, and proudly gave tours - pointing out all HIS custom work - from the marble kitchen counters (I think that's what they were) to the custom swinging companionway doors. I'm sure that they will both be devastated, but WILL bounce back. I can't wait to hear about Doug's THREE HOURS in the water during a storm 1,000 MILES at sea! HEY - maybe he was wearing my poncho and I'll get it back? Like I said, WICKED sense of humor that I (HOPE) he hasn't lost! Or I'm in BIG trouble!


----------



## veprjack

rmeador - were you in Charlestown or East Boston? As you know, they moved the boat two months ago to avoid that expensive slip fee!


----------



## MikeinLA

Glad these folks are OK, it's a shame about their boat though. By way of a "teachable moment", do any of you experienced ocean cruisers believe that their ability to effect repairs may have been compromised by boat size? Just seems to me that when you're talking about rigging failure, the immense rig on a 50 footer when compared with , say, a Tayana 37 might have made a difference. My question is only about suitable boat size for a couple with NO aspersions intended toward the unfortunate crew in this case.

Mike


----------



## rmeador

veprjack -- I live at Constitution Marina in Charlestown.

MikeinLA -- The boat was ketch rigged, so each mast wouldn't have been that large... probably not much bigger than a 37' sloop rig.


----------



## Bene505

Who wants to go get the boat?

Every time I read one of these, I have the urge to go intercept the drifting boat and get it back to port and it's owner. (And thereby pay for our time and expenses.) Does anyone else share this compulsion, or it is me?

Rig some stays, add a couple galesails, and we'd be headed home. Bolt-on a transom mount and add a 20 horse outboard and we'd be making good time headed toward protected waters. Bring a boat first-aid kit - water pump, fiberglass, underwater epoxy, spare rigging, top climber, etc.

Who's in?

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy

Bene505 said:


> Who wants to go get the boat?
> 
> Every time I read one of these, I have the urge to go intercept the drifting boat and get it back to port and it's owner. (And thereby pay for our time and expenses.) Does anyone else share this compulsion, or it is me?
> 
> Rig some stays, add a couple galesails, and we'd be headed home. Bolt-on a transom mount and add a 20 horse outboard and we'd be making good time headed toward protected waters. Bring a boat first-aid kit - water pump, fiberglass, underwater epoxy, spare rigging, top climber, etc.
> 
> Who's in?
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


If anyone could pull it off...it's you dude. Don't forget the Depoopinator.


----------



## veprjack

Mike, I'm a newbie, so I can't really answer your question about the size/compromise. All I can say is that Doug and Evelyn were probably in the top 10% of sailors who COULD have saved the boat. If you listen to his voice during the radio communication, you can tell that he's IN CONTROL, but not in denial about the potential for disaster. 

One of the last things he told me before he left was that many sailors panic during storms and forget to do the basic stuff like a sea anchor, etc. He told me that he'd been out in 30' seas and was NOT overly concerned. Personally, I think that if anyone could have saved the boat, it would have been him - he lived on it for 20+ years and knew every single inch of it. BUT, I'll wait for him to post the details or relay them to me. As I said before, their cellphones are gone and they haven't responded to my emails - but I'm sure they have more important things on their minds. Another thing that shows they kept their heads on is they got the cash and passports from the safe and made sure to save THOSE.


----------



## veprjack

Hey, anyone who salvages that boat - the blue and yellow rain poncho is MINE! Unless, of course Doug was wearing it at the time of rescue. Then, all I can say is - "DOUG - clean it up before you return it!" God help me if he lost his humor!!

I'm just glad that I can joke about it - since they ARE ALIVE!


----------



## veprjack

rmeador - When they get back, let's celebrate with their favorite food - GRAPE LEAVES! 

lol... Oh, he was writing a book - I hope he saved the files - dammit!


----------



## johnnyandjebus

veprjack said:


> rmeador - When they get back, let's celebrate with their favorite food - GRAPE LEAVES!
> 
> lol... Oh, he was writing a book - I hope he saved the files - dammit!


I have read more than a few threads here that detail the lose of a boat/lives at sea. More often than not they make me cringe and turn my head away from the monitor, too many arm chair quarterbacks. Not pointing my finger at anyone on this particular thread, just a general comment.

veptjack;
You make this thread a worth while read, I hope your friends make it home safe and are able to re-build their lives after the loss of their beloved home.

Good luck getting your rain jacket back 

John


----------



## smackdaddy

johnnyandjebus said:


> I have read more than a few threads here that detail the lose of a boat/lives at sea. More often than not they make me cringe and turn my head away from the monitor, too many arm chair quarterbacks. Not pointing my finger at anyone on this particular thread, just a general comment.
> 
> veptjack;
> You make this thread a worth while read, I hope your friends make it home safe and are able to re-build their lives after the loss of their beloved home.
> 
> Good luck getting your rain jacket back
> 
> John


+1.

Instead of quarterbacking in the abstract - it would be great if this was a place where someone like the skipper of Triumph felt comfortable coming on and telling us exactly what he went through...and why he made the decisions he made.

If the ACQs get too self-righteous we never get that chance. The place becomes more about them than the real people that were in the shizzle.


----------



## veprjack

Johnny, TY for your kind words

Smack - Unless this "experience" changed Doug OR Evelyn so they wouldn't want to discuss it (and I doubt it did), I think that once I get in touch with him and he's recovered, he would probably love to help others through his experiences - AND, if he made mistakes, he'll be the FIRST to share - seriously! I think we'd all benefit (even a newbie like myself) from his first hand account!


----------



## wingNwing

smackdaddy said:


> +1.
> 
> Instead of quarterbacking in the abstract - it would be great if this was a place where someone like the skipper of Triumph felt comfortable coming on and telling us exactly what he went through...and why he made the decisions he made.
> 
> If the ACQs get too self-righteous we never get that chance. The place becomes more about them than the real people that were in the shizzle.


+1 @ Smack


----------



## veprjack

Here's their website where you can learn about them and see what they lost! Sailing Accomodations on Triumph Charters


----------



## JonEisberg

MikeinLA said:


> Glad these folks are OK, it's a shame about their boat though. By way of a "teachable moment", *do any of you experienced ocean cruisers believe that their ability to effect repairs may have been compromised by boat size?* Just seems to me that when you're talking about rigging failure, the immense rig on a 50 footer when compared with , say, a Tayana 37 might have made a difference. My question is only about suitable boat size for a couple with NO aspersions intended toward the unfortunate crew in this case.
> 
> Mike


Most definitely, IMO... but then again, I'm a cyber-sailing broken record when it comes to the trend of cruising boats getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger...

Well, everyone has their own comfort level, of course&#8230; And by today's standards, I'm quite the wimp when it comes to boat size, but I would never be comfortable cruising - especially offshore - in a boat of that size&#8230; 38-40 feet, maybe 42 depending on the boat, is my upper limit (OK, maybe a "small" 44-footer, like the Alden 44, but that's IT, no mas&#8230; (grin)

Something like lying to a parachute anchor on a 50-footer, in a blow offshore, that can be SERIOUS business&#8230; Simply keeping chafing gear in place, perhaps adjusting a bridle or whatever, one could lose a few fingers or worse in a heartbeat&#8230; (Just to be clear, I'm one of those wimps that considers 30 knots to be a LOT of wind) Dealing with the forces involved on a boat of that size in such conditions often, frankly, scares the hell out of me - and I have less stomach for it, the older and weaker I get (grin)&#8230;

Make no mistake, sailing a big, powerful rig in a lot of breeze can be a real blast&#8230;










As long as nothing goes wrong, that is&#8230; But when stuff starts breaking or not working like it's supposed to, electric and hydraulic assists start crapping out, or the boltrope on a Leisure-Furl main starts peeling out of its track on an 80' spar, the forces can quickly begin to overwhelm most people's physical ability to cope with them&#8230; Then start to factor in the exhaustion that can set in on a shorthanded crew having to deal with a series of cascading failures during a prolonged period heavy weather, and the margins for error can become very slight, indeed&#8230;

Thanks, but I'll stick with my puny little tub, and give myself a fighting chance to deal with the forces involved when the wind gets up&#8230; (grin)


----------



## PaulinVictoria

Good to hear they are OK, it all could have ended up a lot worse. Boats can be replaced. Look forward to the real story at some point, always interesting to read about what happened, how it escalated etc. I'm in awe of people that even attempt such crossings, I'm crapping it just thinking about our 50 mile coastal trip at the weekend!


----------



## JonEisberg

veprjack said:


> Here's their website where you can learn about them and see what they lost! Sailing Accomodations on Triumph Charters


Thanks for posting that, they certainly appear to be pretty cool people... Sure hope they manage to get TRIUMPH back, somehow...

Dude has to be one hell of a swimmer, not sure I'd be able to last for 3 hours in the open ocean in those conditions... If we're to take anything away from this one, it might be the reminder of how risky the transfer from a small boat to a large ship can be...


----------



## killarney_sailor

*A good question - wish I knew the answer*



MikeinLA said:


> Glad these folks are OK, it's a shame about their boat though. By way of a "teachable moment", do any of you experienced ocean cruisers believe that their ability to effect repairs may have been compromised by boat size? Just seems to me that when you're talking about rigging failure, the immense rig on a 50 footer when compared with , say, a Tayana 37 might have made a difference. My question is only about suitable boat size for a couple with NO aspersions intended toward the unfortunate crew in this case.
> 
> Mike


To my mind, the question with a larger boat is primarily one of dealing with the forces in both standing and running rigging. We are cruising on a heavy 44' sloop (with removable inner stay) at 36,000lb+ displacement. There are pluses and minuses to the size of boat. It provides strength and a fairly stable work platform. We have good-sized rigging and huge winches (Lewmar 65 primaries). We are likely to be less tired than on a smaller boat. BUT, if something does go wrong the forces involved are immense. That is one reason I replaced the standing rigging even though it appeared sound and a rigger's inspection did not suggest replacement. Ted Hood made an interesting choice with the Bristol 45.5 - it has single spreaders only and a massive mast. I feel comfortable with the simplicity since there are fewer things to go wrong.

My previous offshore cruising was on a Niagara 35 (15,000 lb displacement) and when I first was on the Bristol I was quite intimidated by the size of everything and the forces. Now I am used to it and I think this is an important consideration. The couple we are talking about knew their boat very well and things still came off the rails sadly. We were knocked down a few months ago and there was a lot of talk afterward about what could have happened.

I agree with those who say we should judge what happened on this boat - even after we know more. Each of these situations is unique and very complex.


----------



## mitiempo

A few pages back someone (forgot who) asked if people assume a boat larger than 40' has less issues with build quality and hardware. I don't know but they shouldn't. The issues they had were mechanical (engine) and rigging related as far as has been posted. That can happen as easily on a Gulfstar, Morris, Hinckley or Hunter if items aren't inspected regularly and renewed as necessary.

It is hard to second guess if you aren't the one sending the mayday but they did abandon a boat that had a rig still standing but with some damage and an inoperable engine, but it was still floating. As far as I know there were no major health issues that caused them to abandon. I would like to hear the whole story. Why did they leave a boat that was still reasonably intact and still afloat, apparently able to sail at least under jury rig?

Many times you hear of boats being abandoned and then found afloat weeks or months later.

A sailor out of my marina (Paul Lim) was rescued off southwestern Australia 2 days ago after his engine mounts broke in rough seas and high winds. The engine was intent on destroying the boat and luckily his epirb worked. The boat was a lost cause structurally and getting worse. He was experienced and had sailed from Victoria B.C. to Tahiti, Chile, and around the Horn to South Georgia and then South Africa first on this trip and had extensive experience offshore in a previous boat as well. Before he was pulled off by the freighter that rescued him he opened a seacock to sink the boat so it won't end up a hazard to navigation. It apparently would have sunk eventually without this.
Here's a link to the thread http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/77086-paul-lim-rescued-off-australia.html


----------



## Visitor1111

JonEsberg>>>>>>>>>>>

If you were on Doug place for sure that you will not be able even to dail to RCC but luckily he is strong person and God know what he survived that day....and the guys were there looking him fighting for life in those big waves..
And before you put any further comment please try to read bit about sea and North Atlantic and additionaly check what was the weather in that are those days...
Will not be coming back here, but felt need to address to you 'couse your comments on the tragedy those two people had for sure don't deserve such approach.....
Hope will see Doug and Evelyn in Europe soon on their new trip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Visitor1111

JonE>>>>>

Additionaly you should know that when leaving boat in the mid of ocean professional sailor is wearing "so called" life jacket and not trying to swimm in order......but you will learn..have time......


----------



## veprjack

Just spoke with Evelyn - they are doing FINE, all things considered - and they are still "Pro-Live Aboard"!!! Very strong people and great sailors!


----------



## JonEisberg

Visitor1111 said:


> JonE>>>>>
> 
> Additionaly you should know that when leaving boat in the mid of ocean professional sailor is wearing "so called" life jacket and not trying to swimm in order......but you will learn..have time......


Thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind&#8230;

However, I know my limitations, and realize I likely would have struggled to remain alive in those waters, and those conditions&#8230; 780 miles NE of Cape Cod, hypothermia could quickly become an issue, and I'm presuming they might have been wearing survival suits, as well?

As to your other comments, they are certainly fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion&#8230; If you have further knowledge/details of this incident to share or correct, please do so&#8230;

In the meantime, I'll try do read up on what it must be like to sail in a place like the North Atlantic&#8230; (grin)



veprjack said:


> Just spoke with Evelyn - they are doing FINE, all things considered - and they are still "Pro-Live Aboard"!!! Very strong people and great sailors!


That's great to hear, I can't imagine how I'd deal with such a loss&#8230; Definitely rates a glass raised to them tonight, from me&#8230;


----------



## rbrasi

Was the boat still under sea anchor, as described in the recording by the captain? I'm a newbie, so help me out- is this anchor actually touching ground? What exactly is meant by 'sea anchor'? If the boat were taking on water, and being held by anchor, I think she's probably sunk.


----------



## mitiempo

A sea anchor is designed to keep a boat at a constant angle to the waves, usually bow to them.


----------



## hellosailor

From the Amver web site

"... their sails were torn, their engine was disabled, and they were taking on water."
No propulsion options AND taking on water, for whatever reason? Sounds like a good definiton of distress. No mention of shrouds but, if like many sailors, they did not have storm sails capable of sustained 30+ knot winds, that's all it would take to ruin the day.

"winds over 30 knots and waves over 8 feet hampered the the operation....recovered the survivor three hours after he fell into the water"

The wx doesn't sound extreme, but three hours bouncing around in that stuff (possibly because the freighter had limited manueverability) sounds like an eternity. You *can* drown simply from the wind spray in those conditions.

It will be interesting to see what else, if anything, gets posted first-hand. And what, if anything, further is found of the boat.


----------



## rbrasi

mitiempo said:


> A sea anchor is designed to keep a boat at a constant angle to the waves, usually bow to them.


Excellent info- thanks for that, the picture helps! I too am looking forward to hearing first hand reports.


----------



## veprjack

Doug is writing a book, and Evelyn is already a published author, so they may write a book based on this and other "experiences". However, I think they will post something as a "teaching" opportunity to help others who may find themselves in similar predicaments. 

We exchanged emails last night and they were in good spirits, considering this was their HOME that was lost, with most of their worldly possessions and a lot of memories and sweat equity.

Nice job on the "sea anchor" explanation. Being a newbie, I thought it was always set off the stern to keep the boat from "pitch poling", if I understand that concept - too lazy to google it.

Thanks,
Jack


----------



## mitiempo

If running in heavy seas warps are often towed from the stern (without the chute)to slow the boat down and keep it manageable. Sometimes a tire is attached to the warps to create a bit of drag.


----------



## veprjack

Brian, I don't "PLAN" on being in a situation where I'd need to do any of that (not until I get some experience at least), but the more one knows about how to handle situations, the better! Thanks for the clarification. I cannot imagine ever getting bored because I know everything I need to know about sailing, navigation, etc. I like that about this new lifestyle I've chosen!


----------



## mitiempo

Sailing is a bit odd in that you can learn the basics in a few hours but after a lifetime you are still learning.

And many sail across oceans and around the world without ever seeing heavy weather.


----------



## DougSabbag

*The story of our "rescue"*

Well, as the insurance check is "in the mail" I think I can let everyone know what happened, in greater detail, without concern for possible complications.

We left Boston on July 15th, and about a week out, the oil cooler malfunctioned allowing ocean water to mix with the engine oil. I changed the oil to remove as much of the water as possible, and did shut the thru hull for the ocean water to the engine.

The plan at that point was to continue to sail to our intended first target of the Azores, and attempt to replace the cooler there.

On July 26th, 2 Main (ketch rigged Gulfstar 50), starboard stays broke at the chainplate connections, just under the deck, then pulled through the deck leaving some holes on the deck.

Before I devised my own plan for dealing with this, I contacted both our insurance company and the coast guard to find out what our options might be, for towing, or assistance. I quickly learned it would cost $250K to be towed home.

So, I realized I could temporarily attach the stays using some line and make a connection from the end of the stays to the starboard jib sheet travelors; not deploy the main sail, and shorten the jib by furling it somewhat. If I turned back to Boston, with such greatly reduced sails, the SW wind would only stress the port stays, and we could slowly sail home.

The next morning, July 27th, we discovered a lot of water in the bilge.

Well, my First Mate / Mrs. Sabbag, basically threw in the towel at that development. And I couldn't (though I should have in retrospect) overcome her insistence on abandoning the vessel.

Considering what happened next, I really should NOT have CALLED THE COAST GUARD for assistance.

Per the mutual assistance program AMVER, a 900 foot oil tanker arrived, in only a few hours(!) and as I was afraid of, the **** really hit the fan.

You do not bring a 50 foot sailboat alongside a 900 foot oil tanker in 10 to 15 foot seas, unless you do not care about what will happen.

The tanker, (after trying to grab our deployed sea anchor with a grappling hook, but missed it because they were too far forward of the 500 foot line), decided ON THEIR OWN to intersect the sea anchor rode / line, which brought the Triumph alongside the starboard side of the tanker and the sea anchor alongside their port side. With the tanker still underway, the sea anchor was moving aft thereby pulling the Triumph forward.

Well, what happened next was unbelievable. The Triumph was pulled into their anchor / anchor housing, which effectively crushed the Triumph, smashing her from the bow toward the stern, as the 10 - 15 foot waves smashed us up into the metal. We had been standing on deck, and had to run to the stern to avoid the falling main mast, and all the flying debris and the smashing anchor! It was a scene from a horror movie.

From there it only got worse.

I wrapped a line from the tanker around my wife and pushed her overboard. They pulled her up to their deck in fairly short order.

But, when I (erroneously) went over board with one of the lines in my hands, it ended up requiring over 3 hours for me to get on deck.

I learned to vomit underwater in order to get rid of the water I was takin into my stomach, in order to regain bouyancy, and I "went down" numerous times only to (I learned later), amaze the tanker crew by coming back up.

By the time I barely managed to make it to a life bouy, I was losing strength from hypothermia, the repeated sinking / vomiting, and all the screaming I had been doing.

It is quite a sick feeling to be almost 1000 miles out to sea and realize nobody is going to jump in to get you / there is no helicopter with a basket and a USCG trained savior, and the only vessel around is as frightening up close as she could run me over like any piece of flotsam.

I was quite sure I was dead, but amazingly I am not.

If you are ever in a pickle, FIX IT YOURSELF, DO NOT ASK FOR ASSISTANCE, and tell your "crew" to suck it up.

ONLY, when you are in your life pod, after your boat has sunk, should you call for assistance unless you are prepared for what happens when a 50 footer meets a 900 footer.

Now, we are shopping for a newer boat, and have our sights on an AMEL.

If anyone knows of a late model (1990s) 53 foot Amel for sale, please email me at [email protected]


----------



## dhays

Wow. Glad you and your wife made it back safe. Sorry about the loss of your boat.


----------



## RobGallagher

All I can say is WOW!

Lessons learned and an amazing story. Glad you survived and will continue to sail.

Cheers!


----------



## rmeador

Wow, Doug, that sounds even more harrowing than the reports we received up until now. I'm glad you're ok and in the process of getting a new boat.


----------



## DougSabbag

Thank you. As I admitted at the USCG debriefing in Boston a couple weeks ago, the vast majority of the calamity we suffered could have been avoided had I not succumbed to the fear of the "crew" and stuck to my plan to deal with the relatively manageable issues we were faced with.
As the "Captain" I was at fault. And nearly paid with our lives, while, sadly subjecting our good ship Triumph to a most aggregious end.
We were tired, after the 2 weeks of 4 hour shifts at the helm, and my wife put it to me to either care about her, or the boat, and I chose wrong.
I should have remained the Captain, and done what was REALLY in our best interests as oppossed to throwing in the towel - prematurely.
This is some very hard earned wisdom, I hope might help someone else.


----------



## smackdaddy

Doug - thanks so much for the write up. It is exactly the kind of thing we hope for around here...a report from the actual skipper.

I'm sorry you lost your boat. But I'm very happy you and your wife came home.

Thanks for your honesty. This is really valuable stuff.


----------



## DougSabbag

Another detail: When I jumped over board with one of the tanker's lines in my hands, unknown to me at that moment was that one of the "messenger lines" they had shot over the Triumph had somehow caught the back of my life preserver / PFD. This was attached to the Triumph which was being blown (25 knot winds) at a good clip away from the tanker. So, this pulled me underwater, and dragged me a long way.

I realized I was too far from the tanker for them to see me, and therefore my only hope was to get to the drifting Triumph. So, I used that thin messenger line, (about the width of a clothes line) to pull myself when I wasn't being dragged under water, to the Triumph.

That alone was a huge challenge.

When I made it to the Triumph, I found the jib hanging into the water, and hung onto that for dear life.

Then the tanker came around and saw me. I should have stayed on the Triumph, but I thought they were screaming at me to let go and swim to their bouys. Later I learned they were not saying that at all.

It also made sense that unless I did that, how could they get me?

Anyway, I let go and then went through more hours of Hell, because they really were not about to deploy their LIFEBOATS, or do anything other than throw life bouys near me.

With the 25 knot winds, I observed numerous times, when they would throw a bouy from their deck only to see it be blown right back at the crew member throwing it.

By the way, I also did the "dead mans float" as much as I could, but in the 10 -15 foot waves, I was nevertheless submerged, and "flooded" numerous times, forcing me to do the vomit under water act, to regain bouyancy.

No matter how hard I tried to kick and swim back up to the surface, while filled with water I could not make it to the surface, and only continued to sink further; until I vomited the water out.

It was 5 miles deep there, and if I hadn't vomited the water out, I am sure my body would never have been found.


----------



## smackdaddy

And another thing....

Don't be too hard on yourself, Doug. You bring up one of the most critical things that I don't think is thought about or talked about all that much in cruising...the impact of family as crew.

That's got to be the hardest possible thing to deal with. Honestly. It seems to have been a major factor in the _Rule 62_ incident as well.

If my wife and/or kids are begging me to "think about them" and "get them out of the situation _I_ put them in - immediately" - it would be really, really hard to know what the right move was.

You now know in retrospect as you say above. Hopefully that will help me and others know if we're ever in that situation.

It's one thing to talk about it. It's another thing entirely to make that call when you're looking your miserable, frightened, angry loved ones in the eye.


----------



## DougSabbag

We happened to have a SPOT installed on the Triumph, which sends out a signal via satellite / then emails our location to our list of recipients. For over another week, the Triumph was apparently still afloat, sending out those signals.

I am not sure if the power was lost, but the signal has ended.

We had 4 large solar panels over the bimini, but they were smashed by the tanker to tiny pieces of glass. So, the batteries might have died.

I have been hoping to hear from someone in Europe that they found the Triumph, since she was in the Gulf Stream, but so far not a peep.

She had a lot of very valuable equipment, not to mention all of our mementos / pictures etc., accumulated over our life times. 

I would have gladly paid whoever found her a good price to get the remains.


----------



## DougSabbag

Yes, SmackDaddy, that is a very serious complication and dynamic at work when you are dealing with your loved ones' fears. We are always the all knowing all powerful Captain, who is respected and trusted for the many years of our cruises, (all of us), but when too much is happening, too far out to sea for their minds to calm down, it reaches a point where the crew loses that confidence. And that is a very dangerous condition, indeed.

For many years, Evelyn had been stating to family / friends how completely confident she was in my safe cruising skills, through numerous storms, and all the usual running aground calamities of cruising.

All of that went out the indow that day.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Wow, amazing story! Good luck to you guys and your future travels. So insurance is being accommodating?


----------



## wingNwing

Doug - amazing story, thanx for posting it in a way and place that others can learn from. BTW, there is an Amel for sale on our dock that I believe fits your requirements, I'll email you separately.


----------



## SloopJonB

Sorry to hear of the loss of your boat and the harrowing experiences you both went through. You both survived and you apparently have the insurance money to buy a new boat - things could be a lot worse.  After an experience like that I don't know if I would be in a big hurry to get on board another boat!

Your story reminded me of an old rule of thumb - you always step UP into a life raft (freighters don't count ).


----------



## dhays

DougSabbag said:


> We were tired, after the 2 weeks of 4 hour shifts at the helm, and my wife put it to me to either care about her, or the boat, and I chose wrong.


It is always easy to second guess other's decisions from a distance. However, when given that type of ultimatum from your wife, I think you made the correct decision. Sure, leaving the boat may not have been the best decision for other reasons, but your marriage needs to take priority.

Of course, I've been married for almost 30 years so I'm a bit of an anachronism.


----------



## CalebD

Glad to hear that you (Doug and Evelyn) made it through this ordeal. 
I'll read your book on this when it comes out.
Reminds me a bit of Miles and Beryl Smeeton: Miles and Beryl Smeeton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
who also kept at it.


----------



## dhays

DougSabbag said:


> No matter how hard I tried to kick and swim back up to the surface, while filled with water I could not make it to the surface, and only continued to sink further; until I vomited the water out.
> 
> It was 5 miles deep there, and if I hadn't vomited the water out, I am sure my body would never have been found.


What type of PFD were you wearing and what was it's condition. This description doesn't give me a lot of confidence. I would hope the PFD would perform better than that. I sail in cold water during cold months. That means I've got a lot of clothes on. Maybe I need to rethink my PFD?

Dave


----------



## DougSabbag

About the PFD I was wearing. 

Sadly, so many errors were made that day it is embarrassing to answer some of these questions. Though we had a large container on the aft deck with roughly 2 dozen PFDs, with some self inflating Switlic (sp?) and a lot of the usual large orange types, I grabbed the absolute worst one onboard. It was really for water skiing. Not what you want to depend on where I was for your life.


----------



## jimjazzdad

*Good Advice*



DougSabbag said:


> Considering what happened next, I really should NOT have CALLED THE COAST GUARD for assistance...If you are ever in a pickle, FIX IT YOURSELF, DO NOT ASK FOR ASSISTANCE, and tell your "crew" to suck it up.
> 
> ONLY, when you are in your life pod, after your boat has sunk, should you call for assistance unless you are prepared for what happens when a 50 footer meets a 900 footer.


Good advice. Thanks Doug. Good luck with the next one.


----------



## wingNwing

Doug, Dan and I have a decision rule that we worked out in advance; seems obvious but certainly avoids a lot of conflict. Whoever has the most conservative approach to the situation, prevails. No discussion, and no beating yourself up second-guessing. In your situation, our "rule" would also have led to abandoning ship and saving yourselves.


----------



## DougSabbag

About the insurance.

Well, sadly, (too much of that word applies here), we only had a stated value policy.

The difference is our last survey said the replacement value was over $400K. Look at our web site to see how over improved she was /( is?) Triumph Charters -- Sail with Us!

We had granite counters, rebuilt / balanced 4.236 Perkins, water maker, washer & dryer, glass enclosed shower stall, 4 large solar panels, 2 banks of house batteries, B&G Network system with B&G autohelm, built in 12V computer tied to a GPS and the B&G, a digital Sitex radar likewise feeding the touch screen at the helm, a rebuilt windlass, new anchors, chain, new lines, we had just stepped the main mast and painted that and the deck with Imron, new davits, with a Boston Whaler and a new 10hp Tohatsu, a new life pod, (THAT WAS BRAN NEW 2 weeks old), we had accomplished a complete refit in For Lauderdale with new teak & holly sole, restored interior teak walls, new headliner using grass weave material, new Frigo boat refrig and a seperate new Frigo boat freezer, new Raritan electric toilets (2), large flat panel TV, smaller one in the aft cabin, and the list of stuff goes on and on....

So, the insurance will pay us approx. $140K We have effectively lost over $250K, at least, not to mention the thousands of hours of sweat equity. I took 3 years off of work to do most of the work myself.

With this insurance and the money we have anyway, we can afford about $250K for an Amel. Which is about $50K shy of most of the early 90s Amels were seeing.


----------



## emoney

Glad you're both still here and looking forward to the next leg of your journey. I, for one, think the thread deserves "sticky" status, as it reminds us all that sometimes this sailing hobby is actually serious business. Good luck.


----------



## wingNwing

1988 AMEL Mango Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

This is slightly older than you were requesting, but in the price range?


----------



## smackdaddy

emoney said:


> Glad you're both still here and looking forward to the next leg of your journey. I, for one, think the thread deserves "sticky" status, as it reminds us all that sometimes this sailing hobby is actually serious business. Good luck.


+1 on the sticky.


----------



## DougSabbag

About the decision to abandon the vessel...

Though I can agree in the interests of the marriage to the sage advice from one of you above, nevertheless, what our abandonment came too close to costing was our LIVES.

So, being "conservative" acted in an inverse dynamic when the "rescuers" arrived.

We were not extracted in a safe manner. We were really much safer onboard our own boat and could have dealt with the issues at our own pace, in a much safer manner than what proceeded to happen.

To WingNWing, re-talk to Dan about when to abandon. This is not a decision to be made through fear, since we made almost every single erroneous decsion we could make, with that as our compass.

The night before the calamity, when we discussed our options, we had calmly / correctly ascertained our options, and they were all much better than abandoning turned out to be.

It was the sight of a lot of water in the bilge that pushed the human mind to making wrong choices. 

The water was probably (realized in retrospect) from the holes on the deck where the stays had pulled through. A little duct tape could have stopped that. But, Hell, I had fiberglass / epoxy, gel coat, and even Imron paint onboard. So, not that I would, but I could have actually rebuilt the deck holes perfectly.

The bilge pumps were probably simply plugged. How many times had I (or you) cleared the end of the intake hose? I could have done that again.

When I was sinking, and barely making it up to the surface, what probably drove me to find the personal strength to fight so hard to live was the anger that I had put myself in the water, in that situation, from all the wrong choices.

You don't bring a 50 foot sailboat alongside a 900 foot tanker without having some major issues. And they had (as I discussed with the Captain of the Kim Jacob later) no interest in deploying either of their 2 lifeboats with 32 person capacities....

I was really on my own to save myself. Nobody was jumping over board to get me.

Don't leave your ship because of fear, leave her because she is REALLY sinking without any recourse / hope. Because the "rescue" might easily cost you your life.


----------



## Ajax_MD

Wow Doug,

Your honesty and insights are very valuable. Thank you for sharing them.

Whenever we read about a sailing vessel being lost, I've noticed that there's always this contingent of Sailnetters demanding that the owner get on this forum and give an account of their decisions, as if they should be "brought before the mast." What happened to you is between you, your wife and the insurance company. As far as I'm concerned, you didn't owe this forum a single word of explanation.

But that you _did_ come here and share so honestly is greatly appreciated, and I will take your advice to heart:

"Your spouse/family/crew may never understand your decisions, but to save their lives is a higher priority than saving the relationship". I guess I'd rather have my family mad at me forever, than lose them completely.

That's a difficult decision to make while under pressure at sea.


----------



## wingNwing

Doug, agreed, "abandon" may not be the same as "conservative." Although I do think there is value in establishing decision rules in advance of the crisis. So far, our rule has only come into play in minor situations, more of the reef/don't reef, or anchor for the night/continue variety. We had floorboards awash last weekend due to a faulty check valve ... but unlike you, we were in the security of the Chesapeake Bay and could if necessary have deliberately run our boat aground and walked ashore if it had come to that. AND, we weren't tired as you were.


----------



## DougSabbag

WingNWing, yes that is the Amel price we'd love to find, but we were really hoping for a newer one. 
We are hoping that this "economy" thing could work in our favor to provide us with a "distressed" sale, i.e., someone deperate for the $250K, enough, to not wait for the $300 + K they seem to be stuck at.

Or a really nice person who wants to be our Santa Clause. God knows we deserve a break.

I named her the Triumph because acquiring her was my life's goal, from as early as High School.

Without her, I am lost, at 55 years old. I had thought I had attained my lifes' goal and could go about my life from there. Now we are back at square one.

And I lost all my tools..... 

We are sailors without a boat. A most ugly situation. 

I know, don't be so maudlin or depressing... but, Hell, part of still being alive is you get to complain.


----------



## DougSabbag

From BubbleheadMD: "Your spouse/family/crew may never understand your decisions, but to save their lives is a higher priority than saving the relationship". I guess I'd rather have my family mad at me forever, than lose them completely.

That's a difficult decision to make while under pressure at sea. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said it perfectly. And now I am quite regretful at having made the wrong decision.


----------



## Ajax_MD

You'll have another triumph (_Triumph_). 

At the very least, go look at the one Eryka has shown you.  If you hang out in the Annapolis area, perhaps some of us can help you out. There's good peeps down here.


----------



## DougSabbag

To WingNWing,

I appreciate your understanding. And your story of last weekend / "floorboards awash" is a great example. You dealt with it, and didn't "abandon vessel". And all turned out fine.

Thinking that being 1000 miles out to sea would / should inspire abandonment, is no more correct than it was last weekend. Because, if nothing else, as we experienced, the "rescue" can KILL you. The floorboards awash can be dealt with much easier.

If the Coast Guard them selves will rescue you, that might be an entirely different choice to make.

But, if it is going to be an oil tanker, or any of these freighters per the AMVER program, think again. They won't jump overboard to get you. They won't deploy a lifeboat.
And they will really mess you up when they come alongside.

It is like killing a mosquito near your head with a shotgun. Yes we got the mosquito but it also took off your head.


----------



## DougSabbag

Bubblehead, as much as it would be a pleasure to visit your area, right now we are looking for jobs, etc.

We had already said by by to the USA, sold our car, quit our jobs. (computer consultants)

So now we are rebuilding here, with help from friends. 

Last summer we sailed through your waters, but really enjoyed Chincoteague Island (SP?) the most!


----------



## DougSabbag

I have to sign off... for now.

Thank you all for your support and good wishes.

I know you might not all agree with my unsolicited advice, but at least you now have another factor to weigh into how you make yours. I hope you never have to decide as we did.

Any help toward a $250K Amel in the 1990s sure would be lovely.
[email protected] 617-817-6856


----------



## JonEisberg

Great write-up, Doug...

My hat is definitely off to you, for having the stomach to wander into this Den of Second-Guessing to share your story in such an un-varnished fashion... (grin)

I was wondering if you thought the holes in the deck might have admitted the water in the bilge, but you've addressed that... Just curious, was the chainplate failure one of the material itself, or did it simply tear free from the bulkhead? Certainly a cautionary reminder of the importance of the integrity of such a critical component for a boat headed offshore, especially boats of that vintage... And, a reminder that one cannot possibly check the bilges too often when sailing offshore, early detection of what might be a modest ingress of water will avoid the "surprise" of discovering a flooded bilge... I'm a big believer in having a grate over your sump, or portion of the bilge where water is likely to pool first, so that inspection can be performed at a glance...

Glad to hear you've recovered something from the insurers, I was somehow under the impression you may have lost everything, that the boat wasn't insured for such a trip...

Best of luck to you and Evelyn, you certainly couldn't go wrong with an Amel, they're great boats...


----------



## wingNwing

Another thought, maybe relevant, maybe not.

We were at a raftup last weekend, and one person commented that our marriage was very egalitarian. While that is true on a philosophical level, it is also true on a sailing level. We both learned to sail at the same time, in the same way. Most of our classes have been together, or at least following the same manual. We have similar levels of expertise, although Dan has more at-sea hours due to the time he spent coaching in Navy sail program. That means that we can apply our decision rule to let the more conservative approach dominate knowing that our processes aren't going to be seriously out of whack with each other. I don't think that rule would work if there were a very large imbalance between our skill levels - in that case, it would be harder to distinguish between "fear" and "prudence."


----------



## NaviGsr

Doug,

Thank you for sharing your story. So glad to hear that you are safe.


----------



## DougSabbag

wingNwing... I have been "sailing" since I was 4 years old. Evelyn has been sailing for about 6.5 years now; i.e, as long as we've been together.

So, there is a huge difference.

Though she does learn very quickly...


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> I know, don't be so maudlin or depressing... but, Hell, part of still being alive is you get to complain.


Hell yeah!


----------



## LandLocked66c

I'm still trying to imagine vomiting underwater! Jeez, that's got to be an experience in itself!


----------



## turbulicity

Hi Doug,

A fellow Gulfstar 50 owner here. I am so glad you made it safe and sound. Those were very difficult decisions to be made and in the end, you made the right one since you are both alive and not at a complete financial loss. Who knows what would have happened if you opted to stick with the boat, maybe better maybe worse. No point second guessing now.

That aside, I am always of the opinion to stick with the boat until it is evident that it will sink. 

I was wondering how the shrouds failed. Did the chainplate itself broke or was it the fiberglass bracket that the chainplate is bolted to?


----------



## LauderBoy

DougSabbag said:


> Sadly, so many errors were made that day it is embarrassing to answer some of these questions.


I'm really glad you are. Hindsight is always 20/20. Decisions are much more difficult under stress and probably even more so when you're responsible for a loved ones stress.

I think the most important thing is everyone makes mistakes. It's really nice to read "incident reports" like these because it gives you an insight into the types of mistakes you yourself can make if put into the same situation. Pre-preparing for these types of incidents can help you make the right decisions later on.

That said, there were *many* correct decisions you made too. If you hadn't, you or your wife wouldn't be here today and you wouldn't be in a financially recoverable position.


----------



## dhays

BubbleheadMd said:


> Your honesty and insights are very valuable. Thank you for sharing them.


+1. It is very appreciated and informative.


----------



## OPossumTX

BubbleheadMd said:


> Wow Doug,
> 
> Your honesty and insights are very valuable. Thank you for sharing them.
> 
> Whenever we read about a sailing vessel being lost, I've noticed that there's always this contingent of Sailnetters demanding that the owner get on this forum and give an account of their decisions, as if they should be "brought before the mast." What happened to you is between you, your wife and the insurance company. As far as I'm concerned, you didn't owe this forum a single word of explanation.
> 
> But that you _did_ come here and share so honestly is greatly appreciated, and I will take your advice to heart:
> 
> "Your spouse/family/crew may never understand your decisions, but to save their lives is a higher priority than saving the relationship". I guess I'd rather have my family mad at me forever, than lose them completely.
> 
> That's a difficult decision to make while under pressure at sea.


I too have dealt with a panic stricken spouse in the middle of a serious dangerous situation. A situation that was made far worse by my spouse's actions.

Skipper, you have my respect and my sympathy. The actions I took that day got us out of danger but injured our relationship for YEARS.

We finally reconciled and all was forgiven. We lived happily many more years until she passed away. You have to know that after it was over, I would have taken the financial loss and injury to avoid the strain on our relationship.

Fair winds and smooth sailing!
O'


----------



## LandLocked66c

OPossumTX said:


> You have to know that after it was over, I would have taken the financial loss and injury to avoid the strain on our relationship.


Wow, that sounds like it would be an interesting story to tell...


----------



## smurphny

SO very informative. Thank you very much for your candid assessment of what happened. It will undoubtedly help others faced with similar circumstances. Floor boards floating, "crew" pressure- no one can fault you for calling for help. Unfortunately the help, though well meaning, was not really equipped to carry out a rescue in the very conditions where most rescues would invariably be performed. Maybe governments should supply commercial vessels with the things they need when they volunteer to take on rescues. Seems like a bargain for the service they perform. Being in the situation, what do you think a large tanker needs to transfer people aboard in a heavy sea? Very best of luck finding the new boat.


----------



## PaulinVictoria

Thanks Doug. There's a beer with your name on it should you make it this way.


----------



## OPossumTX

LandLocked66c said:


> Wow, that sounds like it would be an interesting story to tell...


There's a story alright but I will not be telling it here. It was not in a marine environment.


----------



## chrisncate

Wow, what a tale Doug. Glad to hear you are both safe, I look forward to updates on your progress from here on out. 

Motor failure and chainplate rigging failure... sheesh..


----------



## LauderBoy

smurphny said:


> Maybe governments should supply commercial vessels with the things they need when they volunteer to take on rescues. Seems like a bargain for the service they perform.


Problem is then that gear would have to be maintained. The crew would have to be trained in its use, etc etc. All for a situation 99.99% of commercial sailors will never see.

Then if one country doesn't do that, will there be liability if the coast guard sends a tanker from that country to a rescue when there's a "safety trained" tanker just a bit farther away?


----------



## JonEisberg

LauderBoy said:


> smurphny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe governments should supply commercial vessels with the things they need when they volunteer to take on rescues. Seems like a bargain for the service they perform.
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is then that gear would have to be maintained. The crew would have to be trained in its use, etc etc. All for a situation 99.99% of commercial sailors will never see.
> 
> Then if one country doesn't do that, will there be liability if the coast guard sends a tanker from that country to a rescue when there's a "safety trained" tanker just a bit farther away?
Click to expand...

Not to mention, I'm guessing there would not be a whole lot of political will in nations like Panama, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands for funding their government's supplying merchant vessels under their registry with additional gear to pluck distressed American or European yachties on extended or permanent holiday from the world's oceans...

Seems to me most merchant vessels actually are reasonably well equipped to perform rescues at sea - they're already capable of performing the recovery of their own crew in a MOB situation, after all... The huge amount of freeboard most large ships precludes the use of the sort of gear a much smaller CG cutter might employ, for example... As I believe Doug already hinted at, in such a situation, it really is part of the responsibility of those being rescued to aid in the transfer, and attempt to diminish the risk by effecting the transfer from a tender or liferaft, rather than from the mother ship itself...


----------



## smackdaddy

Question: In this scenario, where you have made final decision to abandon and a tanker is within sight, would it make more sense to go ahead and deploy the LR and get away from the boat? Would this make a safer rescue platform?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Question: In this scenario, where you have made final decision to abandon and a tanker is within sight, would it make more sense to go ahead and deploy the LR and get away from the boat? Would this make a safer rescue platform?


Well, Doug would be best equipped to answer that one, of course...

But I would suggest, in general terms, you'd want to be in a liferaft or tender shortly before the merchant vessel makes "contact" with the mother ship, to minimize the risk of being injured by the violence of the collision, or the dismasting that occurred aboard TRIUMPH...

But you'd still want to remain tethered to the mother ship, until such time as you'd gotten control of a tether from the ship... Last thing you'd want to do is start skating across the ocean in a liferaft or inflatable, and be at the mercy of a 900-foot tanker chasing you down, and attempting to create a lee to slow your rate of drift...

Of course, every scenario or situation is different, but I'd be inclined to remain aboard the boat until the last possible moment, then remain tethered to it, using it as a "sea anchor", in effect...

I've never had to do such a thing, and certainly hope I never will... But as Doug's account illustrates, I think most sailors greatly underestimate how risky such an operation can be...

And if it happens to occur at night, that's a whole 'nother ballgame, I doubt Doug would be here to share his tale if that had been the case...


----------



## Txotxete

Simply an amazing tale... thank you so much for sharing


----------



## DougSabbag

To LandLocked... on the one hand, yes, that was a bizzare thing to experience. On the other, it was instinctual, since I did not know that I had lost "bouyancy" from taking on water, and I was really fighting to return to the surface. Though each time I regained the surface, it was only to get a breath, be pummelled full of water again, and sink again.
Really frightening... I was absolutely sure I was only in the last gasps of life without any hope for being "saved".

To Turbilicity:
The chainplates broke under the deck above the ribs. Apparently from metal fatigue. I think that the leaking stanchions, on that side, had slowly rusted them too. I had recently done a lot of work on the port side of the deck, wherein I actually replaced the rotten wood, then replaced the fiberglass / gel coat / Imron, and all leaking finally stopped. So, I planned on doing the same project on the starboard side when we were in Europe. Bad call there. About 3 years earlier, I had removed and restored the interior teak walls in the boat, and had an opportunity to review the status of the chainplates. They looked excellent then. So, if you have any deck leaks, FIX THEM.

To LauderBoy:

Well, thank you, but, these were the mistakes I made:

1. I should damn well have known that the oil cooler was past it's life expectancy of 5 - 7 years, and changed it. It was 7 years old. CHANGE YOUR OIL COOLER EVERY 5 YEARS.
2. I should have fixed the deck leaks COMPLETELY. Then, I should have checked the chainplates using the special dye they use to do that. Not just look at them. 

3. I should have turned around and headed back to Boston when the oil cooler broke.

4. I should have not called the Coast Guard when the stays broke.

5. We should have TOLD THE TANKER NOT TO INTERSECT OUR SEA ANCHOR LINE.

6. We should have STAYED ON THE BOAT until the tanker either deployed a life boat to get us, or accomplished getting some lines to us, wherein we attached those to harnesses to hoist us to their deck.

7. I should not have let go of the Triumph after having gotten back to her in the open ocean, then: see #6.

8. (Earlier) I should have selected a much better life preserver, or even used my Boston Whaler.... but that would still be in conflict with #6, though would have been better than jumping over board with what I had for a PFD.

9. I should have paid for the insurance with REPLACEMENT VALUE, not the cheaper stated value policy we bought; at least for the crossing. We are receiving $135,500.00 BUT we had "over improved" the Triumph, wherein we are losing over $300,000. AND we are having a hell of a time getting any financing, even with $50,000 down. We are hearing it is the "economy". Translation: banks are not giving loans like they used to.

And finally, I should have hired a fellow sailor man to do the crossing with me. We would have addressed the issues as they cropped up, and would have supported each other to continue in that mode, rather than freaking out, and demanding that I show I care about her feelings / fears. 

We had discussed the issues the night before the calamity, after the stays had broken. Evelyn was quite ready to bolt. I talked her into my plan of slowly sailing back to Boston.
But, I had also offerred to have just her extracted from the Triumph, and I would sail home. She said she wouldn't leave me alone, but don't I care about HER feelings??

So, with that in mind, when I opened the engine room door the next morning and we saw the water sloshing around in there, I gave up to her. BIG MISTAKE, considering I came as close to dying as you can, and with the "economy" we are stuck without a boat.

I was the Captain, and I should have held to the responsibilities of that before the desire to maintain domestic tranquility. Now I am not a Captain, AND the domestic scene is less than wonderful too. Since we do not have our "home", and I don't have anything to do anymore. And I can't blame anyone or anything else except me.

So, Captains, learn from Doug Sabbags' mistakes. In the LONG run, you will be much happier.


----------



## DougSabbag

To Jon Eisberg:

You got it. Don't leave the ship.

A big problem with the AMVER program is that these freighters / tankers are not either trained nor are they overly inspired to do everything they can to minimize the dangers to US. 

After I recuperated from the hypothermia, (2 days later), I was on the deck of the Kim Jacob (tanker) when they were in Canada, and were doing a regulation test of their life boat deployment.

I was standing next to the Captain, as this deployment was happening. Well, you can imagine how I was seething inside to see that they do have these life boats and could have deployed one to get me, rather than just watch as I sank and by herculean afforts managed to rise again.

So, I asked him, (nicely), why didn't you deploy a life boat to get me?

He said that in the 10 - 15 foot seas we were in, they wouldn't have been able to re-attach the life boat to their cables to bring it back up.

To that I said, well, you could have brought it around to the stern and simply towed it the 2 days to Canada, and hoisted us up to the deck.

Then he said: We're not the Coast Guard, we are tankers, delivering oil from Africa to Canada.

So, with that in mind, they will not dive in to get you; they will not even deploy a life boat to get you. If you let go of your own boat, you are dead unless you are one hell of a determined little dude, and extremely lucky.  

Again, I should not have called for "assistance" unless the Triumph was without any doubt whatsoever SINKING. These "saviors" can easily kill you, and will, unless you maintain control of yourself.

I met with the Coast Guard, and did a de-briefing with over 2 dozen of them in Boston.

The bottom line is that these tankers / freighers / AMVER participants are better than nothing, and they can't be trained or pushed further, because they will simply not participate anymore.

So, if you think you need help, but the responder appears to be dangerous to your scene, tell them thank you, but no thanks, GO AWAY. I really should have.

I could go on and on, but fear and emotional distress and domestic dynamics were at the helm, not us at our best. That is a very dangerous combination, even worse than alcohol / texting / drugs.....


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> So, Captains, learn from Doug Sabbags' mistakes. In the LONG run, you will be much happier.


I'll make a deal with you Doug. I'll absolutely learn from your mistakes...IF....you agree to not beat yourself up about them for more than 1 or 2 more weeks.

Whaddayasay?

I do and will have plenty of my own too. I'm just glad you guys survived it.


----------



## DougSabbag

SmackDaddy.... but, some of what there is to learn requires my "self beating".

And, I sure will be in a much better mood when / if we acquire an Amel.

We're not succeeding in getting financing because my wife and I are computer consultants, with overly aggressive tax plans. For instance, we can pay ourselves $10 per hour through our Corp.; though our Corp is recieving $65 per hour, each. Then the Corp. writes of as "expenses" all of our costs; to the point that there is nothing on any tax returns looking very enticing to give us any loans.

So, though we earn over $200 K per year, we look like we earned $14,000. period.

Another of my many mistakes.....  

We, well specifically me, had thought that with the Triumph in hand, we didn't need to look good on paper, since we had no plans of applying for any loans. So, get / keep all the money possible, and sail to the next place with a huge "sailing kitty", earned in just half a year! 

When I jumped overboard, I had stuffed almost $50K in hundreds, into my pockets.
We had earned that in less than 6 months in Boston. 
When we left Fort Lauderdale the year before, and spent the whole summer of 2010 cruising the Eastern Seaboard, we had done the same thing....

Now, because I called for assistance, we're screwed; without a boat, and can't qualify for a serious loan.

Yes, I thank God we're alive. But, how do we FULLY recover past that?

We need a unique financial institution that doesn't only look at W2s. Because ours are sick. Though we have great contracts with the associated bank deposits.

Any ideas toward that? 

We want an Amel 53 footer, late model: 1990s. We have $50K down, and can pay plenty per month. I am so tired of hearing:

1. The "Economy"
2. Send us your W2s.
3. Send us your tax returns.

Then, can't help you....

Sorry, but while I am on this Board, I am also dealing with 3 boat loan places, and they are not going well.


----------



## Faster

Doug.. I want to thank you for this remarkably candid, constructive discussion of what you've been through, I'm sure many of us are learning a lot - even if we may never experience anything like it.

I hope, too, that you and Evelyn can work your way through all of this that has happened both on the relationship side and the financial/lifestyle side of things.

Not many would have been so forthcoming and self critical (semi publicly, at any rate) as you have been.. we're all better off for it. Thanks again.


----------



## mdbee

I am relieved that no lives were lost and very sorry for the lost of your boat/home/belongings. 

But as I recall how GE and other companies have avoided paying taxes over the years, I have a bit less sympathy as far as your current credit issues goes. 

"...with overly aggressive tax plans."
"So, though we earn over $200 K per year, we look like we earned $14,000. period."

It appears your financial decisions (insurance and tax strategies) have had bad consequences. You made your bet and this time you lost. On the upside, you both still have your lives as well as your talents/skills. (Lets hope the IRS doesn't come across this thread and want to double check your books)

"... $50K in hundreds, into my pockets.
We had earned that in less than 6 months in Boston." 

You are far ahead of many people today. In fact pretty damn lucky, all in all.


----------



## tommays

Doug

Your really sharing a BIT to much stuff


----------



## Bene505

Doug,

We all make honest mistakes, it's what you do afterwards that sets us apart. You are a hero to everyone who reads your detailed account and learns from it. It takes courage enough to look at yourself critically, and heaps more to freely share it for the benefit of unseen others.

You are one of the very finest men. Thank you immensely for sharing.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## DougSabbag

OK, no more details. Suffice to say, replacing the Triumph is proving to be quite difficult.

Part of why I shared so much specific stuff, was just in case one of "you" happens to have an Amel for sale and after reading my specifics, might decide to talk to us.

But, that would be too much to hope for...... ?


----------



## El malabarista

Wow! Having been overboard almost exactly mid-Atlantic WITHOUT a life jacket, i can definatively say I would have dumped the money to stay more buoyant. Didnt this occur?
My episode was caused by my own stupidity, yours was caused by some circumstancial errors of judgment and plain bad luck. 
However I applaud your honesty and thank you for teaching us a valuable lesson. Good luck with the new boat hunt.


----------



## DougSabbag

El malabarista,

I did have a PFD on, but it was the worst one we had onboard. Really a water skiing vest.

I shared all of this on the hope that it might help someone else, sometime.

Doug


----------



## mitiempo

Money isn't that heavy - even when wet.

Good luck in the search - maybe a smaller boat is in the cards - at least for a while anyway.


----------



## DougSabbag

You're right the money wasn't weighing too much. I did have to kick off my sneakers, and was in a real conflict with my North Face jacket. On the one hand it was keeping me warm, but on the other it wasn't helping me float. I kept it on.
Which considering I was afloat for over 3 hours, was one of the few good decisions I made. If I had taken that off, it would be much more likely that I would not be here now, since I was already blue from the cold when I made it onto their deck.
It took 2 days to recover, with baths, etc...


----------



## DougSabbag

By the way, when the stays broke, we had just been talking about how great the sailing was! 

We were on the northern edge of the Azore high pressure area, just about to head East, instead of the SE course we were on, and the wind was roughly 15 - 20 knots, with 6 - 8 foot seas. 

We were specifically headed S for another 50 miles, in order to reach some calmer seas, then track right along the top of the Azore high to the Azores.

The auto helm was doing great, and all seemed ship shape, (except for the engine).

We had previous problems, as in the mizzen boom block had broken its' connector to the boom; and the mizzen boom traveler had (on the transom) had also bit the dust, but we had replacements, and took care of those relatively quickly.

Another previous issue, was our jib had lost one of the shackles at the top, holding it to the furler / spinner. Fixed that too.


----------



## dhays

Doug,

If you own the corporation, your interest in the Corporation and the Corporate tax returns should be ample demonstration of your income. The real question comes as to whether the bank wants to make a loan on a boat. Real estate loans are one thing, a boat is something else. Even though you view the boat as a "home", the bank views it as a depreciating asset that can also sink.

Also, a boat is a mobile asset. You just came back from an aborted trip to Europe with lots of cash on you. From the banks perspective, what is to keep you from taking the boat and just forgetting to pay the note?

I feel for the loss of your boat, but you have mentioned a few times how much at a loss you are without it. I have also picked up a distinct note of tension in your relationship with your wife.

Totally unsolicited advice so take it as completely worthless but, I would suggest that you give up on the boat for now. Find a place to rent and spend a year or two to get your lives back together to get over the trauma of the experience. Along the way, try to get passed the notion that your wife used emotional blackmail to force you into a decision you didn't want to make. If you carry that grudge, I'd wager anything that you two will be split up with a couple years.

Anyway, don't respond to my advice, but again thanks for sharing your experience. It it very informative for us.

Dave


----------



## chrisncate

Doug, ever consider going smaller and simpler, and refitting a boat yourself with what you already have on hand cash wise? Even with what you lost due to the stated value policy - what you have on hand would buy you the boat of many of our dreams, outright, without even needing a loan.

?


----------



## MikeinLA

DougSabbag said:


> For instance, we can pay ourselves $10 per hour through our Corp.; though our Corp is recieving $65 per hour, each. Then the Corp. writes of as "expenses" all of our costs; to the point that there is nothing on any tax returns looking very enticing to give us any loans.
> 
> So, though we earn over $200 K per year, we look like we earned $14,000. period.


Just as you hear about the IRS "parting the veil" to unwrap various tax plans that they don't like, an intelligent lender should be able to look at your books and ascertain your actual income. If you were able to get back to work for a while and re-establish your real earning power, that would also reassure the lender. I would also stress that you are looking for a liveaboard with no cruising in mind. You might also find a desperate seller who will carry a "silent second" behind the first. You sound like a smart and financially clever guy, I'm betting on you to recover. Good luck,

Mike


----------



## veprjack

Doug,

In the short time I've known you and Evelyn, I have grown pretty fond of you guys - and not just because your humor is almost as sick as mine! lol... You are one of the most industrious, smart and genuinely decent people I know, not to mention a helluva sailor - and Evelyn just has bad taste in guys - hahaha. No, seriously, I do NOT in any way want to sound like I'm minimizing the trauma, financial stress, etc. of your experience here - but I have to say that you are LITERALLY a survivor and will TRIUMPH now and in the future.

I am honored to count you and Evelyn among my friends, and I look forward to getting to know you both better. Being a newbie, when you guys come aboard next week (I hope we can make that work), I can't tell you how much it will mean to me,to have your expertise and kindness as I fumble through the process of trying to become half the sailor you are!

Hang in there and let me know if I can do anything to help - and let me know what day works for you between next Friday and Sept 30th. I promise to have the galley stocked with grape leaves!!! Now, about replacing my rain poncho I left on your boat. LOL


----------



## JonEisberg

chrisncate said:


> Doug, ever consider going smaller and simpler, and refitting a boat yourself with what you already have on hand cash wise? Even with what you lost due to the stated value policy - what you have on hand would buy you the boat of many of our dreams, outright, without even needing a loan.
> 
> ?


My thoughts, exactly...

There are a lot of good boats out there for the amount of his insurance check that would be suitable for many couples...


----------



## CBinRI

JonEisberg said:


> My thoughts, exactly...
> 
> There are a lot of good boats out there for the amount of his insurance check that would be suitable for many couples...


And blue water safe . . . There are a lot of options in that price range, particularly in this economy. And do you really need more than 50 feet? Isn't something in the 40+ range still going to give you plenty of room but have easier systems and be more easily handled by 2?


----------



## DougSabbag

On the financial / tax / reporting advice and, or support / negative comments, thanks, or, I know, or vote for a tax change if you don't like it, though none of the candidates are offering any real changes, so we're all SOL.

On the concept of down sizing into our next boat, well, when I bought the Triumph the size criteria was: Small enough to handle myself, (which she sure was), but big enough to be as removed from "camping out" as possible, which she just barely was.

So, the next boat will be larger, newer, and better, not smaller, older and worse.

On the "take a couple years off" advice, as well intentioned as that is, the clock is ticking, as they say, and rather than sitting in a rocking chair, we need to get "back on the horse", ASAP.

Call me crazy, call me a lot of things, but at my age at least give me the respect that as much as some choices have turned wrong, we do know what we are doing. 

And finally, as some have also nicely said, thank you for believing that we will recover. We had what it took to design our lives to accomplish the maximum hedonism, (not really a dirty word folks), and we will likewise be able to redesign it to accomplish what we need to, to replace what was lost.

This is not a time to retract, diminish, or sit down; it is a time to expand, grow, and think out of the box in another way. 

My wife and I have discussed our choices and their costs to us, then, now and in the future. We love each other, and are just fine. We know what we did, and why. So rather than judging or providing asinine predictions, please accept what I shared for the value of knowing better what to do given our situation, but not to be analyzed / judged as a soap opera.

Fair winds....


----------



## MikeinLA

DougSabbag said:


> So, the next boat will be larger, newer, and better, not smaller, older and worse.
> 
> This is not a time to retract, diminish, or sit down; it is a time to expand, grow, and think out of the box in another way.


I REALLY admire your attitude and wish you the very best of luck.

Mike


----------



## montenido

Doug, I have been reading this thread with great interest. Both to see what actually happened, which you generously shared, and to see how you make out. I love your spirit and determination to carry on, damn the torpedoes. You have my admiration and best wishes for the next chapter in your adventure.

Good luck, Bill


----------



## DougSabbag

FYI, I have added some pictures of the Triumph, as taken from the M/V Kim Jacob, at the time of our "meeting", and some they took of me while I was drowning.

These are within the album, the "Triumph and her crew" which I posted within my profile.

You may also view some pictures from happier days.....


----------



## DougSabbag

Someone on another post made some comments which sounded fairly clearly as accusations that I had spent too much effort on the granite counters, and other interior amenities, when I should have spent more on the rigging, engine, and chainplates.
Though as a Monday morning quarterback, I can't argue that there apparently were some issues I was surprised by, nevertheless, we had spent the VAST MAJORITY of our time and money on the most important stuff:

I rebuilt the Perkins engine and she only had roughly 500 hours on her when we set sail, AND I had balanced the engine. How many people have you heard of BALANCING their Perkins 4.236 ? I haven't heard of ANY. And in all the previous short cruises before we left the engine was running perfectly, strongly, without any dmoke, etc.
The oil cooler failure is hard to see coming. How would you do that? (rhetorical question)

We stepped the main mast less than 10 months before the rigging failure, and had TWO riggers plus numerous others inspect every single part. We did replace some parts here and there, and thought that should do it. 

Granted I could have removed the interior walls, AGAIN, just before we set sail, and checked AGAIN, with the dye tests etc., but wild man that I am, I just accepted the views of 2 - 3 years earlier. My bad.

I had also replaced 100% of the plumbing, at least 50% of the wiring, throughout, installed all sorts of safety devices, replaced half of the deck on the port side, replaced the bowsprit, personally designed improvements which I had fabricated for the davits, and the list of things we DID do, prior to casting off are quite extensive.

The granite counters did not interfere in the many OTHER projects we accomplished on the Triumph. 

Just wanted to set the record straight, for those who might have the wrong picture of me being just for "show" and without the required depth.


----------



## chrisncate

It was me, _please please please_ go read this thread for the context everyone:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...o-about-what-boat-right-you-4.html#post776175

Post #37, please go read it before you judge.


----------



## MikeinLA

"Lottery? You have no idea of anyones financial status, let alone ours. You honestly believe that anyone who isn't *as materialistic/hedonistic as you are*, are simply "living in denial"?

It's really too bad *you didn't bother putting the same effort into your chainplates, rigging and motor as you did your cabin appointments* before heading out. You might still have all your nice stuff, and not almost died out there if you had."

Not sure how many ways there are to take that really. Sounds pretty accusatory and superior of you. You do realize that Hans Christians, a well known LD cruising boat, came STANDARD with granite counters (even in the head), don't you? You sorta remind me of the Hyundai drivers that tell me I don't REALLY need a Porsche to drive to the marina.

I think if you made more money you'd have a different perspective.

Mike


----------



## SVAuspicious

Hi Doug,

Thanks for joining us in the chat the other day. Fascinating and useful conversation.



DougSabbag said:


> So, being "conservative" acted in an inverse dynamic when the "rescuers" arrived.


Like so many vocabulary exercises it depends. "Conservative" to me would be staying with the boat.

We think--don't know--that a similar dynamic as developed on _Triumph_ led to the loss of _Rule 62_ and the loss of one life aboard.

Your candor here, Doug, gives us the opportunity to learn ourselves.



JonEisberg said:


> it really is part of the responsibility of those being rescued to aid in the transfer, and attempt to diminish the risk by effecting the transfer from a tender or liferaft, rather than from the mother ship itself...


I don't agree with you Jon. I think staying on the most stable platform is the best choice. Stay on the boat. Fire or sinking are the only reasons I can think of for getting off (really sinking, not just water in the bilge). I think that is the lesson Doug has identified for us.

Doug - I am by no means second-guessing you. I would like to know if you saw and understood the tanker was heading for the sea anchor rode early enough to consider cutting the rode before you where pulled forward against the hull of the ship? I've been in unpleasant circumstances and realize that some things are startlingly clear and others are missed completely. What did you see, and was there any time you might have done something about it?

I see another lesson oft discussed in risk management circles that hasn't been poked at here. Rarely is a disaster the result of a single failure, whether human or mechanical. It is the result of a cascading series of failures and errors that lead to disaster. The first "big deal" should cause us to respond in recognition of the potential for a future emergency.


----------



## Maine Sail

chrisncate said:


> It was me, _please please please_ go read this thread for the context everyone:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...o-about-what-boat-right-you-4.html#post776175
> 
> Post #37, please go read it before you judge.


I did read it and found you to be the epitome of hypocritical...



chrisncate said:


> *It's really too bad you didn't bother putting the same effort into your chainplates, rigging and motor as you did your cabin appointments before heading out. You might still have all your nice stuff, and not almost died out there if you had*.
> 
> Good luck in your search for the Amel


Most who posted on the Calabrese case had far more "facts" about it than you did about Doug's chain plates, rigging and motor. Even after all your ranting about not being judgmental you still chose to JUMP THE GUN and ASSUME he had only focused on the granite....

You are your own worst enemy Chris...


----------



## svHyLyte

DougSabbag said:


> FYI, I have added some pictures of the Triumph, as taken from the M/V Kim Jacob, at the time of our "meeting", and some they took of me while I was drowning.
> 
> These are within the album, the "Triumph and her crew" which I posted within my profile.
> 
> You may also view some pictures from happier days.....


Doug--

We have been following this thread and I sympathize with your loss. Tho' it is poor solace, yachts are just things that can be replaced. Given your history, I'm sure you'll do fine.

Your experience, however, brings one thing I have noticed in the last few years to mind. The increasing frequency of yachts, and sometimes lives, being lost when (most often) a husband decides to try for a "safe harbor" rather then staying off-shore or calls for an evacuation (which are themselves not without peril as you discovered) because of the physical or emotional distress of wives and/or children.

There are many reasons for this, of course, but in the final analysis the common thread is one yielding to demands/perceived needs against one's better judgment. One's wife or child's distress is difficult to ignore but there are clearly times when one must do so--the lesser of two evils. I have made a point of bringing these events to my own wife's attention so that should/when the need arise, she will understand why I might choose to remain at sea, regardless of her entreaties.

Fortunately, this has only happened to us once in 20+ years and was very difficult in the event but in the aftermath, even tho' she refused to speak with me for several daze, my wife finally agreed that my "unsympathetic" decision was "right".

N'any case, we wish you good luck (_wife reading over shoulder_)!

FWIW...


----------



## smurphny

smackdaddy said:


> Question: In this scenario, where you have made final decision to abandon and a tanker is within sight, would it make more sense to go ahead and deploy the LR and get away from the boat? Would this make a safer rescue platform?


I wondered the same thing. I guess there are no definitive methods and procedures to accomplish getting from a small boat to a tanker/freighter. Maybe there needs to be some further discussion as to what general procedures are best/worst if faced with this scenario. Can we say 1. Do not get your boat close to the tanker in heavy seas? 2. Wear a high buoyancy vest and harness/tether if going overboard on a rescue line ( I seriously doubt the survival of inflated vests in this situation)? 3. Better to be in LR once you've decided to abandon ship? 4. Better to only abandon if sinking imminent? Getting useful parameters fixed in one's mind can take away some of the mistakes in stressful situations.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> it really is part of the responsibility of those being rescued to aid in the transfer, and attempt to diminish the risk by effecting the transfer from a tender or liferaft, rather than from the mother ship itself...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with you Jon. I think staying on the most stable platform is the best choice. Stay on the boat. Fire or sinking are the only reasons I can think of for getting off (really sinking, not just water in the bilge). I think that is the lesson Doug has identified for us.
Click to expand...

Well, that sort of decision is really impossible to assess until one is confronted with a particular scenario, of course&#8230;

However, I find the prospect of bringing a 50 foot sailboat displacing 20+ tons alongside the hull of a large ship in a significant open ocean swell to be pretty daunting&#8230; Rising and falling perhaps 10-15 feet with each passing swell, the timing of one's hoist from the deck, or "leap" to a ladder would be extremely critical, and one small misstep or slip could result in winding up in the water&#8230;

In between the hull of a large ship in a chaotic seaway, and a 50 foot sailboat alongside in its lee, would seem to be not a very good place to be&#8230; (grin)

All things being equal, I still think I'd prefer to take my chances making my move from a smaller platform, one far less likely to crush me should something go wrong&#8230;


----------



## DougSabbag

"I would like to know if you saw and understood the tanker was heading for the sea anchor rode early enough to consider cutting the rode before you where pulled forward against the hull of the ship?"

Well, originally the Captain of the Kim Jacob spoke with me on the radio and said he would proceed outside of the sea anchor, (forward of it), and try to grab it with a grappling hook. They did that, but didn't manage to catch the sea anchor. 

For a moment, I'll stop right there.... When he was saying that was his plan, I was still wondering: what will they do then? I had a rough assumption that they would pull us closer to them, and also accomplish keeping us somewhat synched to them, rather than floating backwards on our own.

Anyway, on their next pass, they did not tell me what they had in mind, so initially I thought they were doing the same thing, i.e. going to grab the sea anchor with a grappling hook. 

It wasn't until it was too late, because they were clearly committed, (as a moving object), to proceeding on their course, that it became apparent that they would intersect the line to the sea anchor.

From there it was just a slow moving train wreck....


----------



## DougSabbag

svHyLyte said:


> Doug--
> 
> We have been following this thread and I sympathize with your loss. Tho' it is poor solace, yachts are just things that can be replaced. Given your history, I'm sure you'll do fine.
> 
> Your experience, however, brings one thing I have noticed in the last few years to mind. The increasing frequency of yachts, and sometimes lives, being lost when (most often) a husband decides to try for a "safe harbor" rather then staying off-shore or calls for an evacuation (which are themselves not without peril as you discovered) because of the physical or emotional distress of wives and/or children.
> 
> There are many reasons for this, of course, but in the final analysis the common thread is one yielding to demands/perceived needs against one's better judgment. One's wife or child's distress is difficult to ignore but there are clearly times when one must do so--the lesser of two evils. I have made a point of bringing these events to my own wife's attention so that should/when the need arise, she will understand why I might choose to remain at sea, regardless of her entreaties.
> 
> Fortunately, this has only happened to us once in 20+ years and was very difficult in the event but in the aftermath, even tho' she refused to speak with me for several daze, my wife finally agreed that my "unsympathetic" decision was "right".
> 
> N'any case, we wish you good luck (_wife reading over shoulder_)!
> 
> FWIW...


I 100% agree with this analysis. This is perhaps the over all thing to learn from our bad day sailing.....


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> Well, that sort of decision is really impossible to assess until one is confronted with a particular scenario, of course&#8230;
> 
> However, I find the prospect of bringing a 50 foot sailboat displacing 20+ tons alongside the hull of a large ship in a significant open ocean swell to be pretty daunting&#8230; Rising and falling perhaps 10-15 feet with each passing swell, the timing of one's hoist from the deck, or "leap" to a ladder would be extremely critical, and one small misstep or slip could result in winding up in the water&#8230;
> 
> In between the hull of a large ship in a chaotic seaway, and a 50 foot sailboat alongside in its lee, would seem to be not a very good place to be&#8230; (grin)
> 
> All things being equal, I still think I'd prefer to take my chances making my move from a smaller platform, one far less likely to crush me should something go wrong&#8230;


Not only that, but if you are in a LR, you still have your well equipped raft to go to if they cannot get you aboard. If your boat is sinking, jumping in the water with the hope of being able to get aboard a tanker is to me limiting your options to 0 should the attempt fail.


----------



## DougSabbag

smurphny said:


> I wondered the same thing. I guess there are no definitive methods and procedures to accomplish getting from a small boat to a tanker/freighter. Maybe there needs to be some further discussion as to what general procedures are best/worst if faced with this scenario. Can we say 1. Do not get your boat close to the tanker in heavy seas? 2. Wear a high buoyancy vest and harness/tether if going overboard on a rescue line ( I seriously doubt the survival of inflated vests in this situation)? 3. Better to be in LR once you've decided to abandon ship? 4. Better to only abandon if sinking imminent? Getting useful parameters fixed in one's mind can take away some of the mistakes in stressful situations.


From my perspective, what I saw as the only, or least dangerous manner of getting onto a large freighter / tanker, is from their STERN. There is of course still the issue with their propeller(s), but if you could float on something which would keep you from sinking, and then being dragged into the props, from their stern you would not be run over, and or smashed by their hull.

Another "tidbit" from July 27th, the Captain of the Kim Jacob, (while I was drowning), put on a harness and lowered himself into the water from their transom, to try to swim over to me. He found that once he rounded their stern, the current kept him from being able to proceed at all.

SO, since he was able to go in and out of the water from their stern, THAT is the smoothest entry point for that kind of vessel.

Now ideally, has we planned for that / considered that / known that, we should have used our Boston Whaler, and come up to their stern.

Gee, we could have even brought some of our "stuff" with us.....


----------



## jimjazzdad

This thread is provoking some good discussion on abandoning a yacht at sea.

When I worked on offshore rigs, conventional wisdom stated that when rescuing people from a TEMPSC (totally enclosed motor propelled survival craft..ie fiberglass lifeboat) the resuce vessel would take the TEMPSC painter and tow the lifeboat in its lee while the survivors debarked by Jacobs Ladder or scramble net to the deck of the vessel. In the couple of instances I know of personally, coming alongside a 250 -300 foot offshore supply boat in a seaway was scary enough that the lifeboat occupants elected to stay put until the seas subsided and they could be shuttled off by FRC (Fast Rescue Craft). 

If had to abandon my sailboat alondside a tanker, I might consider felling the rig before coming alongside, as the rig beating on the side of the ship would seem to be a huge danger to the crew of the sailboat. I also would consider attaching my Lifesling to what ever rescue line the ship sent down. Our Mustang inflatables also have an integral safety harness that could be clipped to the Lifesling by a carabiner. Its not a scenario I have ever though through before - thank you for bringing it to our attention.


----------



## kd3pc

jimjazzdad said:


> If had to abandon my sailboat alondside a tanker, I might consider felling the rig before coming alongside, as the rig beating on the side of the ship would seem to be a huge danger to the crew of the sailboat. I also would consider attaching my Lifesling to what ever rescue line the ship sent down. Our Mustang inflatables also have an integral safety harness that could be clipped to the Lifesling by a carabiner. Its not a scenario I have ever though through before - thank you for bringing it to our attention.


Jim

your ideas are solid, but I would make one comment that very few, if any recreational sailors carry the gear/tools to fell the rig, safely, if at all. It would take at least two very able seaman to do so - some very stout lines and a process specific to do so, those seamen would need to be well rested, knowledgeable and capable....most sailors who are stepping up to a cargo/freighter have likely been up, without sleep, water and food and on edge for days before the "rescue".

Although it is great training, most will never get the fire, rescue and emergency training that you guys get...sadly, nor will they foot the bill if it is offered. Just getting in and out of gumby suits and cold water training by the CG is more than most will do. I enjoyed it immensely.

Thanks for the thoughts and perspective


----------



## mitiempo

Felling the rig if it is deck stepped would not be impossible but if it is keel stepped it would be next to impossible at sea.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

DougSabbag said:


> ...
> 
> Another "tidbit" from July 27th, the Captain of the Kim Jacob, (while I was drowning), put on a harness and lowered himself into the water from their transom, to try to swim over to me. He found that once he rounded their stern, the current kept him from being able to proceed at all.
> 
> ...)


Whoa! The Captain lowered himself into the water to get you? That is amazing!!

From your previous description ('nobody jumps into the water for you'), I had the impression that the tanker crew were pretty much standing on deck and waiting for you to crawl up the side. That someone, and the CAPTAIN, no less, actually went into the water increases my respect for the crew immensely!


----------



## DougSabbag

As to the concept of "felling our rigging", are you kidding me? Our main and mizzen are keel stepped. Unless we had some serious cutting tools, that aint happening.

But, without felling trees out to sea, what about (as I mentioned earlier), using the tanker / freighter's STERN instead of alongside....?

Their Captain went up and down in a harness off of their stern without any problems. 

We could have used our dinghy, and calmly pulled up to their stern, while having a cigarette.....


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> As to the concept of "felling our rigging", are you kidding me? Our main and mizzen are keel stepped. Unless we had some serious cutting tools, that aint happening.
> 
> But, without felling trees out to sea, what about (as I mentioned earlier), using the tanker / freighter's STERN instead of alongside....?
> 
> Their Captain went up and down in a harness off of their stern without any problems.
> 
> We could have used our dinghy, and calmly pulled up to their stern, while having a cigarette.....


And a MaiTai!

+1 on the rig felling not being a great idea. Like you don't have enough to do anyway without throwing around some seriously heavy and dangerous pieces of metal and cable in a tossing sea.

PS - Great pics in your gallery!!! You soloed that thing across the Atlantic???? Impressive dude. As for the pics of you in/under the water - spooky.


----------



## chrisncate

Maine Sail said:


> I did read it and found you to be the epitome of hypocritical...
> 
> Most who posted on the Calabrese case had far more "facts" about it than you did about Doug's chain plates, rigging and motor. Even after all your ranting about not being judgmental you still chose to JUMP THE GUN and ASSUME he had only focused on the granite....
> 
> You are your own worst enemy Chris...


No, I'm not.

I could make a pretty devastating argument Main Sail, regarding Calbrese, Doug, and the facts on the ground in both cases. Both personally, and the decisions both made in both situations.


----------



## smackdaddy

chrisncate said:


> No, I'm not.
> 
> I could make a pretty devastating argument Main Sail, regarding Calbrese, Doug, and the facts on the ground in both cases. Both personally, and the decisions both made in both situations.


----------



## chrisncate

Could but won't. No worries...


----------



## PCP

DougSabbag said:


> ...
> So, the insurance will pay us approx. $140K We have effectively lost over $250K, at least, not to mention the thousands of hours of sweat equity. I took 3 years off of work to do most of the work myself.
> 
> With this insurance and the money we have anyway, we can afford about $250K for an Amel. Which is about $50K shy of most of the early 90s Amels were seeing.


Really sorry for your loss and really appreciated your bluntness and honesty regarding all the accident, not to mention coming public about it. Your story has many things to learn from.

Regarding the Amel, it is a great boat, but one from the early 90's would be about 20 years old and the changes are that it will need some money to put it on its initial condition. I mean, the standing rig and the engine are probably in need of a refit, not to mention probably many other things.

Have you taken that into consideration as well as the money for it?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## UPHILL

smackdaddy said:


>


I have never seen James T. Kirk ever pull a hand plant, why might that be.....

drift,big drift..


----------



## smackdaddy

Au contraire...


----------



## UPHILL

Good job smack,

I am in Idahho

I wish our puters would work up here. or might be the ,


I am about to throw itout the widow..

drift, drift


----------



## mitiempo

I think the Calbrese event was a train wreck from the beginning. 

On both this thread and the thread about Paul Lim's rescue off Australia some have made statements that are hard to make unless you were there. I have read this thread from the beginning and I started the Paul Lim thread as he sailed from the marina I am in. I have not second guessed the skipper in either case as I don't believe anyone not there really has a right to. There is a lot to learn in both threads, especially this one as far as rescue procedures are concerned. Doug has probably been more forthcoming than anyone would expect in telling the tale. But the weight of a decision made at sea when things are deteriorating is different from one made in comfort at a keyboard. 

from Chrisncate


----------



## chrisncate

mitiempo said:


> I think the Calbrese event was a train wreck from the beginning.
> 
> On both this thread and the thread about Paul Lim's rescue off Australia some have made statements that are hard to make unless you were there. I have read this thread from the beginning and I started the Paul Lim thread as he sailed from the marina I am in. I have not second guessed the skipper in either case as I don't believe anyone not there really has a right to. There is a lot to learn in both threads, especially this one as far as rescue procedures are concerned. Doug has probably been more forthcoming than anyone would expect in telling the tale. But the weight of a decision made at sea when things are deteriorating is different from one made in comfort at a keyboard.
> 
> from Chrisncate


mitiempo, and rest of forum:

Would it be inappropriate for me to ask some specific questions citing things already written, said and done by both captains, respectfully worded as best as I possibly can, regarding why Calabrese was viewed by the majority here one way, and Doug is viewed by the majority in another? Also why calabrese was second guessed the whole way and doug was/is not?

I do have a couple of (what I think are) reasonable questions, but I am afraid to ask them. If the general forum consensus is that I should not ask any questions, I will honor the wishes of the majority and not ask anything or comment further.

?


----------



## DougSabbag

chrisncate said:


> No, I'm not.
> 
> I could make a pretty devastating argument Main Sail, regarding Calbrese, Doug, and the facts on the ground in both cases. Both personally, and the decisions both made in both situations.


I am sorry for your state of mind. Perhaps, given a nice Merlot, or some other suitable cerebral lubricant, you could actually come closer to humanity.

In the mean time, until you have "walked in my shoes" as they say, please refrain from your temptation to point out what ever little faults of mine you're dying to share with everyone.

I thought I listed the errors made that day, and even some previously, fairly completely; apparently you've found some more.

Thanks, but no thanks. Your attitude is neither healthy nor constructive.

Believe me, I do not desire any more beatings, if possible.

On a completely different note, back to your issues with granite counters and the other finer things in life; perhaps you should have some more information.

When I was 15 years old, my mother abandoned me in Central Maine, in the winter. I learned to live on the streets of Waterville; found that I could sneak into the Harris Baking Company and sleep on their oven to keep warm; learned when Steve's Restaurant threw out their unsold baked stuffed shrimp and many other pieces of street knowledge. Nevertheless, I managed to continue to attend high school, and maintained an honor roll standing.

Fast forward a few years, and as I was entering a computer class in college, (at my own expense), when as a standard question I was asked why I wanted to attend this course, I answered I need to be a computer programmer to afford a 50 foot sailboat.

I succeeded, and after many more years, I bought her. Thus she was named the Triumph.

So, in the first place, the Triumph represents many things to me; so her loss likewise has deep effects.

Now, back to your disdain for the finer things in life onboard a vessel.

Until YOU have gone without food, clean clothes, shelter, etc., do not display your choice to do so as some sort of a badge of honor which you can hold over others. From my view, you are limiting yourself, and not enjoying the best things which mankind has to offer us, during our limited time alive.

Which is a sad waste of a life on earth.

Those who have gone without, can more appropriately value the advances and "amenitites" available to humans and will therefore work harder to make sure to enjoy as many and as much of these things as possible.

You really should re-examine your chosen Spartan life style, since it is neither anything to be proud of, nor will it be something to be happy about when you are gasping your last breath.

Had I not been able to reach the surface of the ocean, repeatedly, last month, at least at my wake, people who knew me could have said: At least Doug REALLY enjoyed life to the fullest. He did it all, and he tasted it all.

Yes, with granite counters, and all the other little conveniences like a washer and dryer, onboard.

I suggest that you are more likely to be suffereing from some sort of a psychosis, (irrational life style & goals), than not, as can be seen from someone who has gone without and can see the forest through the trees.

RE-examine your way of life, and amazingly you might, if you are capable of some self healing, find that having granite counters, et. al., IS better than not, and actually do what you can to improve your environment, rather than settle for the Spartan / doing without lifestyle.

Life IS way too short, and limiting yourself from tasting and enjoying as much as you can is costing you more than you know.

Boy, does my Mercedes S430 drive beautifully. You know it has 2 settings for the shock absorbers? It has fans in the seats for cooling comfort! It has a V8 with all the best engineering which provides the smoothest most powerful acceleration I have ever experienced. It has so many features, the manual is 421 pages long!

I am sure it is much healthier to enjoy these things than to live in the denial that they are somehow bad, or to be eschewed, and not allow this human being to experience the best that mankind has attained.

LIFE IS TOO SHORT. Enjoy the roses, the Mercedes, and the granite counters. You will more likely enjoy them than not. 

If not, oh well, at least you TRIED THEM.


----------



## DougSabbag

veprjack said:


> Doug,
> 
> In the short time I've known you and Evelyn, I have grown pretty fond of you guys - and not just because your humor is almost as sick as mine! lol... You are one of the most industrious, smart and genuinely decent people I know, not to mention a helluva sailor - and Evelyn just has bad taste in guys - hahaha. No, seriously, I do NOT in any way want to sound like I'm minimizing the trauma, financial stress, etc. of your experience here - but I have to say that you are LITERALLY a survivor and will TRIUMPH now and in the future.
> 
> I am honored to count you and Evelyn among my friends, and I look forward to getting to know you both better. Being a newbie, when you guys come aboard next week (I hope we can make that work), I can't tell you how much it will mean to me,to have your expertise and kindness as I fumble through the process of trying to become half the sailor you are!
> 
> Hang in there and let me know if I can do anything to help - and let me know what day works for you between next Friday and Sept 30th. I promise to have the galley stocked with grape leaves!!! Now, about replacing my rain poncho I left on your boat. LOL


Jack,

Please email me ([email protected]) to work out the details for us to be part of your crew on your upcoming cruise.

You won't need to tempt us with grape leaves... just getting under sail again will be a most wonderful moment, for both of us.

Thank you,
Doug

PS You left your jacket on the Triumph. So, find her and you can have your jacket back! Good luck.


----------



## xymotic

What COLOR were the granite counters?


----------



## MacGyverRI

Gee, humble aren't we...

It seems like you're trying too hard to be right with the decision you made. Bottom line is you're both alive to use the Mercedes.


----------



## montenido

Doug, my opinion of you just went higher than it already was. You said a mouthful. Having recently lost both my mom and sister, I must agree, Life is short. Live and enjoy. Go out and create that short movie that we are all supposed to see when our life flashes before our eyes.
Can't wait to see pictures when you get a new boat.

Cheers, Bill


----------



## DougSabbag

What color.... hmmmm, well, the slab was from Brazil, and had a uniquely colorful palet, including some golden warmth, etc.

But, a picture tells a thousand words! Check out our web site: Triumph Charters -- Sail with Us! and look on the tab labelled "Amenities". If you place your cursor over the first picture under the label "Galley", the picture will expand.


----------



## junkrig

chrisncate said:


> No, I'm not.
> 
> I could make a pretty devastating argument Main Sail, regarding Calbrese, Doug, and the facts on the ground in both cases. Both personally, and the decisions both made in both situations.


Chris: Don't go there. uke


----------



## DougSabbag

MacGyverRI said:


> Gee, humble aren't we...
> 
> It seems like you're trying too hard to be right with the decision you made. Bottom line is you're both alive to use the Mercedes.


Does it now!? REALLY? What the F are you talking about?

FYI, once back on land, in Boston, after I replaced my lost glasses, and acquired some clothes, we bought this beautiful car, mostly as therapy.

When you lose EVERYTHING, let's explore what you do next....


----------



## DougSabbag

montenido said:


> Doug, my opinion of you just went higher than it already was. You said a mouthful. Having recently lost both my mom and sister, I must agree, Life is short. Live and enjoy. Go out and create that short movie that we are all supposed to see when our life flashes before our eyes.
> Can't wait to see pictures when you get a new boat.
> 
> Cheers, Bill


Thank you, but I am SO SORRY about your mother and sister. My God.

Yes, live to the fullest, seems to be a good idea; before, now and forever.


----------



## xymotic

DougSabbag said:


> What color.... hmmmm, well, the slab was from Brazil, and had a uniquely colorful palet, including some golden warmth, etc.
> 
> But, a picture tells a thousand words! Check out our web site: Triumph Charters -- Sail with Us! and look on the tab labelled "Amenities". If you place your cursor over the first picture under the label "Galley", the picture will expand.


Thanks Doug, now we have the necessary info to really judge you and armchair quarterback your decision making abilities.:laugher:laugher:laugher


----------



## DougSabbag

By the way, I received a response via email today from the owner of a 1992 
Amel whom I made an offer to last Friday.

Well, he and his wife appear open to working out the details, to accomplish this!!!

BUT, he said she was hit by lightening while on the hard, likewise Friday. Never boring is it....?!

He and I will meet at the boat in a little less than 2 weeks from now, review the damages and finalize our deal.

So, it would seem that we might be back onboard well before Thanksgiving, maybe even in time for Halloween.

And we can start the preperations for a summer 2012 crossing.


----------



## MacGyverRI

DougSabbag said:


> When you lose EVERYTHING, let's explore what you do next....


I have and somewhat recovered, not totally.

But, if you really lost everything, where did the Mercedes come from? I couldn't even buy a decent used car back then so you really didn't lose *everything*...

I have more respect for Calabrese...


----------



## chrisncate

> I am sorry for your state of mind. Perhaps, given a nice Merlot, or some other suitable cerebral lubricant, you could actually come closer to humanity.


I'm just going to respond to what you write, and I am going to be as respectful as possible of you and the forum. I'm not going to make any statements to what motivates you in life, or what I think of you or anyone else personally. I hope this is fair to you and others reading this.

Regarding above: I like a little red wine (cabernet), but I don't really think I need it to be closer to humanity. I think understand what you meant though, that I am being inhuman to you with what I have said so far. If I read you wrong, I do apologize.



> In the mean time, until you have "walked in my shoes" as they say, please refrain from your temptation to point out what ever little faults of mine you're dying to share with everyone.


You have written some things in this thread that are interesting and quite personal, I will leave out my personal views once we get to those things.



> I thought I listed the errors made that day, and even some previously, fairly completely; apparently you've found some more.
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks. Your attitude is neither healthy nor constructive.
> 
> Believe me, I do not desire any more beatings, if possible.


No, I have nothing to add to what you have already said regarding where any mistakes were made. You spoke to these things already, and I have nothing to add.

Regarding the beatings: This thread is probably on the order of 99% glowing reviews and well wishes for you, your wife and your plight - so I don't understand why you said this part.



> On a completely different note, back to your issues with granite counters and the other finer things in life; perhaps you should have some more information.


I don't have an issue with these things. I have an issue with my _boat_ having things I don't want to pay for or maintain over the long haul. There is a difference. I like nice stuff like everyone does. All of my "simple" stuff is top of the line for the most part, and my boat, while nowhere near yours in cost, wasn't cheap to refit. I like simple boats for reasons other than hating nice things.



> When I was 15 years old, my mother abandoned me in Central Maine, in the winter. I learned to live on the streets of Waterville; found that I could sneak into the Harris Baking Company and sleep on their oven to keep warm; learned when Steve's Restaurant threw out their unsold baked stuffed shrimp and many other pieces of street knowledge. Nevertheless, I managed to continue to attend high school, and maintained an honor roll standing.
> 
> Fast forward a few years, and as I was entering a computer class in college, (at my own expense), when as a standard question I was asked why I wanted to attend this course, I answered I need to be a computer programmer to afford a 50 foot sailboat.
> 
> I succeeded, and after many more years, I bought her. Thus she was named the Triumph.


That is a nice story, and I wouldn't diminish it (or you) by saying anything other than congratulations on making out of poverty on your own like you did. You must have worked very hard to get where you are. I can appreciate that.



> So, in the first place, the Triumph represents many things to me; so her loss likewise has deep effects.


I wouldn't think otherwise.



> Now, back to your disdain for the finer things in life onboard a vessel.
> 
> Until YOU have gone without food, clean clothes, shelter, etc., do not display your choice to do so as some sort of a badge of honor which you can hold over others. From my view, you are limiting yourself, and not enjoying the best things which mankind has to offer us, during our limited time alive.
> 
> Which is a sad waste of a life on earth.


But you must admit, on the flip side, you have no idea what my life has been - correct? What if you're wrong and I have known hardships?

You are making assumptions without data, the same crime I am guilty of regarding you in your (and some in the forum) opinion. Does this make sense?



> Those who have gone without, can more appropriately value the advances and "amenitites" available to humans and will therefore work harder to make sure to enjoy as many and as much of these things as possible.
> 
> You really should re-examine your chosen Spartan life style, since it is neither anything to be proud of, nor will it be something to be happy about when you are gasping your last breath.


Why is not pursuing materialism and hedonism something to not be proud of? Are these the most noble attributes of a person?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you wrote:



> About the PFD I was wearing.
> 
> Sadly, so many errors were made that day it is embarrassing to answer some of these questions. Though we had a large container on the aft deck with roughly 2 dozen PFDs, with some self inflating Switlic (sp?) and a lot of the usual large orange types, I grabbed the absolute worst one onboard. It was really for water skiing. Not what you want to depend on where I was for your life.


My question is why was stuffing 50k in your pocket before jumping in more important that grabbing the best PFD you had? How would _you_ read and comprehend this priority if you weren't the principle here? I believe this is a legitimate question.

?



> Had I not been able to reach the surface of the ocean, repeatedly, last month, at least at my wake, people who knew me could have said: At least Doug REALLY enjoyed life to the fullest. He did it all, and he tasted it all.


Ok, but what would people have said if you washed up somewhere in an inadequate PFD when you had better, your clothing still stuffed full of all that cash? "At least he tried to take it with him"?



> I suggest that you are more likely to be suffereing from some sort of a psychosis, (irrational life style & goals), than not, as can be seen from someone who has gone without and can see the forest through the trees.


I suppose that is possible, however again - you don't know where I come from and you are just making assumptions based on the fact that money and material goals aren't my goals in life.



> RE-examine your way of life, and amazingly you might, if you are capable of some self healing, find that having granite counters, et. al., IS better than not, and actually do what you can to improve your environment, rather than settle for the Spartan / doing without lifestyle.
> 
> Life IS way too short, and limiting yourself from tasting and enjoying as much as you can is costing you more than you know.


I am very happy with my life, thanks. I (we) getting ready to embark on a life of finding wealth in the beauty of nature, the animals, all that kind of stuff.

Besides, a granite counter in my A-30 would probably weigh too much and affect her sailing characteristics.



> Boy, does my Mercedes S430 drive beautifully. You know it has 2 settings for the shock absorbers? It has fans in the seats for cooling comfort! It has a V8 with all the best engineering which provides the smoothest most powerful acceleration I have ever experienced. It has so many features, the manual is 421 pages long!


While we were painting our boat today, a little pigeon with a band around his leg wandered over to watch us and say hello. Cate, myself and this little bird all stopped and had a moment together. He didn't come right up to us, but he came within ten feet and we all talked to each other. It was amazing, and it's exactly the kind of wealth we plan to pursue in the future. The happiness a moment like this can bring certain people is truly amazing.

For the record though, I used to be a real car nut, and I have had a couple of nice rides. They don't matter so much to me anymore though. I still have one of them in fact, and I'm selling it before we go. If you really want to know what it is, pm me and I'll send you a pic. Heck, you might even want to buy it come to think of it.. I'm ready to let someone else enjoy it. It does nothing for me anymore.



> I am sure it is much healthier to enjoy these things than to live in the denial that they are somehow bad, or to be eschewed, and not allow this human being to experience the best that mankind has attained.
> 
> LIFE IS TOO SHORT. Enjoy the roses, the Mercedes, and the granite counters. You will more likely enjoy them than not.
> 
> If not, oh well, at least you TRIED THEM.


The thing is - I don't think what I need in life is what anyone else needs though. Nowhere can you find where I say stuff like that. I always say, if it works for you - go for it! Be happy in life, pursue what makes you happy.

Here are my questions to you, respectfully:



> Well, sadly, (too much of that word applies here), we only had a stated value policy.


Did you only have this policy because of the higher payment a better policy would have no doubt cost? If so, what does this say about the value you place on all your nice stuff?



> Or a really nice person who wants to be our Santa Clause. God knows we deserve a break.
> 
> Any help toward a $250K Amel in the 1990s sure would be lovely.
> [email protected] 617-817-6856


If hard work and a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" philosophy is what you have, why ask for help?

Why should anyone donate to you when you already have enough for a fantastic vessel, totally paid off?

Why should anyone donate to your need for even more luxury than you already have access to?



> We're not succeeding in getting financing because my wife and I are computer consultants, with overly aggressive tax plans. For instance, we can pay ourselves $10 per hour through our Corp.; though our Corp is recieving $65 per hour, each. Then the Corp. writes of as "expenses" all of our costs; to the point that there is nothing on any tax returns looking very enticing to give us any loans.
> 
> So, though we earn over $200 K per year, we look like we earned $14,000. period.


Why would you admit on a public forum that you are a tax cheat?

Is this ethical?


----------



## junkrig

DougSabbag said:


> I am sorry for your state of mind. Perhaps, given a nice Merlot, or some other suitable cerebral lubricant, you could actually come closer to humanity.
> 
> In the mean time, until you have "walked in my shoes" as they say, please refrain from your temptation to point out what ever little faults of mine you're dying to share with everyone.
> 
> I thought I listed the errors made that day, and even some previously, fairly completely; apparently you've found some more.
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks. Your attitude is neither healthy nor constructive.
> 
> Believe me, I do not desire any more beatings, if possible.
> 
> On a completely different note, back to your issues with granite counters and the other finer things in life; perhaps you should have some more information.
> 
> When I was 15 years old, my mother abandoned me in Central Maine, in the winter. I learned to live on the streets of Waterville; found that I could sneak into the Harris Baking Company and sleep on their oven to keep warm; learned when Steve's Restaurant threw out their unsold baked stuffed shrimp and many other pieces of street knowledge. Nevertheless, I managed to continue to attend high school, and maintained an honor roll standing.
> 
> Fast forward a few years, and as I was entering a computer class in college, (at my own expense), when as a standard question I was asked why I wanted to attend this course, I answered I need to be a computer programmer to afford a 50 foot sailboat.
> 
> I succeeded, and after many more years, I bought her. Thus she was named the Triumph.
> 
> So, in the first place, the Triumph represents many things to me; so her loss likewise has deep effects.
> 
> Now, back to your disdain for the finer things in life onboard a vessel.
> 
> Until YOU have gone without food, clean clothes, shelter, etc., do not display your choice to do so as some sort of a badge of honor which you can hold over others. From my view, you are limiting yourself, and not enjoying the best things which mankind has to offer us, during our limited time alive.
> 
> Which is a sad waste of a life on earth.
> 
> Those who have gone without, can more appropriately value the advances and "amenitites" available to humans and will therefore work harder to make sure to enjoy as many and as much of these things as possible.
> 
> You really should re-examine your chosen Spartan life style, since it is neither anything to be proud of, nor will it be something to be happy about when you are gasping your last breath.
> 
> Had I not been able to reach the surface of the ocean, repeatedly, last month, at least at my wake, people who knew me could have said: At least Doug REALLY enjoyed life to the fullest. He did it all, and he tasted it all.
> 
> Yes, with granite counters, and all the other little conveniences like a washer and dryer, onboard.
> 
> I suggest that you are more likely to be suffereing from some sort of a psychosis, (irrational life style & goals), than not, as can be seen from someone who has gone without and can see the forest through the trees.
> 
> RE-examine your way of life, and amazingly you might, if you are capable of some self healing, find that having granite counters, et. al., IS better than not, and actually do what you can to improve your environment, rather than settle for the Spartan / doing without lifestyle.
> 
> Life IS way too short, and limiting yourself from tasting and enjoying as much as you can is costing you more than you know.
> 
> Boy, does my Mercedes S430 drive beautifully. You know it has 2 settings for the shock absorbers? It has fans in the seats for cooling comfort! It has a V8 with all the best engineering which provides the smoothest most powerful acceleration I have ever experienced. It has so many features, the manual is 421 pages long!
> 
> I am sure it is much healthier to enjoy these things than to live in the denial that they are somehow bad, or to be eschewed, and not allow this human being to experience the best that mankind has attained.
> 
> LIFE IS TOO SHORT. Enjoy the roses, the Mercedes, and the granite counters. You will more likely enjoy them than not.
> 
> If not, oh well, at least you TRIED THEM.


Doug,

I don't give a [email protected] about your granite counters and washer and dryer. I sympathize that you had to live through your childhood. Mine was much easier.

That said, I am deeply offended by your insistence that anyone who chooses not to focus on the highest possible level of consumption and greed as mentally ill.

When I lived without all life's little luxuries I was, at the same time, dodging bullets on a regular basis. Digging holes in the ground every morning and squatting over them to empty my bowels. Watching my friends die. Carrying a ninety pound rucksack on my back for a few thousand meters through a mountainous jungle most days. Eating canned food that had been canned during World War II. Digging foxholes every night and filling them back in the next morning. Sleeping in the jungle mud among noxious creatures. Drinking water out of creeks with Agent Orange in them. And, at the end, failing to dodge the one with my name on it, coming home with traumatic brain injury, shrapnel in my head, shrapnel in my back, ears that don't work very well and knees that don't either.

I got out of the Infantry 3 times due to injuries or illness. Twice I went back. Voluntarily. The third time I was to massively wounded to even consider it.

Everybody's got his own little bag of rocks to drag around.

I once lived in a 3,000 square foot house. I chose to move from there to a 750 square foot house. Those things which I experienced in the war left me fully certain that luxury and greed could not satisfy my spiritual needs. I could live in a 20 foot camper; I could live in my Nor'Sea 27. If I was rich I might buy a newer, or even new, Nor'Sea 27, but it's all right this way.

I make my choices and I take responsibility for them. In that same vein, I had also chosen not to criticize your lifestyle choices, but frankly I think they suck. :hothead

If you could have refrained from your repeated insistence that people who made choices different from yours, choices as I have made for instance, were somehow "Lying" and "In denial" and, in this most recent post, suffering from "Some sort of psychosis," you need never have heard that. But there it is. Grab all the gusto you can grab, hot dog, but on the day you die there's no guarantee that it will in fact satisfy you. Only time will tell.


----------



## DougSabbag

MacGyverRI said:


> I have and somewhat recovered, not totally.
> 
> But, if you really lost everything, where did the Mercedes come from? I couldn't even buy a decent used car back then so you really didn't lose *everything*...
> 
> I have more respect for Calabrese...


OK, what was left:

1. my pants, a bit wet and beat up
2. my underwear, likewise " 
3. a belt
4. a watch
5. a North Face jacket
6. my wedding ring
7. my "family ring", from my father given to me when I was 11.
8. and I had the forthought to stuff my pockets with the cash we had onboard to carry us for the year we had planned to be cruising the Med.
9. I also grabbed our passports.
10. My wallet

Mercedes: a 2001 with 64,000 miles, we bought for $10,000 cash. Runs and looks excellent.

Sorry if this isn't quite as complete a wipe out as you had. But, you could re-read my posting of when I was abandoned at 15 years old if we're going to compete for the "most needy"....


----------



## DougSabbag

junkrig said:


> Doug,
> 
> I don't give a [email protected] about your granite counters and washer and dryer. I sympathize that you had to live through your childhood. Mine was much easier.
> 
> That said, I am deeply offended by your insistence that anyone who chooses not to focus on the highest possible level of consumption and greed as mentally ill.


I guess I can't please everyone, huh. Gee, big surprise there.

By the way, I was in the National Guard myself, but was the Unit Clerk, and a company photographer... so I "got over" as they say.

I was specifically talking to a person who was pointing to my stupid f__ing granite counters as an example of having focused on the flash and not on the important stuff, which she thought was the flaw leading to our scene last month.

I can see how some would take this the wrong way.

Sorry. Go Red Sox.

Of course, someone will take that poorly too! Never boring.


----------



## chrisncate

My one and only question to the forum (you know who you are), in light of what Doug has said so far on his own accord:

Why is Doug a sympathetic case in your opinion, but Michael Calabrese is not.

?


----------



## DougSabbag

To ChrisNCate:

My taxes are COMPLETELY LEGAL, and done by professionals. We utilize the laws as written for Corporations, fully. If you have a problem with the laws you should talk to OBama and company, not me.

How about this; I won't say another word to you, (since my words are only providing you with more fodder for attacking me); and you hopefully won't say anything else to me?

Deal, or do you really have anything else to get off your shoulders?

Good for you, enjoy yourself.... I know I will.


----------



## DougSabbag

chrisncate said:


> My one and only question to the forum (you know who you are), in light of what Doug has said so far on his own accord:
> 
> Why is Doug a sympathetic case in your opinion, but Michael Calabrese is not.
> 
> ?


WHY do you HAVE to attack me??????? WHY MUST YOU FIND FAULT WITH US????? 
Are you REALLY SO PERFECT that you don't have anything about yourself and your own actions to dwell upon????

Have you NEVER run aground? Have you never done anything wrong?

NEVER, NOTHING?

Look, GO AWAY. JUST PLAIN GO AWAY. You really are a buzz kill.


----------



## chrisncate

DougSabbag said:


> WHY do you HAVE to attack me??????? WHY MUST YOU FIND FAULT WITH US?????
> Are you REALLY SO PERFECT that you don't have anything about yourself and your own actions to dwell upon????
> 
> Have you NEVER run aground? Have you never done anything wrong?
> 
> NEVER, NOTHING?
> 
> Look, GO AWAY. JUST PLAIN GO AWAY. You really are a buzz kill.


I am not attacking you, I sympathize with anyone who has experienced a trauma like you did. It's horrible.

Know that.

Did you see my post to you? It was very respectful (like this one), and if any of what I asked or wrote is inappropriate, please have a rational discussion with me and let me know where I was out of line. I am working on being a better poster, I realize I come off badly sometimes.

My question to certain forum members isn't directed at you. You weren't here for the Michael Calabrese thread and the general sentiment directed towards that person. The thread is in OT if you are interested in seeing how he was "beat up" as compared to you.


----------



## chrisncate

DougSabbag said:


> To ChrisNCate:
> 
> My taxes are COMPLETELY LEGAL, and done by professionals. We utilize the laws as written for Corporations, fully. If you have a problem with the laws you should talk to OBama and company, not me.
> 
> How about this; I won't say another word to you, (since my words are only providing you with more fodder for attacking me); and you hopefully won't say anything else to me?
> 
> Deal, or do you really have anything else to get off your shoulders?
> 
> Good for you, enjoy yourself.... I know I will.


If you don't want to discuss anything with me, I will respect that.

I'm here if you change your mind and want to speak to any of the questions I posed or you just want to talk in general.

Fair winds, and I do wish you luck in wherever life takes you.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Yes, with granite counters, and all the other little conveniences like a washer and dryer, onboard.
> 
> I suggest that you are more likely to be suffereing from some sort of a psychosis, (irrational life style & goals), than not, as can be seen from someone who has gone without and can see the forest through the trees.
> 
> RE-examine your way of life, and amazingly you might, if you are capable of some self healing, find that having granite counters, et. al., IS better than not, and actually do what you can to improve your environment, rather than settle for the Spartan / doing without lifestyle.


I can understand how someone whose boat is their home might like to have some of the amenities usually reserved for those who live ashore&#8230;

However, I find your focus on these material aspects of life afloat a bit odd, coming from one who seemingly has the urge to explore the world under sail&#8230;

Speaking of seeing the forest through the trees, here's a tip from one who has spent an inordinate amount of time on a wide assortment of some very impressive boats, featuring every amenity one could imagine&#8230;

Hint: It's not about the boat, or what's inside it&#8230; (grin)


----------



## DougSabbag

chrisncate said:


> I am not attacking you, I sympathize with anyone who has experienced a trauma like you did. It's horrible.
> 
> Know that.
> 
> Did you see my post to you? It was very respectful (like this one), and if any of what I asked or wrote is inappropriate, please have a rational discussion with me and let me know where I was out of line. I am working on being a better poster, I realize I come off badly sometimes.
> 
> My question to certain forum members isn't directed at you. You weren't here for the Michael Calabrese thread and the general sentiment directed towards that person. The thread is in OT if you are interested in seeing how he was "beat up" as compared to you.


You use the right words, some time, then you switch into some stinging accusations only too easily.

If you REALLY cared about how "horrible" this was, then act accordingly and do not accuse me of spending more time on granite then on the engine.
OR ask about the specific moment the less than ideal PFD was selected.
OR accuse me of being an unethical tax cheat.
OR ask people generally why they won't give their permission for you to rip me a new one...
OR any of the other directions you seem prone to take with me, and God only knows how many others.

Do you get off on this? Is this your main source of pleasure? Get a life.

I am rebuilding mine, and have shared WAY TOO MUCH with you already.

Nobody wants to share their lives with someone who has a knife behind their back. Your knife is so obvious the shine from it is almost blinding.

If you want to explore other people's lives and details, you have to be less critical and more loving. This is related to that "humanity" thing I don't feel a strong dose of from you.

So, make sure you always grab the best PFD, and pay the most taxes you can, but of course you really should never need a PFD because you never have any issues, and you have everything covered, so nothing can go wrong.... but PLEASE go pick on someone else!


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> I can understand how someone whose boat is their home might like to have some of the amenities usually reserved for those who live ashore&#8230;
> 
> However, I find your focus on these material aspects of life afloat a bit odd, coming from one who seemingly has the urge to explore the world under sail&#8230;
> 
> Speaking of seeing the forest through the trees, here's a tip from one who has spent an inordinate amount of time on a wide assortment of some very impressive boats, featuring every amenity one could imagine&#8230;
> 
> Hint: It's not about the boat, or what's inside it&#8230; (grin)


Perhaps you missed where I shared how I lived on the streets years ago, as perhaps the explanation for my efforts to enjoy the simple amenities which another poster accused me of focusing on so much that I missed the motor, etc...?

Now, I am hearing from the peanut gallery that we shouldn't really focus on the gold, but on the true beauty, blah, blah, blah.... sure I get that too.

Can't we have BOTH?

And since you are so proud of having enjoyed "every amenity .... " obviously these nice features were not entirely disgusting to you either.

But, OK, have fun piling on, I am guilty, I liked having a washer & dryer, and granite!!! My bad.

And rather than enjoying the thousands of days and nights at the helm or hanging over the bow just watching the water fly by the hull, all I ever did was sit below, staring at piles of gold, or diamonds, or the granite....?

REALLY, do you REALLY think so?

Back off, your intuition MUST be telling you this dog won't hunt...


----------



## chrisncate

Doug, you posted to me after you asked me to not talk to you. Do you want me to respond, or do you want me to leave you alone.

?


----------



## DougSabbag

chrisncate said:


> Doug, you posted to me after you asked me to not talk to you. Do you want me to respond, or do you want me to leave you alone.
> 
> ?


The latter.

fair winds.


----------



## chrisncate

DougSabbag said:


> The latter.
> 
> fair winds.


I will honor your request.

Fair winds to you as well.


----------



## CalebD

Doug,
Chrisncate and other are the ones who routinely refer to some of the rest of us here as 'hens' or 'chorus girls' or 'little old ladies' (LOLs). 
I guess it is human nature to hold one's self up to what others strive to achieve and once challenged some feel compelled to be jerks and question everything. 
You will not gain anything by trying to argue with the Greek Chorus here as they are as dead set in their ways as perhaps you are. 
You have given us so much insight into your mid ocean rescue that I do not think you owe us any more in terms of details or justification. So why all the repartee? Little pricks want to be just that. Let them be.
You don't owe this forum any more honesty then you may have already given and you certainly do not owe the few detractors or instigators here any more fodder. 
One good way of raising your middle finger on a forum is to just not respond anymore.
Everyone has said their piece and you are determined in your course. 
I'd love to hear about your new Amel when it is ready to sail but watching you defend yourself against these couch side crabs is at best belittling. 
Sharp elbows are not such a bad thing but sometimes silence is golden.
Wish you the best.


----------



## chrisncate

CalebD said:


> Doug,
> Chrisncate and other are the ones who routinely refer to some of the rest of us here as 'hens' or 'chorus girls' or 'little old ladies' (LOLs).
> I guess it is human nature to hold one's self up to what others strive to achieve and once challenged some feel compelled to be jerks and question everything.
> You will not gain anything by trying to argue with the Greek Chorus here as they are as dead set in their ways as perhaps you are.
> You have given us so much insight into your mid ocean rescue that I do not think you owe us any more in terms of details or justification. So why all the repartee? Little pricks want to be just that. Let them be.
> You don't owe this forum any more honesty then you may have already given and you certainly do not owe the few detractors or instigators here any more fodder.
> One good way of raising your middle finger on a forum is to just not respond anymore.
> Everyone has said their piece and you are determined in your course.
> I'd love to hear about your new Amel when it is ready to sail but watching you defend yourself against these couch side crabs is at best belittling.
> Sharp elbows are not such a bad thing but sometimes silence is golden.
> Wish you the best.


Caleb, let me help you re arrange those deck chairs...

Sincerely,
Captain Edward John Smith 
Titanic


----------



## DougSabbag

CalebD said:


> Doug,
> Chrisncate and other are the ones who routinely refer to some of the rest of us here as 'hens' or 'chorus girls' or 'little old ladies' (LOLs).
> I guess it is human nature to hold one's self up to what others strive to achieve and once challenged some feel compelled to be jerks and question everything.
> You will not gain anything by trying to argue with the Greek Chorus here as they are as dead set in their ways as perhaps you are.
> You have given us so much insight into your mid ocean rescue that I do not think you owe us any more in terms of details or justification. So why all the repartee? Little pricks want to be just that. Let them be.
> You don't owe this forum any more honesty then you may have already given and you certainly do not owe the few detractors or instigators here any more fodder.
> One good way of raising your middle finger on a forum is to just not respond anymore.
> Everyone has said their piece and you are determined in your course.
> I'd love to hear about your new Amel when it is ready to sail but watching you defend yourself against these couch side crabs is at best belittling.
> Sharp elbows are not such a bad thing but sometimes silence is golden.
> Wish you the best.


Sold... and ZIP goes the mouth....

It is a wise man who knows when to hold as well as he knows when to fold.

If by some chance a viable question that I feel like answering comes along, I might answer, but the way this has deteriorated I highly doubt there will be.

I am pleased that the details of the event are recorded here for other sailors to read; and possibly gain something from.

Sharing this was healthy for me too, so this was mutually beneficial.

I really can't wait to unfurl some canvas and feel her cutting through the waves. And to be sleeping again with that slight movement... We do miss the life terribly.

Doug & Evelyn
S/V Triumph


----------



## CalebD

Christine,
You don't need an invitation. I've noticed you are above all of that polite kind of stuff.

Lenny DiCaprio never seemed to fit the role he played in the Titanic an neither do you in whatever it is you are striving for. 

If you had not noticed both you and Doug are about evenly matched in your attachment to your own chosen paths. For that fact alone I'd let you arrange and even throw the deck chairs overboard. 

Cheers.


----------



## xymotic

chrisncate said:


> My one and only question to the forum (you know who you are), in light of what Doug has said so far on his own accord:
> 
> Why is Doug a sympathetic case in your opinion, but Michael Calabrese is not.
> 
> ?


Hmmm. Yeah, installing granite is the same thing as Leaving a safe harbor DURING a hurricane with a boat that's not 100%. Somebody better tell Bob @ Lattitudes and Attitudes what a moron he was when he refit lost soul. To name but one of thousands...

And did I miss the part where Doug publicly Threatened to crush someone's skull?


----------



## CalebD

Doug,
I meant what I said in spite of responding to C&C.
It is well past my bedtime too.
You have shared a wealth of information that cannot be gained by sitting on a couch or Barca lounger. 
Believe me, the squabbling will peter off into oblivion if you stay your course and just do not feed the trolls/animals and you may once again enjoy a quiet anchorage somewhere, which I hope you all do.
I'm really going to try and zip it myself this time.
===========================
$0


----------



## chrisncate

CalebD said:


> Christine,
> You don't need an invitation. I've noticed you are above all of that polite kind of stuff.
> 
> Lenny DiCaprio never seemed to fit the role he played in the Titanic an neither do you in whatever it is you are striving for.
> 
> If you had not noticed both you and Doug are about evenly matched in your attachment to your own chosen paths. For that fact alone I'd let you arrange and even throw the deck chairs overboard.
> 
> Cheers.


I think I was pretty respectful to Doug in tonight's exchange, especially in light of some of his accusations and judgments made towards me. I certainly made the effort to be respectful, and even asked the forum whether or not my concerns ought to even be posted. You can see that, right?

Also, are Jon and Junkrig also trolls now, for noting some of what Doug's views actually are, or is it just me..

?

Please _do_ feel free to post where I was out of line with him in our exchange tonight. Please _also_ feel free to post where he was out of line with me.

If I was asked, I'd say you might be a tad biased against me personally. Any possibility of that you think?


----------



## chrisncate

xymotic said:


> Hmmm. Yeah, installing granite is the same thing as Leaving a safe harbor DURING a hurricane with a boat that's not 100%. Somebody better tell Bob @ Lattitudes and Attitudes what a moron he was when he refit lost soul. To name but one of thousands...
> 
> And did I miss the part where Doug publicly Threatened to crush someone's skull?


Do you or Caleb have any better answers than Doug does for the following that I asked but didn't get a response too?:

Here are my questions to you, respectfully:
Quote:


> Well, sadly, (too much of that word applies here), we only had a stated value policy.


Did you only have this policy because of the higher payment a better policy would have no doubt cost? If so, what does this say about the value you place on all your nice stuff?

Quote:


> Or a really nice person who wants to be our Santa Clause. God knows we deserve a break.
> 
> Any help toward a $250K Amel in the 1990s sure would be lovely.
> [email protected] 617-817-6856


If hard work and a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" philosophy is what you have, why ask for help?

Why should anyone donate to you when you already have enough for a fantastic vessel, totally paid off?

Why should anyone donate to your need for even more luxury than you already have access to?

Quote:


> We're not succeeding in getting financing because my wife and I are computer consultants, with overly aggressive tax plans. For instance, we can pay ourselves $10 per hour through our Corp.; though our Corp is recieving $65 per hour, each. Then the Corp. writes of as "expenses" all of our costs; to the point that there is nothing on any tax returns looking very enticing to give us any loans.
> 
> So, though we earn over $200 K per year, we look like we earned $14,000. period.


Why would you admit on a public forum that you are a tax cheat?

Is this ethical?

Quote:


> About the PFD I was wearing.
> 
> Sadly, so many errors were made that day it is embarrassing to answer some of these questions. Though we had a large container on the aft deck with roughly 2 dozen PFDs, with some self inflating Switlic (sp?) and a lot of the usual large orange types, I grabbed the absolute worst one onboard. It was really for water skiing. Not what you want to depend on where I was for your life.


My question is why was stuffing 50k in your pocket before jumping in more important that grabbing the best PFD you had? How would you read and comprehend this priority if you weren't the principle here? I believe this is a legitimate question.

?

Quote:


> Had I not been able to reach the surface of the ocean, repeatedly, last month, at least at my wake, people who knew me could have said: At least Doug REALLY enjoyed life to the fullest. He did it all, and he tasted it all.


Ok, but what would people have said if you washed up somewhere in an inadequate PFD when you had better, your clothing still stuffed full of all that cash? "At least he tried to take it with him"?

I could also add the question that he's been incredibly indiscreet with some of his personal information, finances, etc... you'd think a "computer professional" would be a bit more aware of the risks of blabbing like he has on the web... And, wouldn't you think a team of computer consultants capable of knocking down $200K/year would have updated their blog since before they set sail from Boston?

I'd love both you and Calebs take on all this.

?

And to Caleb: Yea, me and Doug are _certainly_ cut from the same cloth.. 

Right.


----------



## MikeinLA

To Chrisncate....

I'm not one of the regulars here who joust with you, but I am deathly curious about something. What is it exactly that you get out of the endless, ruthless, sanctimonious attacks that you relentlessly launch upon unsuspecting posters here?

I have read between the lines that you believe Triumph's granite and washer/dryer to be symbolic of his complete lack of seamanship, so now I have a hypothetical for you.

Assume for the moment that I am flying on the 7th to the Annapolis Boat Show from Los Angeles to look for a boat and also assume that I have 2.1 million dollars in the bank which I have worked very hard to save. Under these circumstances, should I merely shop for a humble apple crate with a sail or should I choose a boat with all the extras which would serve as a reward for a lifetime of hard work?

Which choice would you congratulate me on and which choice would trigger a barrage of negative condescending remarks followed by a barrage of, "Who, ME?? No, I didn't mean THAT" posts.

I'm just curious.

Doug, if you're still reading, I wish you well.

Mike


----------



## El malabarista

Add Content


----------



## chrisncate

MikeinLA said:


> To Chrisncate....
> 
> I'm not one of the regulars here who joust with you, but I am deathly curious about something. What is it exactly that you get out of the endless, ruthless, sanctimonious attacks that you relentlessly launch upon unsuspecting posters here?
> 
> I have read between the lines that you believe Triumph's granite and washer/dryer to be symbolic of his complete lack of seamanship, so now I have a hypothetical for you.
> 
> Assume for the moment that I am flying on the 7th to the Annapolis Boat Show from Los Angeles to look for a boat and also assume that I have 2.1 million dollars in the bank which I have worked very hard to save. Under these circumstances, should I merely shop for a humble apple crate with a sail or should I choose a boat with all the extras which would serve as a reward for a lifetime of hard work?
> 
> Which choice would you congratulate me on and which choice would trigger a barrage of negative condescending remarks followed by a barrage of, "Who, ME?? No, I didn't mean THAT" posts.
> 
> I'm just curious.
> 
> Doug, if you're still reading, I wish you well.
> 
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Just be a bit more specific and point out exactly which posts of mine you have issue with, and I'll gladly speak to them. With all the specifics involved, I can't really be expected to speak to generalities at this point.

Chris


----------



## SVAuspicious

Doug -

Good luck with the Amel. If it doesn't work out a friend as a Moody 47 he is about to list. She's a beautiful boat albeit a bit smaller than you were looking for.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Great thread! I certainly learned alot, I really enjoy the diversity of SN! Very interesting to see them polarized in threads like this!


----------



## smackdaddy

chrisncate said:


> mitiempo, and rest of forum:
> 
> Would it be inappropriate for me to ask some specific questions citing things already written, said and done by both captains, respectfully worded as best as I possibly can, regarding why Calabrese was viewed by the majority here one way, and Doug is viewed by the majority in another?


Yes. Why? Because you really need to try to stop making every thread all about you.


----------



## Maine Sail

chrisncate said:


> *I am not attacking you*, I sympathize with anyone who has experienced a trauma like you did. It's horrible.
> 
> Know that.


Umm yes you are. More important than my opinion though is that of the guy whom you have attacked, Doug...



chrisncate said:


> Did you see my post to you? It was very respectful (like this one), and *if any of what I asked or wrote is inappropriate, please have a rational discussion with me and let me know where I was out of line.* I am working on being a better poster, I realize I come off badly sometimes.


How about accusing him of being a tax cheat for starters..?

How about accusing him of doing nothing to ensure his engine, rig and chain plates were ready for off shore work?

Both of those examples were completely, and utterly, out of line and by most any reasonable person, would very likely be seen as an ATTACK..



chrisncate said:


> My question to certain forum members isn't directed at you. You weren't here for the Michael Calabrese thread and the general sentiment directed towards that person. The thread is in OT if you are interested in seeing how he was "beat up" as compared to you.


Based on your OWN writings Doug is as much a charity case as MC but you are now doing EXACTLY what you accused others of doing in the MC case..... That my friend makes your writings qualify as hypocritical..


----------



## chef2sail

I have to agree with Maine sail here in almost all respects. 

In general I have followed a number of your posts and threads. Your musings and pleadings about "just trying to get opinions" or "just gathering information" fall short of the actual truth." Very often you have comments on what everyone writes in a post you one would think someone trying to gather opinions or information would be a "good "listener" or the follow up questions would be of a inquisitive nature vrs an opinion. Like others here I find your "tone" to be overly aggresive. While it it easy to get the wrong meanings over the internet, it has become painfully obvious that often times your contributions tend to be argumentative and overly challenging of others who have light years more experience than you appear to have.

I admire your purchase of the 30 Alberg and like what you are doing to restore her to her former self. Maybe before you criticise other sailors about their techniques and opinions it would be better if you got some "real" experience inboat ownership and posted some of your own Real time stories as well as foopahs you experienced on your own boat. It appears your live vicariously thorugh others who actuallly sail their boats or actually own ones for a number of years. Understand its not the difference of opinions which bother me, but the agenda. My nana once told me god gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason...to listen. Followed by the best speaker and teacher is generally the best listener. I have found this to be true in my life

I hope you truly do change and become a valuable contributor to SN in the future. As it is now I rarely read your threads/ contributions as there is nothing to learn from them and there is no sense on my part you want the true face to face commradiere which I have found meeting many other sailnet members and sharing stories. If you were in that group and you dominated the converstaions as you try to dominate the posts you contribute to here, you would quickly find yourself on the outside looking in I beleive. Its easy to hide behind the computer screen.

Dave


----------



## LandLocked66c

Very pointed questions indeed, but at least he asked what alot of us were thinking. Not defending any party here. Both are good guys with differing opinions on what's "necessary" while afloat. 

This thread did make me think about my counter top, or lack thereof, and SO much more! Great stuff!


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Now, I am hearing from the peanut gallery that we shouldn't really focus on the gold, but on the true beauty, blah, blah, blah.... sure I get that too.
> 
> Can't we have BOTH?
> 
> And since you are so proud of having enjoyed "every amenity .... " obviously these nice features were not entirely disgusting to you either.
> 
> But, OK, have fun piling on, I am guilty, I liked having a washer & dryer,
> and granite!!! My bad.
> 
> And rather than enjoying the thousands of days and nights at the helm or hanging over the bow just watching the water fly by the hull, all I ever did was sit below, staring at piles of gold, or diamonds, or the granite....?
> 
> REALLY, do you REALLY think so?


Well, one does have to wonder, after your outright assertions that we would all own significantly larger boats of much greater complexity if we could only afford them, or that someone "needs to re-examine their Spartan lifestyle, as it is nothing to be proud of&#8230;", or that living surrounded by relative comfort and luxury is, _by definition_, superior to doing without, living more modestly, or making the choice to spend our hard-earned money on things other than a Mercedes with 2 shock absorber settings&#8230;

As I tried to show with my link to the article by Beth and Evans in the other thread, all these sorts of choices re the fitting out of a boat involve weighing the tradeoff between complexity and simplicity&#8230; They've made choices which will enable them to become less of a slave to their boat and its maintenance, and give them more time to enjoy the places they choose to go&#8230; The example of such people would certainly appear to disprove your assertion that it's not possible to live the life afloat without refrigeration, for example, and be quite content doing so&#8230;

Sure, I've certainly enjoyed the amenities aboard many of the boats I've delivered, but that doesn't mean I'd want them on my own boat&#8230; If there is one thing I've learned from my experience, is that needless complexity is the last thing I want on a cruising boat, it can be a guaranteed source of frustration over time&#8230; But, as always, different strokes for different folks, some appear to think such tradeoffs are worth it, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue&#8230;

Anyway, good luck with the Amel, that boat will be a great choice&#8230; And, I'd suggest taking advantage of that large flush foredeck, and stowing your tender up there next time&#8230; IMHO, you were pretty lucky to make it as far into the North Atlantic as you did, with a Boston Whaler still swinging from a pair of stern davits on a 50-footer&#8230;


----------



## svHyLyte

chrisncate said:


> My one and only question to the forum (you know who you are), in light of what Doug has said so far on his own accord:
> 
> Why is Doug a sympathetic case in your opinion, but Michael Calabrese is not.
> 
> ?


Before responding to the foregoing, I must say I find the fact that some have driven this thread into a vituperous debate concerning what amenities a family might or might not choose to have aboard their boat/home, or what resources they might or might not have, or how they might choose to deploy/spend them as the focus pretty astonishing considering such matters are (A) nobody's but their business; and, (B) irrelevant. The Sabbag's have (unnecessarily) demonstrated that they were/are industrious, resourceful and thrifty and were certainly not so foolish as to put to sea in a yacht they did not feel was up to the task. Nor did they do so without, evidently, having been thrifty enough to provide for their needs/wants while on their travels. What they have/had or how they might choose to use their resources, or, what they might feel is an appropriate replacement for Triumph (which I would name "Another Triumph" in their stead) is their affair and it is inappropriate, impolite and clearly impolitic to look askance of them on any of these matters.

N'any case, the simple answer to the above question is that Calabrese's injuries were self inflicted while the Sabbag's were a simple misfortune. In the event, "Doug" (if I may be so familiar) made some decisions that he might now regret, but one cannot judge yesterday's decisions with today's information, merely learn from them. (Experience is a luxury for which one pays dearly.) Calabrese could have-and might reasonably easily have-recovered from his injuries but by his behaviors earned animus rather than aid. The Sabbag family can, and certainly will, recover from their injuries by their own devices although they too seem to be earning animus-at least from some quarters-for their ability/willingness to do so. Frankly, that reeks of the sin of Envy. For my part, I applaud them.

As for their misfortune at sea, there, but for the Grace of God and the benevolence of Mother Ocean, go my wife and I.

FWIW&#8230;


----------



## smurphny

DougSabbag said:


> As to the concept of "felling our rigging", are you kidding me? Our main and mizzen are keel stepped. Unless we had some serious cutting tools, that aint happening.
> 
> But, without felling trees out to sea, what about (as I mentioned earlier), using the tanker / freighter's STERN instead of alongside....?
> 
> Their Captain went up and down in a harness off of their stern without any problems.
> 
> We could have used our dinghy, and calmly pulled up to their stern, while having a cigarette.....


One tool I always have stashed on board is a Makita reciprocating saw with high quality alloy metal blades that will cut s.s. They are good for lots of things. It will easily cut through anything on a boat that needs cutting fast in an emergency and will run on my inverter (barely). If you had to cut off a shaft, the mast, s.s. parts, it's the tool to have.


----------



## dhays

This thread started about a concern for a fellow sailor whose S/V was reported lost. It was then brought up again when that same sailor was gracious enough to come here and relate his experiences to us. Both of those primary motivations, concern and information, are worthy goals IMO.

It has since seemed to degenerate into a silly pissing contest among SN'ers who have prior issues with each other and the unfortunate Captain who just lost his boat and his home. Maybe a different thread could be started where folks can tell each other how much they don't like each other, their boats, their cruising philosophy, and their writing style?

Just sayin...

Dave


----------



## jimjazzdad

Too many trolls around SailNet these days...too bad - I was finding this thread useful and thought-provoking. Thanks Doug, for the original topic: how to/not to abandon ship at sea during rescue by a merchant vessel. Now if we could just delete all the off-topic posts and suspend a few members...


----------



## DougSabbag

To Maine Sail, Svhylyte, chef2sail, smackdaddy, and those others who have dealt with Chrisncate so eloquently:

Thank you.

Especially for pointing out that:
1. We really did spend YEARS restoring the Triumph from stem to stern, working very hard, and spending a lot of our hard earned money. During those efforts, almost all of which we did ourselves, I tore my rotator cuff, (installing an AC unit), experienced a hernia, (from too carefully setting the very heavy Perkins cylinder head down on the bow cabin floor), electrocuted myself and broke 2 ribs, (while diagnosing the hot water tank, a boat went by us creating too much of a wake, which rocked me into the hot lead), tore some cartiledge in my righ knee, (slipped on the deck while stepping the mast last summer), and numerous other lesser injuries which I suspect most of you have also recovered from. I only mention these to highlight the tremendous efforts we expended to make the Triumph "ship shape"; I am not kidding. The very most basic of her systems and guts were ALL addressed, to the best of our abilities, without purposely skipping ANYTHING. That which still malfunctioned, well, life is never boring; and, thus the interest in buying a newer / better boat. That is the "up front" thing we can do to minimize the "surprises" which bit us in the end, even after so much work for so many years, at such great cost(s).
2. WE ARE NOT CHEATING ON OUR TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. I am not asking for charity. I was asking if anyone knew of an Amel for sale whose owner would consider holding some of the paper; and for THAT reason, I provided more of our financial information that anyone really needed to know. However, that is a moot point now, since it appears we have reached an agreement on a fine vessel, God willing.
4. Yes, errors were made, and I have listed them, and talked about them more than many would. Yet, as many of you have agreed, these did not happen because we are idiots putting ourselves into harms way like fools; no, these happened through a series of cascading faults, on top of some choices too quickly made, and or, emotionally driven.

Again, THANK YOU ALL for being humans with some understanding, instead of piling on with those who enjoy finding the cracks and making them into ravines.

Can't wait to join you folks amongst the waves, again, ASAP.


----------



## kd3pc

smurphny said:


> One tool I always have stashed on board is a Makita reciprocating saw with high quality alloy metal blades that will cut s.s. They are good for lots of things. It will easily cut through anything on a boat that needs cutting fast in an emergency and will run on my inverter (barely). If you had to cut off a shaft, the mast, s.s. parts, it's the tool to have.


No offense, Murph, But,

I don't think in the situation we are talking about, getting out the saw, firing up the generator/inverter, stringing an extension cord walking to the deck house or toe rail to cut something is POSSIBLE....think for a minute the environment he was in

let alone, what are you going to cut....the mast on this boat (many actually) is keel stepped...the shrouds - who or what is going to hold tension on them or the others to make sure that the cutee (you there with the saw) is not going to killed when the tension releases or the mast falls...or the shroud shorts out your extension cord, or binds the saw blade or you do your finger or other bits in the process....even worse with a deck stepped mast...

Next time at the marina, check out/document/visualize the process to cut a mast...6-12" diameter of wood/steel/aluminum/composite just sitting on the pier...now visualize high winds, breaking seas, flooded compartments, heaving decks, your shipmates, PFDs, ditch bag...

then please document, as I asked in another posting, just how and what you are going to do.

Perhaps in another new thread, Doug could just mention his mindset and thought process - given the advantage of survival, hindsight and tons of insight from those who have never left the river....

Jeesh?!


----------



## DougSabbag

kd3pc said:


> No offense, Murph, But,
> 
> I don't think in the situation we are talking about, getting out the saw, firing up the generator/inverter, stringing an extension cord walking to the deck house or toe rail to cut something is POSSIBLE....think for a minute the environment he was in
> 
> let alone, what are you going to cut....the mast on this boat (many actually) is keel stepped...the shrouds - who or what is going to hold tension on them or the others to make sure that the cutee (you there with the saw) is not going to killed when the tension releases or the mast falls...or the shroud shorts out your extension cord, or binds the saw blade or you do your finger or other bits in the process....even worse with a deck stepped mast...
> 
> Next time at the marina, check out/document/visualize the process to cut a mast...6-12" diameter of wood/steel/aluminum/composite just sitting on the pier...now visualize high winds, breaking seas, flooded compartments, heaving decks, your shipmates, PFDs, ditch bag...
> 
> then please document, as I asked in another posting, just how and what you are going to do.
> 
> Perhaps in another new thread, Doug could just mention his mindset and thought process - given the advantage of survival, hindsight and tons of insight from those who have never left the river....
> 
> Jeesh?!


As much as it may be a viable tool to have onboard for emergency cutting, I surely wouldn't have been easily inspired to try to cut down my very tall / large main mast, and my mizzen(?) to aleviate the concern of bashing them against the tankers' hull. (see the description by kd3pc - quoted here - for a taste of that reasoning.)

But, in retrospect, what I really do see as the most viable and safest alternative for trransferring from the Triumph to the tanker, would have been to calmly enter our dinghy, (which someone didn't like being on the davits, without apparently seeing the additional supports and connections I had fabricated to keep the dinghy from swinging AT ALL, which by the way NEVER received any waves from behind, NEVER, EVER... ) and then bring that dinghy to the stern of the tanker, where we could have much more easily used lines from their deck to hoist ourselves AND EVEN our belongings up to their deck; fairly calmy, as I described by adding "while smoking a cigarette".


If I ever find myself in a similar situation, I will talk to the Captain of the "rescuing tanker / freighter", and insist on doing this to transfer to their vessel. Or else they may move along, and we will wait for another more reasonable savior.

Remember, their Captain was able to hoist himself down to the water, and back up to their deck, from their stern, without incident. We should have done the same. Not cut our masts and come along side only to still be bashed to hell.

Thank you.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> Now, I am hearing from the peanut gallery that we shouldn't really focus on the gold, but on the true beauty, blah, blah, blah.... sure I get that too.
> 
> Can't we have BOTH?


+1. That's my vote.

See, I can drive around in a nice car and still have nice conversations with banded pigeons...telling them to "get the hell off my nice car".


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> +1. That's my vote.
> 
> See, I can drive around in a nice car and still have nice conversations with banded pigeons...telling them to "get the hell off my nice car".


This brought the first really good laugh out of me in quite a while! 

I am still laughing.....  Thanks! :laugher


----------



## emoney

"Ok, but what would people have said if you washed up somewhere in an inadequate PFD when you had better, your clothing still stuffed full of all that cash? "At least he tried to take it with him"?"

Say what you want, and I've had my own issues with Chrisncate, but that was funny right there. I do, however, find it interesting that there's outrage that these folks have a "negative" opinion (which in of itself is opinion, isn't it?) and are voicing it? Don't we relocate to a glass house when we choose to offer a glimpse into our lives on an internet forum? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either side of the river here, nor do I have an opinion concerning the Captain's choice for granite countertops, that I think has any merit at least. However, I do know that there's any easy way to eliminate the detractors to any situation and that's to not offer them the platform to pontificate (leave it alone, chrisncate, I liked this word here). Quite simply put, the benefit in the story to sn'ers was quite evident in the telling. When it came to an argumentive viewpoint being proffered, one could've simply said something like, "I wish to keep this thread exclusively about...."x"...". Or, am I being naive that wasn't an option?

Just so there's no questions regarding it; I don't have granite countertops even in the house. I'm more of a concrete guy


----------



## smackdaddy

To emoney's point, I dropped Doug's account in the Salt's thread. It deserves preservation.

I'd say if you want to argue how granite is far less superior to formica covered particle board for long-term maintenance issues, or why being poor/rich is so noble, or why you feel you need to "speak to the forum", or anything else that has nothing to do with the rescue, you really need to take it to this thread:

FightClub For Sailors

All out bashing is what the thread is all about. You need only have a set to enter.


----------



## eherlihy

Wow - I just read the whole thing (it's a slow Monday morning), and feel that Doug and Evelyn have a great book in them. Also see that Doug would make a good writer.

There is some great info in this thread, and I only hope that it lives on unedited, for posterity. First hand experience of what happened, what could have been better, and what to do next time. EVERYONE that reads this thread should have nothing but respect and admiration for Doug and Evelyn for sharing their experience so candidly.

Unfortunately, this thread also illustrates the problems with positing _anything _personal on the internet. People are going to second guess, and judge you, based on their prejudices. Doug's patience with, and thoughtful replies to, the critics only increase my admiration of his abilities.

I've said this elsewhere in sailnet, and will suggest it again; If you have anything to say that is, or might be construed as negative (critical/judgemental), *put it in a PM*.


----------



## chrisncate

Well, I hear everyone and I apologize to the forum. I thought I had some valid questions and/or observations after reading it all, but I guess didn't.

For the foreseeable future, I'll limit my posts to when I agree with the general sentiment of the forum. This thread will be my last "problem" thread for everyone. Sorry again forum.

Best of luck Doug, in wherever life takes you.


----------



## LandLocked66c

chrisncate said:


> Well, I hear everyone and I apologize to the forum. I thought I had some valid questions and/or observations after reading it all, but I guess didn't.
> 
> For the foreseeable future, I'll limit my posts to when I agree with the general sentiment of the forum. This thread will be my last "problem" thread for everyone. Sorry again forum.
> 
> Best of luck Doug, in wherever life takes you.


So you'll be installing some granite counter tops then?


----------



## chrisncate

LandLocked66c said:


> So you'll be installing some granite counter tops then?


Omg..


----------



## DougSabbag

emoney said:


> "Ok, but what would people have said if you washed up somewhere in an inadequate PFD when you had better, your clothing still stuffed full of all that cash? "At least he tried to take it with him"?"
> 
> Say what you want, and I've had my own issues with Chrisncate, but that was funny right there. I do, however, find it interesting that there's outrage that these folks have a "negative" opinion (which in of itself is opinion, isn't it?) and are voicing it? Don't we relocate to a glass house when we choose to offer a glimpse into our lives on an internet forum? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either side of the river here, nor do I have an opinion concerning the Captain's choice for granite countertops, that I think has any merit at least. However, I do know that there's any easy way to eliminate the detractors to any situation and that's to not offer them the platform to pontificate (leave it alone, chrisncate, I liked this word here). Quite simply put, the benefit in the story to sn'ers was quite evident in the telling. When it came to an argumentive viewpoint being proffered, one could've simply said something like, "I wish to keep this thread exclusively about...."x"...". Or, am I being naive that wasn't an option?
> 
> Just so there's no questions regarding it; I don't have granite countertops even in the house. I'm more of a concrete guy


So, my friend, should I have left the money onboard????? Is having money bad? If so, please mail yours to me, and then I'll stuff that into my pockets too!

Perhaps you read where we lost EVERYTHING ELSE. This would include many other valuable things, for instance ALL my wife's jewelry, which included the many Christmas and birthday and Valentines presents which I generously / lovingly did not scrimp with at all. And the negatives / slides and prints, some of which were award winners, from my earlier life as a photographer, and some of which were the standard pictures of our families, most of which have died, and from our own childhoods.

Sure I can envision the irony had my lifeless body washed up somewhere, "in an inadequate PFD", with my pockets full of cash.

So, are you just visualizing that potential IRONY, or are you somehow faulting me for grabbing the cash and our passports?

Or are you for some strange reason insisting on rubbing it in that in the rush of these actions, I happened to get the worst PFD onboard????

Please remember we had the initial forthought to acquire many excellent PFDs, and my wife created a container for them on the aft deck, even with the name Triumph stitched into it.

We also had the forthought to acquire a bran new self inflating life pod, only 2 weeks before we left Boston to replace the beat one we had for the previous years; and we had the batteries changed and tested in our EPIRB; and rented a satellite / Iridium telephone; and acquired a whole new set of SOLAS flares; and even purchased and installed those little strobe lights on the OTHER PFDs which I am so sorry I didn't have the luck / opportunity to get; and whistles on those PFDs too; and a reflective mirror; and, and, and, and, and.......

How far do you really want to go with this critique??

Sadly, the oil cooler broke, and so did 2 stays. This was not because I was doing drugs, drinking beer all day, or just didn't give a damn; this happened because **** happens. Remember the NASA shuttle Columbia? 
Thousands of man hours, and billions of dollars spent making sure nothing went wrong, but then it did.

Think about your own lives and where you went wrong; with your hindsight were you an idiot, or did you learn from this? Mostly I would assume you learned, and have since applied some of what you have learned.

But I would bet a lot that NONE of you would have left almost $50,000 American dollars of cash sitting there. We worked way too hard to leave 2 envelopes worth so much on a boat we knew we were saying good by to.

Do not fault me for putting those 2 envelopes into my front pockets. I would bet my left arm that ALL of you would (if you had the chance) likewise have put those into your pockets too.

And on that less than the best PFD, hey, I AM HERE AREN'T I??? I was FLOATING for over 3 hours! So, it wasn't as bad as having none, which I would also wager many of you FREQUENTLY do not wear one at all.

If you doubt that just ask the Coast Guard; they will happily / sadly point out that A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT WEAR ANY PFD AT ALL.

Aren't YOU guilty of that too?  Well at least I DID have one on.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Thread cliffnotes:

Sailing Vessel Lost
Rescued Skipper posts about the loss
OMG! granite counter tops!


----------



## chrisncate

And the worst part? I never said granite in a boat was wrong or that I didn't like it...

I am now and forevermore labeled a granite hater, even though I think it's a very nice countertop material


----------



## LandLocked66c

Edited - nevermind...


----------



## donradclife

Its unusual and educational for a skipper who has lost his boat to tell his story on the net--either his lawyer is telling him to shut up or his publisher is telling him to save it for the book. Too bad it had to degenerate into mudslinging...

After wading through the whole thread, what I learned from it was:

1. Take another crew on longer passages--two people are barely able to get enough rest if nothing goes wrong, and they are not able to cope with serious problems, especially as they age. I did 7,000 miles of passages this year with three on board--we had lots of free time, arrived rested, read a lot of books, and were much more ready to cope with loss of steering, rig, autopilot, engine, etc.

2. Don't just replace the standing rigging--we don't have chainplates, but the tie rods on our 25 year old Bene were failing when I upgraded them this year--impossible to tell until I removed them.

3. There is certainly a risk when you call for rescue. Its really not easy to get up the side of a ship in heavy weather. In this case it was the guy who ran into trouble, but in most cases its the women with less body strength who can't scramble up the side. Its also easy to get crushed between the boat and the ship. Once you turn on the epirb or call the CG, the process is pretty irreversible, and you should explain the risks to your crew.


----------



## emoney

heck, chris, I just thought your remark was funny and look where it got me.


----------



## dmcMaine

Doug's story to me is filled with lessons learned:

Dealing with crew dynamics through fatigue and equipment failures
How family relationships can affect decisions during crisis
What "conservative" means when considering abandoning ship
Never...never...never... call the CG for help unless the other option is imminent death!
How large civilian ships behave while attempting a rescue.
Mistakes in the heat of the moment (PFD choice).

I can't second-guess how you prepared your boat, or anything you did, and as hindsight is 20/20 I'm sure you have examined every little detail within an inch of it's water-logged little life. I wish you and your wife the best, and hope you recover sooner rather than later.

I do have one question though, Doug. Why were you carrying that amount of cash on board? In my (landbased) travels around the world I never ran into a situation that plastic or traveler's checks couldn't handle. And both of those options let you recover your money if lost or stolen. Not to mention the hassles that customs is bound to give someone declaring $50k. Granted, I haven't travelled abroad in about a decade, still...


----------



## DougSabbag

dmcMaine said:


> Doug's story to me is filled with lessons learned:
> 
> I do have one question though, Doug. Why were you carrying that amount of cash on board? In my (landbased) travels around the world I never ran into a situation that plastic or traveler's checks couldn't handle. And both of those options let you recover your money if lost or stolen. Not to mention the hassles that customs is bound to give someone declaring $50k. Granted, I haven't travelled abroad in about a decade, still...


First, we didn't expect to have to deal with the same level of "customs" as at an airport.

Then, we were leaving the USA for years, so we were really moving there, and thought we would be way ahead of any check hassles with cash.

Fair winds.


----------



## smurphny

kd3pc said:


> No offense, Murph, But,
> 
> I don't think in the situation we are talking about, getting out the saw, firing up the generator/inverter, stringing an extension cord walking to the deck house or toe rail to cut something is POSSIBLE....think for a minute the environment he was in
> 
> let alone, what are you going to cut....the mast on this boat (many actually) is keel stepped...the shrouds - who or what is going to hold tension on them or the others to make sure that the cutee (you there with the saw) is not going to killed when the tension releases or the mast falls...or the shroud shorts out your extension cord, or binds the saw blade or you do your finger or other bits in the process....even worse with a deck stepped mast...
> 
> Next time at the marina, check out/document/visualize the process to cut a mast...6-12" diameter of wood/steel/aluminum/composite just sitting on the pier...now visualize high winds, breaking seas, flooded compartments, heaving decks, your shipmates, PFDs, ditch bag...
> 
> then please document, as I asked in another posting, just how and what you are going to do.
> 
> Perhaps in another new thread, Doug could just mention his mindset and thought process - given the advantage of survival, hindsight and tons of insight from those who have never left the river....
> 
> Jeesh?!


Not suggesting *at all* that he could /should have used a recip. saw or that he should have messed around trying to de-mast his boat. Where did you see that? Just noting that in many situations this tool is a very effective one to have on hand and that folks should consider having one aboard. It takes up little space and can do big work. Someone suggested cutting a keel-stepped mast, I suggested a good tool. Sorry that you assumed I was second guessing Doug which I certainly was not. And yes, I would have no problem taking a recip. saw out on a tossing, wet deck if a downed mast or spar were poking a hole in my boat and needed to go or to cut and secure salvageable parts. If avoiding getting zapped looked possible, would not think twice. Having been in the construction biz for many years, perhaps I'm a bit TOO comfortable with power tools. I can easily visualize, as you mention, using something other than some sort of ineffective hand tool to accomplish a touchy task where quick is essential. It's way better than trying to diddle around with a hacksaw. BTW, I cannot think of a really good reason to ever cut down your own mast if it's still intact. Jeeeeeez?!


----------



## cranki

Carrying 50k aboard does sound kind of nuts to me at least. You could easily access it in Europe from a U.S. bank. ???


----------



## SOVT

I travel to Europe a lot (heading to Lisbon tonight). And while 50k is a lot of cash here is a story. 
Two weeks ago I sailed from Gibraltar to the Canary's. The day after arrival I went out for a nice dinner. Tried to pay with a credit card -rejected- no sweat I'll get some cash from an ATM -rejected. Tried to pay with or exchange with NI Pounds-nope. Finally was able to borrow some cash to get me thru the trip. 

Got home and called the banks. They told me that due to the Eurozone issues they had cut off several countries including Spain. No prior notice was given.

Sometimes cash is king. Actually cash is allways king


----------



## hellosailor

"My taxes are COMPLETELY LEGAL, and done by professionals. "
Doug, personally I have no dbout the taxes are legally structured HOWEVER if those professionals did not also warn you "You know, you'll also be screing yourselves with a low credit rating" then they are just alleged professionals, and not the real thing.
If all the wealth has been structured to remain in the corporation, then those same professionals can arrange for the corporation to get a boat loan and finesse the details so it all works out for you.
Tax avoidance, perfectly legal. Creative tax strategies, perfectly legal. It is when someone doesn't take into account all the repercussions of unconventional plans, that things oft gang agley in the most rapid fashion.

Sounds like you had a very bad day, what sailors call "**** happens!" and survived it. So you take a stack of post-it notes and start on the "lessons learned" wall.

If you ever want to get rid of a rig very quickly...The government will make that terribly difficult for you. Pyrotechnics, explosive bolts, and dteonex (primer cord) can all be bought over the counter, and they can get rid of the rid at the push of one button. Heck, mercedes even used them to blow off the door hinges on their new gull wing model, in case the owner has inverted the car and needs to be extracted from it.

But you're going to need some licenses and paperwork and interviews to get hold of that stuff. Meanwhile, tie those alleged professionals down to some cheap chairs and have them solve the finance problem.


----------



## chrisncate

Doug, regarding the carrying the cash - did you guys have a dedicated plan of any sort in place for protecting the money aboard the boat when you guys were off the boat in port? I'd be a nervous wreck I think, always wondering if the boat was being broken into while I was out to dinner or something...

Were you armed or anything like that for any possible encounters with those who rob cruising boats while at anchor or underway?


----------



## Maine Sail

chrisncate said:


> Doug, regarding the carrying the cash - did you guys have a dedicated plan of any sort in place for protecting the money aboard the boat when you guys were off the boat in port? I'd be a nervous wreck I think, always wondering if the boat was being broken into while I was out to dinner or something...
> 
> *Were you armed or anything like that for any possible encounters with those who rob cruising boats while at anchor or underway?*


Nice way to troll/disguise turning this into a "gun thread" ...:laugher:laugher


----------



## hellosailor

Sovt, it sounds like you need to cut off your bank after a short and pointed discussion with the district manager.

Doesn't the US still have a policy of rudely confiscating any cash in excess of $10,000 from travelers, until you can prove it isn't narcoterror money of some sort? Or have the lawsuits finally made them rethink that?

Oddly enough it seems that even noonsite is quite on currency limits, but I've a distinct impression that in From Russia With Love, Bond was issued an attache case with a strong of gold coins in the lining, or a length of gold chain, for the specific reason that currency was a problem but gold crosses all borders. (OK, probabaly not ALL these days either.)

$50K in cash...unless there's a purser's office and a vault room "Lucy, you got some splainin to do!"


----------



## MobiusALilBitTwisted

chrisncate said:


> Doug, regarding the carrying the cash - did you guys have a dedicated plan of any sort in place for protecting the money aboard the boat when you guys were off the boat in port? I'd be a nervous wreck I think, always wondering if the boat was being broken into while I was out to dinner or something...


WHY would you ask,


----------



## Minnewaska

Even in 20 dollar bills, 50k wouldn't be that large a stack and would be a very size efficient item of value to salvage. They couldn't bring much along, could they.

Glad to hear the Triumph owners are getting back on the water and I'm very sorry for their loss. Anyone who has been in a near death experience would understand the difficulty in making all the calls right. It is why we train, so we don't have to think in those circumstances.


----------



## wingNwing

On our last cruise, we had several thousand dollars stored safely (in a discreet place, next to the hull) and I remember a banker in Vero Beach, FL looking very much down her nose at us when we tried to break those moldy hundreds into twenties ...


----------



## chrisncate

Maine Sail said:


> Nice way to troll/disguise turning this into a "gun thread" ...:laugher:laugher


Omg... 

I better state now I have no strong opinion either way about guns or weapons aboard. There is no wrong or right answer that could lead me to get in trouble..  I can see a justification for both having one or not having one.

No judgment or problems will be forthcoming from me on this one, I promise.

Mobius


> Why would you ask...


I don't know about you guys, but I'd never be able to leave the boat with 50k in cash aboard, I'd be a nervous wreck all the time. Also, every rickety looking fishing boat or other small boat crossing my path would freak me out every step of the way if I was carrying so much money. Wouldn't you feel the same way? People will kill people for a wallets worth of cash, let alone a life changing amount like 50k...


----------



## wingNwing

So, Chris, what would you propose? Carrying the $50K in your pocket instead?


----------



## chrisncate

wingNwing said:


> So, Chris, what would you propose? Carrying the $50K in your pocket instead?


It's why I asked about it I guess. I don't know. Our boat is so open and spartan that I probably couldn't hide that much anywhere that wouldn't be somewhat obvious. But on a big boat, you have lot's more options for creative spots I would imagine.

I never thought about carrying that much on me while cruising, but I guess for the sake of the argument if I _had_ to carry so much for some reason and I was on Dougs boat... I'd build a dedicated area somewhere real good - like inside the holding tank or something.


----------



## bubb2

Chris. you would be surprised how many upper end boats come with hidden safes built in or have the option of having a safe installed. In fact west marine sells boat safes.


----------



## jackdale

bubb2 said:


> Chris. you would be surprised how many upper end boats come with hidden safes built in or have the option of having a safe installed. In fact west marine sells boat safes.


The Nauticat 37 has one. If I tell you it is, Kaj Gustafsson will kill me. Anyone who designs a head in / sink out thru-hull is devious.


----------



## Faster

To continue the drift in this off-course thread.....

Friends of our bought a Passport 40 some years back... sailed her to Mexico and spent three years cruising there before shipping her home this year.

While in California the owner decided to fix a fussy cabin light.. rummaging behind the headliner tracing a wire he felt something... then pulled out a wad of 28 fresh $100 bills.

So there's a risk of 'hiding' the cash.... you might hide it so well you forget, even when you sell the boat!!


----------



## bubb2

jackdale said:


> The Nauticat 37 has one. If I tell you it is, Kaj Gustafsson will kill me. Anyone who designs a head in / sink out thru-hull is devious.


So do the Hallbergs and it a option on Island packets


----------



## svHyLyte

Minnewaska said:


> Even in 20 dollar bills, 50k wouldn't be that large a stack and would be a very size efficient item of value to salvage. .


Ah, well...US currency is .0043" thick. Accordingly, a $50,000 stack of $20's would be about 10-3/4" tall! On the other hand, if the currency was split, roughly evenly, between $20's and $100's, one would have two stacks of $20's and $100's (a total of 832 bills) each a tad over 1.75" thick. Frankly, however, the foregoing would be an inconvenient way to transport wealth although even we keep a "stash" of cash and other readily convertible "stuff" aboard the yacht, just in case. (It is amazing how much Shrimp one can get in trade for a few 6-packs of beer or packs of cigarette's from a Shrimper long at sea!)

FWIW...


----------



## knothead

chrisncate said:


> ... I'd build a dedicated area somewhere real good - like inside the holding tank or something.


I must say Chris. I'm a little disappointed in you. 
I always thought you were a composting kind of guy.


----------



## chrisncate

Huh, I had no idea some manufacturers did that, but it makes good sense.


----------



## chrisncate

Carrying cash aboard is a tough topic to talk about, I keep wanting to post areas I think of that would probably be pretty good, but it's a bad idea to actually talk about it for the obvious reasons.


----------



## jackdale

chrisncate said:


> Carrying cash aboard is a tough topic to talk about, I keep wanting to post areas I think of that would probably be pretty good, but I might use them in the future and would hate to blab it out here beforehand..


I will admit that I have not cruised to really remote spots. But I have been able to use my Interac debit card in lots of places that surprised me; and I got a much better exchange rate.


----------



## chrisncate

jackdale said:


> I will admit that I have not cruised to really remote spots. But I have been able to use my Interac debit card in lots of places that surprised me; and I got a much better exchange rate.


I was figuring on using electronic methods as well, with a little bit of emergency cash onboard. Maybe I need to reconsider this though.


----------



## Minnewaska

svHyLyte said:


> Ah, well...US currency is .0043" thick. Accordingly, a $50,000 stack of $20's would be about 10-3/4" tall! .........


That would be smaller than a shoebox, even if all 20s. I will bet there was nothing else salvageable that was that size and worth more.


----------



## chrisncate

Huh, 50k is smaller than a shoebox.

Wish I _had_ 50k in cash to see if you're right.. (I believe you, just saying).


----------



## fryewe

Just read the thread...amazing...

Amazing story...
Amazing determination to Triumph...
Amazing determination to live...
Amazing determination to Triumph again...

Good luck, Doug and Evelyn. You'll be fine.

Thanks for the lessons learned.


----------



## smurphny

Gentlemen/ladies is it REALLY a good idea to be even bringing up the topic of sailors carrying cash? "Out of sight, out of mind," applies here.


----------



## SVAuspicious

wingNwing said:


> I remember a banker in Vero Beach, FL looking very much down her nose at us when we tried to break those moldy hundreds into twenties ...


Foodsaver vacuum sealer.


----------



## DougSabbag

FYI, $50K in 100s, fits into 2 standard #10 envelopes, which fit just fine into your front pockets of your jeans.

If you are moving to Europe, and would expect to open a bank account there, using a check to transfer your money from your American account to this new one, could easily take longer to "clear" into your new European account than you might be prepared to wait.

Suppose you have already gone through the standard amount of walking around cash in your wallet, and since you intend to live in Europe, you want to open an account, so you write a check to do the open / transfer... each day you are waiting could be an eternity.

And, if you drop anchor in little out of the way places, finding an ATM which will accept a 
B of A ATM card might prove to be a daunting challenge.

So, rather than have to be concerned about all the potential problems of running out of money, WHEREVER we are, bringing cash works best.

We had some of it in Euros, and $7500 in a cashiers' check. That check was what we planned to use to open an account.

And, as you might be aware of, just suppose you find yourself needing to be towed out of a very dangerous place, or some other marine emergency with your vessel. Do you want to ask the guy who barely speaks English if he will accept an American check?

Even here, USA, cash is frequently required for those out of the mainstream "marine emergencies". When you are outside of the Sea Tow / Boat US area of coverage, only CASH can be depended upon to work.

It wasn't all that long ago that ATMs did not exist. Just because we have them all over the place does not mean you can travel the world, including the many out of the way places a 50 footer might take you to, i.e., small fishing villages, tiny islands, etc.

When you are not flying into a European capital, and staying at a Western Hotel, you are in a completely different scene. Then when you add in the responsibilities of having a yacht there, you really want a sizeable supply of cash. Sort of like an insurance policy, or like having a weapon onboard, you would rather have it for the moment it is needed, then not.

Not to say you can't survive, or accomplish your goals without these resources being readily available, but, if you have them you are better prepared for smoother / easier transactions than if you don't. 

Having lived in South Florida for almost 10 years, we knew some people with 100 + foot mega yachts. You might be quite impressed with how much cash they generally have onboard just for those occasions when cash talks better than American Express.

From their view, our "resources" would be considered running light. 

So, all of this is another of the many examples in life of "it's all relative". One person's savings account might be anothers' typical walking around cash. 

Our whole boat's "value" could easily be dwarfed just by the cost of some boats' ground tackle.

It is all relative....... Don't spend too much mental effort trying to rationalize this to YOUR world. 

You do what makes sense within your reality, and others will do what makes sense within theirs. And again, until you are in their shoes, don't make a fool of your self trying to judge them per your "standards", or your limitations. 

Ours are somewhere between working stiff and upper middle class, but there is a long way upward from our paltry reality, to someone else's baseline, and then a long way upward left to go for others. 

It is all relative.


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> If you are moving to Europe, and would expect to open a bank account there, using a check to transfer your money from your American account to this new one, could easily take longer to "clear" into your new European account than you might be prepared to wait.


Doug - Not second guessing your decision to carry cash, just providing some personal experience.

When in Europe, a US personal check is definitely problematic.

ATMs are widely available and the networks most major US banks belong to are supported. In fact, the exchange rate is generally better than you can get with cash.

For large sums electronic wire transfers clear in less than a day. I bought Auspicious that way, transferring funds from my loan and down payment.


----------



## DougSabbag

SVAuspicious said:


> Doug - Not second guessing your decision to carry cash, just providing some personal experience.
> 
> When in Europe, a US personal check is definitely problematic.
> 
> ATMs are widely available and the networks most major US banks belong to are supported. In fact, the exchange rate is generally better than you can get with cash.
> 
> For large sums electronic wire transfers clear in less than a day. I bought Auspicious that way, transferring funds from my loan and down payment.


I have been to Europe, a number of times.

We have also seen some American Credit card companies balk at European charges, if the card company was not forwarned, by the card carrier, of impending European transactions.

Wire transfers cost money. Been there, done that.

Cash costs zero and you're not dependent upon international networks to approve the dinner you just enjoyed.

And, in this post 9/11 reality, cash avoids a lot of the paranoid eyeballs following paper trails with their check lists of suspicious activities.

I am a computer consultant, and have programmed some interesting programs / systems accomplishing some interesting things.

The one thing we couldn't "capture" were cash transactions.

As an American, i.e., "for the individual", I like less eyeballs following me rather than more. The "State" is becoming too paranoid for the individuals' best interests, yet are telling us this is for our best interests.

You know, we boaters are a funny population. Most of us are quite unique individuals. And most of us want to keep it that way.

Fair winds.....


----------



## xymotic

That's all well and good... but:

You do have to actually report any transaction over 10k in or out of the US. so you have to deal with 'eyeballs' or commit a felony.

And I can pretty well guarantee that large but still under 10k amounts like 7500 still get reported, so avoiding the stare of big brother is harder than you think.


----------



## DougSabbag

xymotic said:


> That's all well and good... but:
> 
> You do have to actually report any transaction over 10k in or out of the US. so you have to deal with 'eyeballs' or commit a felony.
> 
> And I can pretty well guarantee that large but still under 10k amounts like 7500 still get reported, so avoiding the stare of big brother is harder than you think.


Dinner doesn't cost $10K. A slip for the night doesn't cost $10K. Almost all transactions on a holiday / vacation cruise are under $10K.

And if I bought something from you, who would you call to report that transaction?? Suppose I bought your anchor, and gave you $500 cash, are you going to call someone? Of course not. And you would not be a felon.

Now, suppose I bought your wife's diamond ring for $20K, cash. Who are you going to "report this to"?? Nobody, except your wife. And you are still not a felon.

Cash transactions, for ANY amount can easily happen without calling anyone.

Credit card transactions are tracked, stacked, sorted, labelled, and available in any format you like. Each and every single transaction, no matter how small or large.

It is not a felony to spend money. It is not a felony to accept money.

If it was, a lot of people are felons.

Now I have no particular reason or need to keep a low profile. And I am not avoiding using my ATM card(s), at all.

But, as the discussion just happened to lead into that direction, CASH is off the grid; unless you walk into a bank, or similar situation.

And besides the IRS, you couldn't even tell me WHO to report a transaction to which you might desire to. Remember, you just sold me a ring...... ? Who you going to call? Ghost Busters... :laugher


----------



## LandLocked66c

Hell yah Doug! I agree completely, most sheep don't realize what they are doing when they choose all of the "free" things that are available on line. They are far from free! Facebook is by far the biggest data mining project ever created, with the exception of DOD projects. Scary stuff! In the end, it all comes down to who has the largest database!

Tin foil hat off now!


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

DougSabbag said:


> Dinner doesn't cost $10K. A slip for the night doesn't cost $10K. Almost all transactions on a holiday / vacation cruise are under $10K.


At immigration into most countries, including the US, you have to declare if you carry large sums of cash (or cash-equivalent) on you. In the US, it is 10K. That's the law and it is clearly posted.


----------



## dmcMaine

Geez. Some can of worms I opened. The whole topic for me is more academic than anything. I'm not likely to set sail any time in the near future.

I initially asked because the $50k seemed to be a significant percentage of your full net worth at the time. So I thought it odd that you would risk it in a form that cannot be easily recovered if lost or stolen. What if you couldn't have made it to the money when abandoning ship? 

It simply seems to me that the most prudent course is to carry funds sufficient for the next leg or two of the trip, a small emergency reserve, and keep the life-changing stash in a safe place. Use a debit card where possible, use traveler's checks (an artifact of a bygone era, but they do still exist) for the refundability, and only a small cash reserve. Large sums can be transferred through the banking system fairly easily, even more easily with available internet.

To me, on-the-grid vs. under-the-table means little when faced with losing everything. Then again I think I approach it more like bankroll management in poker. Never risk destitution on a single hand or even session.

But if $50k is pocket change, then by all means drag those benjamins around with you. Just don't forget to toss a few to that nice Egyptian customs official when he comes aboard.


----------



## eherlihy

LandLocked66c said:


> Thread cliffnotes:
> 
> Sailing Vessel Lost
> Rescued Skipper posts about the loss
> OMG! granite counter tops!


...Granite deemed OK (anything but Corian)
OMG! He carries CASH!

Just a suggestion; Perhaps it is new thread time?
"Maintaining Liquidity _and_ Your Lavish Lifestyle Overseas"


----------



## CBinRI

chrisncate said:


> No, I'm not.
> 
> I could make a pretty devastating argument Main Sail, regarding Calbrese, Doug, and the facts on the ground in both cases. Both personally, and the decisions both made in both situations.


Maybe you could, but it would show some very poor judgment. We have a rare opportunity to learn from another's bad experiences -- maybe even some mistakes. He has put himself out there, knowing that it could open him up to criticism by the monday morning quarterbacks, but also kowing that he might share some information that may help us if we have the bad fortune to wind up in a similar situation. We should be attempting to foster an atmosphere where people will be comfortable sharing their experiences, even if they made mistakes. Why go into attack mode?


----------



## SVAuspicious

eherlihy said:


> ...Granite deemed OK (anything but Corian)


I like Corian. Just have to be careful about scorching.


----------



## hellosailor

If dinner doesn't cost ten grand, surely you've ordered the cheap wine?!

It isn't just US checks, years ago I had an international client who paid by check out of their own Hong Kong bank. Took over a week to clear here in the US, and they were doing that intentionally to play the float with "domestic" accounts. I don't think that situation (the time to clear non-local checks) has changed.


----------



## Sailorman_glh

Whoa, quite the harrowing tale and very sage advice. I parrot the words of others regarding congratulations on surviving and living to tell the story, as well as the candor and humility that you're displaying. 

I'll definitely overly prepare myself before making my first transatlantic voyage!

Thanks Doug!


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
Thanks for sharing your story and words of wisdom. Hope everything turns out good for you. I have decided if I ever do a long passage, my wife will fly to the destination via commercial airline, otherwise, I would be in your same situation.
Aloha


----------



## eherlihy

casey1999 said:


> I have decided if i ever do a long passage, my wife will fly to the destination via commercial airline....


Amen!


----------



## chrisncate

CBinRI said:


> Maybe you could, but it would show some very poor judgment. We have a rare opportunity to learn from another's bad experiences -- maybe even some mistakes. He has put himself out there, knowing that it could open him up to criticism by the monday morning quarterbacks, but also kowing that he might share some information that may help us if we have the bad fortune to wind up in a similar situation. We should be attempting to foster an atmosphere where people will be comfortable sharing their experiences, even if they made mistakes. Why go into attack mode?


You're right, and I did apologize. I regret arguing with Doug.


----------



## Dean101

dhays said:


> This thread started about a concern for a fellow sailor whose S/V was reported lost. It was then brought up again when that same sailor was gracious enough to come here and relate his experiences to us. Both of those primary motivations, concern and information, are worthy goals IMO.
> 
> It has since seemed to degenerate into a silly pissing contest among SN'ers who have prior issues with each other and the unfortunate Captain who just lost his boat and his home. Maybe a different thread could be started where folks can tell each other how much they don't like each other, their boats, their cruising philosophy, and their writing style?
> 
> Just sayin...
> 
> Dave


Dave, I totally agree with you! I'm a novice sailor and have made no judgements here concerning the degree of opulence (or lack there-of) that any member of this forum is comfortable with. Frankly, I could care less.

I have read every post up to this point with the intention of learning something. I think it very commendable that Doug shared his story, letting all those who frequent this forum know what happened first hand. He even offered a very informative list of mistakes he made and warnings of how rescues can go bad. That is exactly the kind of information that drew me to this forum.

For the last several pages, I've read NOTHING that contributes to any learning curve and very little that even relates to what I believe was the original intentions for this post.

I'm pointing no fingers and mentioning no names but let me say that this sort of behavior really hurts the credibility we newbie's have towards those we perceive as "experienced" sailors. Asking relevent questions is great. That is what stimulates discussion and reveals knowledge and experience. But this thread has moved over into the realm of a playground scuffle.

To all of you who have contributed to this discussion through relevent questions, thoughts, and related experiences, thank you. Doug, many thanks to you for sharing your experience and especially for admitting first hand the mistakes you made (or thought you made) during what I consider a very dangerous event. It takes someone a cut above to stand up (figuratively speaking) and not only tell the facts but admit to their mistakes. Thank you.

For all the snap judgements, I said you said, justifications, cars, countertop materials, washing machine or bucket... What did it accomplish? What does it matter? And how in the hell was it relevent in a "Boat lost, family survived, here's what happenned and here's what I did wrong" thread?


----------



## DougSabbag

Dean101 said:


> .........For the last several pages, I've read NOTHING that contributes to any learning curve and very little that even relates to what I believe was the original intentions for this post. .........


I couldn't agree more.

The most recent "discussion" has centered around how much cash to carry, whether you are on a day cruise, or if you are moving to Europe with no return scheduled. Where to carry it, and how to protect it.

Then, when you have to report it, with various levels of experience / knowledge of that subject, with associated levels of government induced fear thrown in.

As a computer programmer, I try to identify algorithms which will accomplish the automation / standardization of a process, frequently currently manually done.

So.... my best guess at applying that goal to this "subject" is that you may accept and believe, that the amount of money actually available to the "user" will directly relate to the validity and depth of the knowledge of how to handle it.

So, that would be coded along these lines:

If you have it, you will know how to use it. 

I hope that is really understood, thereby inspiring this subject to be ended within this thread.
-------------------------------------------------------

What nobody seems to have responded or reacted to, was my posting, twice, of the best way to transfer from a small boat to a large one, i.e., at the large boats' stern, rather than along side.

Which was best illustrated by the Captain of the Kim Jacob smoothly / safely going from their deck to the ocean, and back to their deck, off of their stern.

Any attempt to bring the 2 boats along side each other, (even if the masts were felled), is a potential disaster mostly dependent upon the size and frequency of the waves at that time. The greater the waves, the greater the damages. With any insertion of human limbs between the 2 being almost suicidal.

Was this just so completely accepted, that nobody had to say anything?


----------



## chrisncate

..Well mom, remember my dream of owning a big house 
on a hill and how I used to wish for a living room with a plaster 
lion in it from Mexico and how I always wanted a large twenty 
four seat dining table in a dining room with original oil 
paintings by Michelangelo and Rembrandt and remember how I always 
wanted a rotating bed with pink chiffon and zebra stripes and 
remember how I used to chit chat with dad about always wanting a 
bathtub shaped like a clam and an office with orange and white 
stripes and remember how much I wanted an all red billiard room 
with a giant stuffed camel and how I wanted a disco room with my 
own disco dancers and a party room with fancy friends and 
remember how much I wanted a big backyard with Grecian statues, 
s-shaped hedges and three swimming pools? Well, I got that too...



(all in good humor Doug, j/k )


----------



## patrickstickler

kd3pc said:


> No offense, Murph, But,
> 
> I don't think in the situation we are talking about, getting out the saw, firing up the generator/inverter, stringing an extension cord walking to the deck house or toe rail to cut something is POSSIBLE.......


I'm inclined to agree with the previous post about not wanting additional floatsom bashing around the boat in such a situation needlessly (just be aware of a possible dismasting and be ready to duck).

But a good pair of cable cutters and a proper AXE would, I think, be all that would be needed in such a situation, should you choose to cut free your rig. Cut the shrouds first, which may even be enough for a deck stepped aluminum mast to buckle and break free, and if not, have at it (carefully, of course) with the axe to cleave the mast(s) free at the deck.
--

And Doug, wish you and your wife the best of luck attaining your next "triumph". While some may not choose to pursue the niceties of life as much as you may choose to do, there's nothing wrong with doing so (or not doing so). While it is certainly true that a sunset is just as beautiful from a humble boat as from a luxury boat; so long as the sunset is the priority, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it from a more comfortable seat, if possible -- all things considered ;-)

Cheers.


----------



## Minnewaska

Doug, of course, you are right about the potential for damage when you put two boats side by side in heavy seas. You lived it. In theory, if you put the disabled vessel in the lee you would calm the seas a bit, but the windward vessel would still be moving. 

I think the best procedure is to get a rescue line to the disabled vessel, secure it to the victim's harness, who should be in a proper PFD and cold water suit and retrieve the victim from the water. Judgment is necessary to separate the two vessels during this procedure, as having either vessel to windward is risking the potential of mother nature capturing the victim between them. 

Doug, I'm hoping never to have to be in a position to report back on how this went and wish you and your wife the best in putting your lives back together. 

As far as the above poster's quote from Steve Martin's movie, The Jerk. It's not only ridiculous in comparison, but in very poor taste to make fun after someone just lost their home. It is particularly astonishing from a poster that has already had to apologize for poor judgment in this thread. I greatly appreciate you sharing your story so that we might learn from it and feel for you having to suffer this nonsense.


----------



## Melrna

DougSabbag said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> What nobody seems to have responded or reacted to, was my posting, twice, of the best way to transfer from a small boat to a large one, i.e., at the large boats' stern, rather than along side.
> 
> Which was best illustrated by the Captain of the Kim Jacob smoothly / safely going from their deck to the ocean, and back to their deck, off of their stern.
> 
> Any attempt to bring the 2 boats along side each other, (even if the masts were felled), is a potential disaster mostly dependent upon the size and frequency of the waves at that time. The greater the waves, the greater the damages. With any insertion of human limbs between the 2 being almost suicidal.
> 
> Was this just so completely accepted, that nobody had to say anything?


This is a good topic for another thread. When my friend lost his boat off of Bermuda over a year ago, a cruise ship came to his rescue. The weather was horrible with high winds and sea state. At first they tried to bring both boats along each other and that didn't go well like your own experience. The lee of the big boat while calming the water was still to much to transfer people. The cruise ship did launch a lifeboat to get my friend, was able to retrieve it. My friend did say it was a horrible hook-up to get the lifeboat back on the ship. 
I am not so sure the stern retrieval in rough seas would be wise. I am still of the opinion the windward side of a big ship is the only way for rescue. Getting on that ship in any circumstances will be very rough and dangerous. 
My own personal thoughts if I was going to get rescued and the boat hasn't sunk yet, I would launch the dinghy if I could and get rescued from that vs the boat itself. My only guess would be is the motor on the dinghy strong enough for any given sea state? Most dinghies have a bridal set-up and if a line could be attached to the bridal and be hoisted up to the ship it might be the way to go. Just food for thought.


----------



## Visitor1111

Doug, Doug, Doug........

Reading your statement have realized that tanker crew was doing nothing than harm to you and your boat....... and Masters reading your posts will for sure think twice before they respond to simular distress call in the future...to lower lifeboat's in such weather?????? Do you think that crew members life is less worth than yours.....sorry but I don't agree!!!!

As far I know you have requested Coast Guard assistance almost 24hr before tanker reached you stating that boat is disabled and taking in the water....while now you are advicing all not to call Coast Guard at all when they find them self in such situation and take care on their own. Sorry but something is not sounding nice here.....

Additionaly if you felt so comfortable on Triumph there in the North Atlantic why did you accept tanker's assistance...!!!

You being sailing since age of 4 and you shoud know that operation in such weather is carring certain risks for you, Evelin and tanker's crew......

They picked up Evelin at first approach and damage Triumph but you were still standing safe on Triumph's deck.... When they approached again you jumped with vessel's line secured and grabed the lifebuoy but loaded with two bags of belongings my friend which caused you fouled to lines shoted to Triumph by the crew trying to pass you big lines during the previous attempts....but you were more worryed for belongins than for life...it's proved by the many things written by you on this post.....

Instead those unnecesary details you should post here what mistakes you made by trying to cross North Atlantic with Triumph who had faced so much problems with hull integrity and engines in wind force 5 (what would be if you stayed on Triupmh that night when they picked you up and weather deteoriated to force 8).......

Was your boat ready at all for that passage???? Have checked weather forecast and planned track based on it???? Did you think at first to take southern route and wait for favourable weather???? Did you know about weather in North Atlantic in general???? Why did you start trip with two persons on board, only???? Why took you so long to bring your story here??? Is it sharing the thing with poeple in order to stop someone making same mistake is much important than waiting for insurance cover????????

Those are just some of questions we need to address to and warn all not to make those mistakes again rather than discussing meeting with big tanker....because not lot of you around here have any idea how it looks to manouver such big ship in bad weather in order to render assitance to small boat.........

It is sad to read your lines saying that tanker's crew did nothing than harm to you but other details posted are showing different for those who wants to notice..........

Before you set sails with your new boat think again about all and keep sailing along coast and for crossing Atlantic take some professinal crew to rebuilt and bring your boat to Europe and you take flight with Evelin...... Don't do it on your own again, because there will be nobody around next time..... Just remember SV "Trashman"......

Sorry for your lost and experiance you had but the only one who is responsable for that is you my friend and not the Coast Guard who was not able to render assistance due to distance limitation, not the crew of the tanker who damaged your boat trying to help you, not the couple of people posted honest comment here trying to warn other on some of your posts....

Will finish here and will not revert to your and other comments at all just was tempted to tell you that at first all was only your mistake and that is important you and Evelin are alive and healthy...


----------



## kd3pc

patrickstickler said:


> a proper AXE would, I think, be all that would be needed in such a situation, should you choose to cut free your rig. Cut the shrouds first, which may even be enough for a deck stepped aluminum mast to buckle and break free, and if not, have at it (carefully, of course) with the axe to cleave the mast(s) free at the deck.
> 
> Cheers.


I invite you to TRY and cleave the aforementioned mast with an axe...and if you attempt to cleave a shroud with tension on it, you may need the axe to cleave your leg/arm the rest of the way off, should the shroud not do so completely, when the stress is release.

Let's just drop back for some practical application of this theory on dry land that is not moving and whipping. So this weekend, go to your local Lowes/Mennards/Home depot and purchase a 3 foot piece of 1/4" and one of 3/8" wire rope, about 6' of 2x4" framing lumber and a handful of electricians staples.

Now back at home, staple one piece of wire rope to one side of the two by, and the other piece to the other side. Use of the narrow or wide side of the two by is your choice(IMHO, it will not matter as we see later). Stake the kids and wife out elsewhere with a phone in hand, just in case. Now secure the two by to something that does not move. Please let me know what happens..does the ax cut the wire rope? Was it easy to do?

Please folks, what leads you to believe that you can CUT a mast with an ax...on dry land, let alone a pitching yawing 8-10" diameter piece of steel or aluminum or even wood...and when you yell timber....just which way are you going to run to dodge it or the newly cloven end...??

Perhaps it is I, that does not know what an ax is...we are talking about the 4-5 inch broad piece of sharp steel attached to a wooden handle that most can not chop wood with?


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> What nobody seems to have responded or reacted to, was my posting, twice, of the best way to transfer from a small boat to a large one, i.e., at the large boats' stern, rather than along side.
> 
> Which was best illustrated by the Captain of the Kim Jacob smoothly / safely going from their deck to the ocean, and back to their deck, off of their stern.
> 
> Any attempt to bring the 2 boats along side each other, (even if the masts were felled), is a potential disaster mostly dependent upon the size and frequency of the waves at that time. The greater the waves, the greater the damages. With any insertion of human limbs between the 2 being almost suicidal.
> 
> Was this just so completely accepted, that nobody had to say anything?


Every situation will be different, of course, but I would think any effort to bring the distressed vessel nearer to the stern of the ship could be far riskier, for several reasons...

Here's a pic of the KIM JACOB... Those corners at the meeting of the ship's transom and topsides look pretty "sharp", to my eye:










Coupled with the inward flare of the ship's sternquarters nearer the waterline, a collision between the 2 vessels could prove far more devastating than one alongside the straight, vertical topsides amidships... Look at the stern on this typical container ship - would you _really_ want to be in the neighborhood of that in a violent seaway in the open ocean, with you or your boat rising and falling with each passing wave, while the ship remains relatively stationary? Uhh, I'll take my chances amidships, thank you...










When a ship is creating a lee for a smaller vessel such as yours, the least violent seastate will likely occur amidships... Nearer the bow or stern, one would become much more exposed to conditions outside the lee, not to mention the magnified effects of the "current" created by the ship's drift...

I think you may be vastly overestimating even the most skilled ship Master's ability to maneuver a single screw vessel of that size in such conditions... Your boat was disabled, with no ability to maneuver, so it was entirely incumbent upon the KIM JACOB to do the maneuvering... To expect him to bring his stern to you seems to be expecting a lot...

Then, do you really want to be remotely in the vicinity of the ship's propeller, or stern thrusters, as he attempts to do so? I would think most Masters would reject such an approach, anyway - the risk of a collision that could result in the loss of the rig, and subsequent possibility of fouling the ship's propeller, would be way too great, seems to me...

Effecting the rescue from amidships would seem to give the ship's crew far greater latitude, as well - enabling them to re-situate themselves as the transfer develops and proceeds... Working from the stern, they would be much more restricted in their ability to move about... Not to mention, as the above pic of the ALBERT MAERSK illustrates, effecting the rescue at the stern, the operation would be completely obscured from the ship's bridge, the Master would have to rely completely on radio communication from the deck crew, or video cameras at the stern... While a rescue amidships, can be continuously observed from the bridge or its wings...

Just as for most of us in a MOB retrieval situation with limited ability to maneuver, the best initial approach is usually to try to make contact with the person in the water approximately amidships... In a seaway, that area of the hull presents less risk to the person in the water than the ends of the boat might, and is likely to give the crew on deck more room to work, and exposes them to the least amount of risk, as well... I think those same general principles would have applied to most open ocean rescues such as yours, as well...


----------



## smackdaddy

Visitor1111 said:


> Doug, Doug, Doug........
> 
> Reading your statement have realized that tanker crew was doing nothing than harm to you and your boat....... and Masters reading your posts will for sure think twice before they respond to simular distress call in the future...to lower lifeboat's in such weather?????? Do you think that crew members life is less worth than yours.....sorry but I don't agree!!!!
> 
> As far I know you have requested Coast Guard assistance almost 24hr before tanker reached you stating that boat is disabled and taking in the water....while now you are advicing all not to call Coast Guard at all when they find them self in such situation and take care on their own. Sorry but something is not sounding nice here.....
> 
> Additionaly if you felt so comfortable on Triumph there in the North Atlantic why did you accept tanker's assistance...!!!
> 
> You being sailing since age of 4 and you shoud know that operation in such weather is carring certain risks for you, Evelin and tanker's crew......
> 
> They picked up Evelin at first approach and damage Triumph but you were still standing safe on Triumph's deck.... When they approached again you jumped with vessel's line secured and grabed the lifebuoy but loaded with two bags of belongings my friend which caused you fouled to lines shoted to Triumph by the crew trying to pass you big lines during the previous attempts....but you were more worryed for belongins than for life...it's proved by the many things written by you on this post.....
> 
> Instead those unnecesary details you should post here what mistakes you made by trying to cross North Atlantic with Triumph who had faced so much problems with hull integrity and engines in wind force 5 (what would be if you stayed on Triupmh that night when they picked you up and weather deteoriated to force 8).......
> 
> Was your boat ready at all for that passage???? Have checked weather forecast and planned track based on it???? Did you think at first to take southern route and wait for favourable weather???? Did you know about weather in North Atlantic in general???? Why did you start trip with two persons on board, only???? Why took you so long to bring your story here??? Is it sharing the thing with poeple in order to stop someone making same mistake is much important than waiting for insurance cover????????
> 
> Those are just some of questions we need to address to and warn all not to make those mistakes again rather than discussing meeting with big tanker....because not lot of you around here have any idea how it looks to manouver such big ship in bad weather in order to render assitance to small boat.........
> 
> It is sad to read your lines saying that tanker's crew did nothing than harm to you but other details posted are showing different for those who wants to notice..........
> 
> Before you set sails with your new boat think again about all and keep sailing along coast and for crossing Atlantic take some professinal crew to rebuilt and bring your boat to Europe and you take flight with Evelin...... Don't do it on your own again, because there will be nobody around next time..... Just remember SV "Trashman"......
> 
> Sorry for your lost and experiance you had but the only one who is responsable for that is you my friend and not the Coast Guard who was not able to render assistance due to distance limitation, not the crew of the tanker who damaged your boat trying to help you, not the couple of people posted honest comment here trying to warn other on some of your posts....
> 
> Will finish here and will not revert to your and other comments at all just was tempted to tell you that at first all was only your mistake and that is important you and Evelin are alive and healthy...


Visitor, I'm starting to get the feeling that you were on the _Kim Jacob_ that day. Some of the details you've laid out are beyond what I remember reading in Doug's account.

If you _were_ there that day, I think it's great that you've posted more info on what took place. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just here to learn (okay, _and_ show off). And hearing both sides of every story..._from the people who were involved_...is always the best way to do that.

Good points in your post.


----------



## alexdz

DougSabbag said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> So.... my best guess at applying that goal to this "subject" is that you may accept and believe, that the amount of money actually available to the "user" will directly relate to the validity and depth of the knowledge of how to handle it.
> 
> So, that would be coded along these lines:
> 
> If you have it, you will know how to use it.
> 
> I hope that is really understood, thereby inspiring this subject to be ended within this thread.
> 
> <SNIP>


Wow, that's some sentiment if I'm reading you correctly.

Sorry about the loss of your boat, but by your own admission you seem to have some issues knowing how to use money yourself.

You dropped, what, $250k into the ocean on a failed attempt to cross because you didn't feel the need to fully inspect and repair your rigging? Or because you spent a bunch of money rebuilding and BALANCING your engine but then didn't bother replacing the oil cooler you yourself said was at end-of-life? Or after 2 prior failed attempts to cross (according to your friend, I haven't seen you mention those so maybe not true) you didn't want to pay for adequate insurance?

And in response to a comment made in another thread, I'm one of those people who wouldn't get a bigger boat just because I had the money. In a few years when I can get to my retirement funds I'd be able to, but I still wouldn't want anything over about 30 or 32 feet, because I don't want the complexity required to manage something bigger by myself. I do love the luxuries, but I love independence more.

I've found this thread very interesting, and appreciate your sharing lessons learned. I honestly get the impression that the one person who hasn't learned much is you. Hopefully that's not the case and your next attempt will meet with more success.

As far as how to transfer from a small sailboat to a large ship attempting rescue, I wouldn't think that's something most people here have experience with. Have you asked the Coast Guard?


----------



## CharlieCobra

After looking at those two behemoths, I wouldn't want either of them anywhere near my boat in any kind of seaway, much less a rough one. If I'm not stepping up to the raft I ain't going anywhere, the hell with what the crew wants. There's nothing stopping them from stepping the hell off my boat....


----------



## emoney

All I'm saying is.....wow


----------



## mstern

Has anyone actually tried to use Traveler's Checks recently? I bought some for a family trip about 8 years ago. About half of the places refused to accept them; they said there had been too much fraud recently, and they just weren't accepting any brand of traveler's checks from anyone. Keep in mind these were Amex Traveler's Checks, and I was presenting them with photo ID, and this was in California, not some third world country. I had to return most of the checks when I got back, and I have never bought any since. For those of you who have wondered why Doug carried cash instead of Traveler's Checks, I am wondering if your recent experience with them is different than mine.


----------



## chrisncate

Minnewaska said:


> Doug, of course, you are right about the potential for damage when you put two boats side by side in heavy seas. You lived it. In theory, if you put the disabled vessel in the lee you would calm the seas a bit, but the windward vessel would still be moving.
> 
> I think the best procedure is to get a rescue line to the disabled vessel, secure it to the victim's harness, who should be in a proper PFD and cold water suit and retrieve the victim from the water. Judgment is necessary to separate the two vessels during this procedure, as having either vessel to windward is risking the potential of mother nature capturing the victim between them.
> 
> Doug, I'm hoping never to have to be in a position to report back on how this went and wish you and your wife the best in putting your lives back together.
> 
> As far as the above poster's quote from Steve Martin's movie, The Jerk. It's not only ridiculous in comparison, but in very poor taste to make fun after someone just lost their home. It is particularly astonishing from a poster that has already had to apologize for poor judgment in this thread. I greatly appreciate you sharing your story so that we might learn from it and feel for you having to suffer this nonsense.


I was kidding around Minn, as stated. 

Doug did kind of rib those of us who don't have 50k in cash as not "getting it" regarding how to tote it around on a boat..

I meant it in good humor not mean spiritedness.


----------



## smackdaddy

Melrna said:


> This is a good topic for another thread. When my friend lost his boat off of Bermuda over a year ago, a cruise ship came to his rescue. The weather was horrible with high winds and sea state. At first they tried to bring both boats along each other and that didn't go well like your own experience. The lee of the big boat while calming the water was still to much to transfer people. The cruise ship did launch a lifeboat to get my friend, was able to retrieve it. My friend did say it was a horrible hook-up to get the lifeboat back on the ship.
> I am not so sure the stern retrieval in rough seas would be wise. I am still of the opinion the windward side of a big ship is the only way for rescue. Getting on that ship in any circumstances will be very rough and dangerous.
> My own personal thoughts if I was going to get rescued and the boat hasn't sunk yet, I would launch the dinghy if I could and get rescued from that vs the boat itself. My only guess would be is the motor on the dinghy strong enough for any given sea state? Most dinghies have a bridal set-up and if a line could be attached to the bridal and be hoisted up to the ship it might be the way to go. Just food for thought.


Mel, I think I posted the video of that guy's rescue where the cruise ship crushes his boat. What was the name of the vessel? I'll see if I can find it again. In the mean time, here's a nice dismasting during a rescue to show how rough this stuff is...






This dude was lost? Some of these stories don't make sense.


----------



## tommays

I find its even hard to spend green even in the USA 100 dollar bills and even twentys get checked with a pen now due to counterfit


----------



## LandLocked66c

I have a hard time finding $100 bills to spend! LOL


----------



## junkrig

*apology*

Doug,
A few days ago on this thread I lost my temper regarding a post you had made and attacked you personally. I apologize.
It does indeed seem to me now that this thread is as hopelessly lost as the S/V Triumph. To the extent that I contributed to that I deeply regret my actions.
Fair winds and happy landfalls.
Jeff


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> Mel, I think I posted the video of that guy's rescue where the cruise ship crushes his boat. What was the name of the vessel? I'll see if I can find it again. In the mean time, here's a nice dismasting during a rescue to show how rough this stuff is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This dude was lost? Some of these stories don't make sense.


That was a great video. Rescue crew seemed extremely professional and skilled. Why did the sailor need rescue? Looked like boat was in great shape.

Concerning rescue, if the coast guard orders you to abandon you boat (as they did with the Satori during the "No Name Storm"), and you refuse on the grounds you believe it is to dangerous to move from your boat to the rescue vessel or air craft. What would the penalties be for your actions?


----------



## donradclife

The CG doesn't usually tell you that you have to abandon--they just tell you that if you don't take the opportunity they offer you that they aren't going to try to rescue you again--your choice.


----------



## casey1999

donradclife said:


> The CG doesn't usually tell you that you have to abandon--they just tell you that if you don't take the opportunity they offer you that they aren't going to try to rescue you again--your choice.


That is not, as I remember, what they told the Satori captain. I believe they told him his voyage was manafestly unsafe and ordered him to leave the vessel. His vessel was found by him washed up on a Maryland beach and also recoved. It had minimal damage even after beaching. Below is video.

Perfect Storm Rescues: S/V SATORI - YouTube


----------



## mitiempo

If I wasn't prepared to leave the vessel I wouldn't call to start with.

As I recall those other than the owner/skipper of the Satori were wanting to abandon. That does complicate things.


----------



## casey1999

mitiempo said:


> If I wasn't prepared to leave the vessel I wouldn't call to start with.
> 
> As I recall those other than the owner/skipper of the Satori were wanting to abandon. That does complicate things.


The full story from the captain is somewhere here on the internet (read it a few years ago). There were two female crew members, one issued a mayday on the radio without captains permission or knowledge. That started the coast guard resuce. The two crew were removed by CG but the captain wanted to stay with the boat. CG said no, you need to come off.


----------



## mitiempo

Hard to say, overzealous CG officer, not believing the boat would survive perhaps. Definitely better not to call them if you aren't prepared to leave the vessel but I understand the situation and who called them.


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> That was a great video. Rescue crew seemed extremely professional and skilled. Why did the sailor need rescue? Looked like boat was in great shape.


Call it The "Bermuda Triangle" Effect... (grin)

There was a bit of a Donald Crowhurst element to that one, just going from memory, here...

The boat was the former SPIRIT OF CANADA, brilliantly sailed by Derek Hatfield in one of the Around Alone races... He was pitchpoled and dismasted west of Cape Horn, but performed a miracle of self-rescue, and eventually finished the race a few weeks behind the fleet...

Her final voyage sounded ill-fated from the get-go... The boat had recently been purchased by another solo racing wannabe of what appeared to be minimal experience, and he was delivering her back to Newport... He was unable to keep himself properly nourished, apparently hadn't eaten anything in a couple of days, when he decided to call for Mommy on his satphone... Instead, a CROWN PRINCESS showed up...

Sounds like he simply freaked out, initial reports cited he was fearful that the boat "was about to begin taking on water", or something to that effect... As you can see, the conditions were quite benign, a pretty nice day for sailing in the open ocean... The rig and sails look perfect, I don't recall any report of problem with steering, or whatnot - for whatever reason, he simply wanted off that boat...

Sad end, indeed, to such a storied yacht, she certainly deserved a better fate than she received at the hands of her last skipper...

Odd coincidental bookend to the story, turns out the guy, and the master of the CROWN PRINCESS, were from the same small town back in England, if memory serves...


----------



## emoney

the "loneliness factor" is a much stronger condition than people realize until under it's grasp


----------



## DougSabbag

Minnewaska said:


> Doug, of course, you are right about the potential for damage when you put two boats side by side in heavy seas. You lived it. In theory, if you put the disabled vessel in the lee you would calm the seas a bit, but the windward vessel would still be moving.
> 
> I think the best procedure is to get a rescue line to the disabled vessel, secure it to the victim's harness, who should be in a proper PFD and cold water suit and retrieve the victim from the water. Judgment is necessary to separate the two vessels during this procedure, as having either vessel to windward is risking the potential of mother nature capturing the victim between them.
> 
> Doug, I'm hoping never to have to be in a position to report back on how this went and wish you and your wife the best in putting your lives back together.
> 
> As far as the above poster's quote from Steve Martin's movie, The Jerk. It's not only ridiculous in comparison, but in very poor taste to make fun after someone just lost their home. It is particularly astonishing from a poster that has already had to apologize for poor judgment in this thread. I greatly appreciate you sharing your story so that we might learn from it and feel for you having to suffer this nonsense.


They attempted to shoot lines to me / us but with the 25 knot winds, (as I mentioned much earlier), often times their best throwing attempts were frequently returned right to the thrower.

As far as who is on which side, considering the many errors made, obviously the tanker Captain wasn't utilizing the wind to the best advantage. And I was struggling just to stay above the water, let alone try to communicate my ideas of windward / leeward positioning concepts to people hundreds of feet from me, with a strong wind, and less than perfect English being spoken from the crew....... Nobody could hear me even if I had something of merit to say.

I still think if we had approached from their stern, in our dinghy, all would have gone MUCH smoother, and safer.

As far as the cheap shots of "humor"(?) by the relentless poster, I thought we had an agreement to not talk to each other, which I am holding to.
Apparently their word is not good enough to depend upon.

Thank you for berating them, as well they deserve. That I have shared some realities of possessions either lost or wanted, and that they are using this as a source of humor absolutely sucks. If there is a God, then the old adage: "what goes around comes around" might be looming in their horizon.
We'll see if he / she / it laments their losses, or just sucks it up in silence.

Perhaps since I am 55 years old, it is more of a kick in the gut to lose everything, (I know someone will point out I still had some cash and my pants, so I didn't lose EVERYTHING), so if it is my age that has me mentioning our losses more than some might, so be it.

As I have said many times, first you have to be in MY shoes before you should be very critical of my responses. I really don't think I have been whining so much that I deserve to be called on it.

Anyway, thank you for your support.


----------



## DougSabbag

Visitor1111 said:


> Doug, Doug, Doug........
> 
> Reading your statement have realized that tanker crew was doing nothing than harm to you and your boat....... and Masters reading your posts will for sure think twice before they respond to simular distress call in the future...to lower lifeboat's in such weather?????? Do you think that crew members life is less worth than yours.....sorry but I don't agree!!!!
> 
> As far I know you have requested Coast Guard assistance almost 24hr before tanker reached you stating that boat is disabled and taking in the water....while now you are advicing all not to call Coast Guard at all when they find them self in such situation and take care on their own. Sorry but something is not sounding nice here.....
> 
> Additionaly if you felt so comfortable on Triumph there in the North Atlantic why did you accept tanker's assistance...!!!
> 
> You being sailing since age of 4 and you shoud know that operation in such weather is carring certain risks for you, Evelin and tanker's crew......
> 
> They picked up Evelin at first approach and damage Triumph but you were still standing safe on Triumph's deck.... When they approached again you jumped with vessel's line secured and grabed the lifebuoy but loaded with two bags of belongings my friend which caused you fouled to lines shoted to Triumph by the crew trying to pass you big lines during the previous attempts....but you were more worryed for belongins than for life...it's proved by the many things written by you on this post.....
> 
> Instead those unnecesary details you should post here what mistakes you made by trying to cross North Atlantic with Triumph who had faced so much problems with hull integrity and engines in wind force 5 (what would be if you stayed on Triupmh that night when they picked you up and weather deteoriated to force 8).......
> 
> Was your boat ready at all for that passage???? Have checked weather forecast and planned track based on it???? Did you think at first to take southern route and wait for favourable weather???? Did you know about weather in North Atlantic in general???? Why did you start trip with two persons on board, only???? Why took you so long to bring your story here??? Is it sharing the thing with poeple in order to stop someone making same mistake is much important than waiting for insurance cover????????
> 
> Those are just some of questions we need to address to and warn all not to make those mistakes again rather than discussing meeting with big tanker....because not lot of you around here have any idea how it looks to manouver such big ship in bad weather in order to render assitance to small boat.........
> 
> It is sad to read your lines saying that tanker's crew did nothing than harm to you but other details posted are showing different for those who wants to notice..........
> 
> Before you set sails with your new boat think again about all and keep sailing along coast and for crossing Atlantic take some professinal crew to rebuilt and bring your boat to Europe and you take flight with Evelin...... Don't do it on your own again, because there will be nobody around next time..... Just remember SV "Trashman"......
> 
> Sorry for your lost and experiance you had but the only one who is responsable for that is you my friend and not the Coast Guard who was not able to render assistance due to distance limitation, not the crew of the tanker who damaged your boat trying to help you, not the couple of people posted honest comment here trying to warn other on some of your posts....
> 
> Will finish here and will not revert to your and other comments at all just was tempted to tell you that at first all was only your mistake and that is important you and Evelin are alive and healthy...


First, as I said before, we were not sinking. I should NOT have called for EXTRACTION, only assistance, if anything at all. I have explained the dynamics involved in that decision in great detail previously. re-read that, please.

Second, if someone denies rendering assistance to someone else, because this one went very poorly, that SURELY is not my fault. All I am doing here is writing the TRUTH of what happened. Should I not mention the destruction to the Triumph which could easily have included my wife and I? That destruction should NOT have happened. Had the tanker not intersected the KNOWN sea anchor, that would not have happened, at least not as violently as it did.

As far as other crew members' lives being on the line to save me; what I have suggested (in retrospect) is that I should have used MY dinghy to approach the tanker from their stern and then been hauled up via lines perhaps with a harness too, as the CAPTAIN WAS ABLE TO DO SO SMOOTHLY. I don't think that process would have placed their crew in any danger.

But, even if the other alternative was used, i.e., deploying a life boat to get me, rather than watching me struggle and sink for over 3 hours, though it would have been impossible to retrieve the life boat via the same cables she would have been deployed from, it would have been VERY POSSIBLE to retrieve the life boat, with us in her, from the STERN, and then just towed it the remaining 2 days to Canada. Granted, this would have required some exposure to some danger for those in the life boat, but excuse me for asking for a HAND. I know I would do AT LEAST THAT MUCH FOR A FELLOW MARINER.

I don't know what you are talking about me having bags of belongings ON ME at the time I jumped overboard?!?!?! Yes, we had ditch bags on our deck, but they REMAINED there. I did try to bring the EPIRB with me after repeated insistence from the CAPTAIN of the Kim Jacob, because they needed that for some administrative reason. As I went overboard, I threw it at their deck as hard as I could, though it did not make it there.

What I had on me when I jumped was still on me when (3 hours later) I was pulled up to their deck:

1. pair of pants.
2. underwear.
3. a watch.
4. my wallet
5. My belt.
6. my jacket.
7. my PFD.
8. a shirt which was ripped off of me to render medical assistance ASAP.
9. Money in my front pockets.

I kicked off the sneakers I had been wearing during my little swim.

After hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of materials / equipment, and many other eyes of experience looking on, we did feel sure the Triumph was ready for this trip. Sorry, I / we were proven wrong. I am glad nothing every breaks on your cruises. Good luck maintaining that record.

Yes, we were VERY WELL UPDATED on the weather. That is why we were exactly where we were, i.e., just skirting the North side of the Azore high.
We knew EXACTLY what we were doing on that course. I would be more than happy to discuss that with any sailor any day of the week. In fact we were in communication with various land based sources of daily, in depth, weather information via our satellite phone. Friends were advising us per the changes / tracks of high and low pressure movements, and the various storms which came near us. We were just fine with the weather. The Triumph should be able to handle 15 - 25 knot winds all day long forever.
And that is what we were in... As I mentioned earlier, just a few minutes before our starboard stays broke, my wife and I were commenting on what a beautiful sail we were having!!!! We were not in HARMS WAY from the weather. Unless, you go overboard, and, or, try to come along side a 900 foot TANKER. If we waited to cross the Atlantic for a window which would allow those actions to be done nicely too, then nobody would EVERY CROSS.

We do greatly appreciate the fact that we are alive. But, we came a lot closer to death because:
1. I asked for extraction.
2. They came and tried to do that in the manner that they did.

That is the truth, and those crew members know it too. The Captain said he dropped to his knees on the bridge when he heard what their tactic had done to us and our boat. I do not think he will ever intersect a sea anchor again.

We can ALL learn from this; but NOT to stop rendering assistance, instead to DO IT BETTER.


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> As far as who is on which side, considering the many errors made, obviously the tanker Captain wasn't utilizing the wind to the best advantage. And I was struggling just to stay above the water, let alone try to communicate my ideas of windward / leeward positioning concepts to people hundreds of feet from me, with a strong wind, and less than perfect English being spoken from the crew....... Nobody could hear me even if I had something of merit to say.


Here I think I can contribute on an equal footing. After MOB exercises on merchant ships at sea and a number of other activities including RAS amidships is definitely the place to be. It isn't for nothing that pilots embark and debark there.

In my opinion the ship should have stayed to windward of you and shot lines to you some distance off.

If it's good enough for SEALs it is good enough for me. *grin*

The only way I'm going for the stern is a US Navy amphibious assault ship ballasted down with the stern gate down.


----------



## mitiempo

Doug

With rough seas, the freighter's stern overhang, and the prop close by I wouldn't want to be anywhere near. Amidships on the lee side is a better choice.

If you called for assistance instead of extraction what could a ship have done?


----------



## jackdale

JonEisberg said:


> Call it The "Bermuda Triangle" Effect... (grin)
> 
> There was a bit of a Donald Crowhurst element to that one, just going from memory, here...
> 
> The boat was the former SPIRIT OF CANADA, brilliantly sailed by Derek Hatfield in one of the Around Alone races... He was pitchpoled and dismasted west of Cape Horn, but performed a miracle of self-rescue, and eventually finished the race a few weeks behind the fleet...
> 
> Her final voyage sounded ill-fated from the get-go... The boat had recently been purchased by another solo racing wannabe of what appeared to be minimal experience, and he was delivering her back to Newport... He was unable to keep himself properly nourished, apparently hadn't eaten anything in a couple of days, when he decided to call for Mommy on his satphone... Instead, a CROWN PRINCESS showed up...
> 
> Sounds like he simply freaked out, initial reports cited he was fearful that the boat "was about to begin taking on water", or something to that effect... As you can see, the conditions were quite benign, a pretty nice day for sailing in the open ocean... The rig and sails look perfect, I don't recall any report of problem with steering, or whatnot - for whatever reason, he simply wanted off that boat...
> 
> Sad end, indeed, to such a storied yacht, she certainly deserved a better fate than she received at the hands of her last skipper...
> 
> Odd coincidental bookend to the story, turns out the guy, and the master of the CROWN PRINCESS, were from the same small town back in England, if memory serves...


The story

Neighbour to the rescue of sailor adrift in Caribbean - Times Online


----------



## casey1999

jackdale said:


> The story
> 
> Neighbour to the rescue of sailor adrift in Caribbean - Times Online


The article says the boat lost its mast (I assume they mean before the rescue). Looks like the mast was ok. What's the truth?


----------



## mitiempo

Different rescues are being confused I think.


----------



## DougSabbag

alexdz said:


> Wow, that's some sentiment if I'm reading you correctly.
> 
> Sorry about the loss of your boat, but by your own admission you seem to have some issues knowing how to use money yourself.
> 
> You dropped, what, $250k into the ocean on a failed attempt to cross because you didn't feel the need to fully inspect and repair your rigging? Or because you spent a bunch of money rebuilding and BALANCING your engine but then didn't bother replacing the oil cooler you yourself said was at end-of-life? Or after 2 prior failed attempts to cross (according to your friend, I haven't seen you mention those so maybe not true) you didn't want to pay for adequate insurance?
> 
> And in response to a comment made in another thread, I'm one of those people who wouldn't get a bigger boat just because I had the money. In a few years when I can get to my retirement funds I'd be able to, but I still wouldn't want anything over about 30 or 32 feet, because I don't want the complexity required to manage something bigger by myself. I do love the luxuries, but I love independence more.
> 
> I've found this thread very interesting, and appreciate your sharing lessons learned. I honestly get the impression that the one person who hasn't learned much is you. Hopefully that's not the case and your next attempt will meet with more success.
> 
> As far as how to transfer from a small sailboat to a large ship attempting rescue, I wouldn't think that's something most people here have experience with. Have you asked the Coast Guard?


WOW, you are apparently having a bad day. I am so sorry. Have some wine, relax, and lighten up.

We did fully inspect the rigging. It was the chainplate UNDER THE DECK that broke. Sorry, I didn't pre-visualize the oil cooler going. I know you would have. As I keep reminding EVERYONE: so YOU have never had anything break on YOUR cruises???? Since EVERYTHING on your boat(s) are what, break proof??? Well, congratulations, and keep up the good work. But, everyone I know, has things break, occasionally, and frequently at the worst times. Sucks to be us, not perfect like you, huh!

As far as the size of boat you choose for yourself, are you living aboard... with a wife? Please factor that into your equation, and don't forget to factor in Evelyn Sabbag, not YOUR wife (if you have one) since mine will not enjoy the Spartan life onboard a 30 something footer. But, NEITHER WOULD I. They are just too damn small to live in. Sorry, but we're going to disagree on boat size.

The Coast Guard and I have discussed this at great length. I spent numerous hours with over 24 of them - debriefing as they called it, and trying out different scenarios. Sorry, I didn't see YOU there.

Yes, there is much to be learned, and always more every day. The day I stop "learning" must be the day that I die.

Now that we have addressed your obvious "issues" with me, hopefully you can put that jazz station / CD on, and mellow out. Which since NOTHING ON YOUR BOAT EVER BREAKS, you should have plenty of time on your hands to enjoy!!!

PS Whatever money & goods I lost sucks. Can't argue against that. And as I have previously stated, as the Captain, I was responsible for my ship; so sure, it is all my fault. OK? Feel vindicated or somehow happier with yourself having stated who you blame for MY losses? FO uke


----------



## DougSabbag

To JohnEisberg,

You are doing a great job of presenting a case that the stern is not an access point.

Now explain that to the Captain of the Kim Jacob who did just that with a harness and a line.


----------



## mitiempo

The captain that made a previous mistake when he intersected your sea anchor?


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
Maybe I missed somthing in your statemnents, if I did, I am sorry. My question (and thank you for responding to us in this thread) is when you left the boat, were you planning to try to salvage it it anyway at a later date? I remember you said there was a beacon on board, but then it stopped transmitting.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> Here I think I can contribute on an equal footing. After MOB exercises on merchant ships at sea and a number of other activities including ROS amidships is definitely the place to be. It isn't for nothing that pilots embark and debark there.
> 
> In my opinion the ship should have stayed to windward of you and shot lines to you some distance off.
> 
> If it's good enough for SEALs it is good enough for me. *grin*
> 
> The only way I'm going for the stern is a US Navy amphibious assault ship ballasted down with the stern gate down.


You know, they really need to start building merchant vessels with sugar scoop transoms, for just that purpose...

I'm sure the pirates working the Gulf of Aden and the Straits of Malacca would be most appreciative, as well... (grin)

When you read of the extraordinary measures merchant ships have to go to deter boarding by pirates (shooting high-pressure fire hoses throughout the night over the stern quarter, and so on) you really begin to appreciate how ill-configured and adapted these vessels are to performing these sorts of rescues at sea... Much has been done over the past couple of decades to make these ships as difficult as possible to be boarded from the deck of a small vessel, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that boarding one of these behemoths from water level can, indeed, prove to be rather difficult...


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> You know, they really need to start building merchant vessels with sugar scoop transoms, for just that purpose...
> 
> I'm sure the pirates working the Gulf of Aden and the Straits of Malacca would be most appreciative, as well... (grin)
> 
> When you read of the extraordinary measures merchant ships have to go to deter boarding by pirates (shooting high-pressure fire hoses throughout the night over the stern quarter, and so on) you really begin to appreciate how ill-configured and adapted these vessels are to performing these sorts of rescues at sea... Much has been done over the past couple of decades to make these ships as difficult as possible to be boarded from the deck of a small vessel, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that boarding one of these behemoths from water level can, indeed, prove to be rather difficult...


Good point, BTW, I have not heard of any recent pirate attacks (unlike say a year ago where it happened every few days). Is the pirating still bad?


----------



## mitiempo

Summer break.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> To JohnEisberg,
> 
> You are doing a great job of presenting a case that the stern is not an access point.
> 
> Now explain that to the Captain of the Kim Jacob who did just that with a harness and a line.


Hmmm, perhaps he needs to spend more time hanging out on sailing forums, with us amateurs? (grin)

If I'm recalling your narrative accurately, his reason for going over the side was in an effort to assist you, correct? (I'm sure I'm not alone here, in being in awe of his taking such a heroic risk, to begin with)

Perhaps he chose to go over the stern, simply because that was the part of the ship that happened to be closest to you, at that point? Not being there, of course, I have no idea what his reasoning might have been...

All I know is, if I were attempting to maneuver close to a ship of that size in a seaway - whether it be in a 50-foot sailboat, or an inflatable tender, I'd prefer to take my chances amidships, rather than anywhere close to those looming overhangs at the stern...

This can be illustrated even on a much smaller scale, that we all deal with routinely... Many people have come to favor sugar scoop transoms, because they perceive boarding the tender to be easier from such a platform... Well, that may be true in placid conditions, that's not necessarily always the case in a significant chop, or if a passing Sea Ray on a half-plane throws you a wake at that moment - very often, assuming a manageable amount of freeboard, it can be a far safer and more stable transfer, to bring the tender alongside, amidships...


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> Maybe I missed somthing in your statemnents, if I did, I am sorry. My question (and thank you for responding to us in this thread) is when you left the boat, were you planning to try to salvage it it anyway at a later date? I remember you said there was a beacon on board, but then it stopped transmitting.


Perhaps I was in denial, or whatever, but I did hope that she might be savable, somehow.

As far as the "taking on water" condition she was in when we called the CG, in retrospect, that was probably from the holes on deck from the chainplates breaking wherein the stays pulled out of the deck.

But, now I am not sure if perhaps when the Triumph was smashed into the Kim Jacob, (by smashing the Triumph up into their anchor housing structure, i.e., a vertical smashing action), which did break our main mast, could it have created a leak considering she was keel stepped??

So, though I initially hoped the Triumph could be saved, as the "rescue" proceeded, it became an entirely different reality.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, perhaps he needs to spend more time hanging out on sailing forums, with us amateurs? (grin)
> 
> If I'm recalling your narrative accurately, his reason for going over the side was in an effort to assist you, correct? (I'm sure I'm not alone here, in being in awe of his taking such a heroic risk, to begin with)
> 
> Perhaps he chose to go over the stern, simply because that was the part of the ship that happened to be closest to you, at that point? Not being there, of course, I have no idea what his reasoning might have been...
> 
> All I know is, if I were attempting to maneuver close to a ship of that size in a seaway - whether it be in a 50-foot sailboat, or an inflatable tender, I'd prefer to take my chances amidships, rather than anywhere close to those looming overhangs at the stern...
> 
> This can be illustrated even on a much smaller scale, that we all deal with routinely... Many people have come to favor sugar scoop transoms, because they perceive boarding the tender to be easier from such a platform... Well, that may be true in placid conditions, that's not necessarily always the case in a significant chop, or if a passing Sea Ray on a half-plane throws you a wake at that moment - very often, assuming a manageable amount of freeboard, it can be a far safer and more stable transfer, to bring the tender alongside, amidships...


No, I was no where near their stern. I was up by their bow, usually.
When he entered the ocean, he found that the current kept him from being able to make any headway, swimming, so he went back up to their deck.

So, HIS choice for egress from their vessel was from the stern, even though I was at the other end of the Kim Jacob. So, again, given the realities of the situation, and keeping in mind WE WERE THERE, both the Captain, and I, found their stern to be the best approach.

Our dinghy was a Boston Whaler. I would only have used it to get to their stern area, then if they had dropped some lines and a harness down to us, we could have been pulled up and out of the Boston Whaler.

IF any boat is along side the Kim Jacob, in 10 + foot seas, they would be pumelled to hell. Trailing behind them, but close to their stern would not have that effect.

But, if you really want to beat this horse to death, either conduct a computer simulation, or take YOUR boat out, find a 900 foot tanker, in similar sea conditions and learn where you feel best being with her.....


----------



## DougSabbag

mitiempo said:


> Doug
> 
> With rough seas, the freighter's stern overhang, and the prop close by I wouldn't want to be anywhere near. Amidships on the lee side is a better choice.
> 
> If you called for assistance instead of extraction what could a ship have done?


Perhaps help me fix the oil cooler problem. And, or, help me fix the stays.

They have a lot of parts and equipment, frequently.

But, smashing our boat to hell, with us onboard, after they intersected our sea anchor wasn't assistance or conducive for extraction.

Luckily, after forcing us into the ocean, they did pull us up to their deck.

And they were all very nice to us. (see the picture of the crew and us on their deck in my "album" attached to my profile.

We DID thank them profusely. So, don't get in a tizzy that we wern't "thankful".

But, as I keep on saying, and the Coast Guard agreed, this could have been done better.

So, rather than harrassing me for the granite counters, (etc.) on some ludicrous concept that those are any indication that I hadn't expended much effort on important things, or accusing me of not being on top of the weather, or having more cash than YOU (the generic you) would carry, or not being an able sailor, or any of the other accusations / Monday morning quarterbacking etc. which have been starting to flow out of your mouths, LEARN or GO AWAY. I am not here to listen to garbage from people who were not there, and claim that they could never have found themselves in similar straights because their oil cooler would not have broken, or their stays could not have broken, or they're just more experienced so they would never have any problems.

To all of those attitudes about all I feel like saying is FO uke


----------



## DougSabbag

tommays said:


> I find its even hard to spend green even in the USA 100 dollar bills and even twentys get checked with a pen now due to counterfit


Yes, but I would rather have them then not. I have NEVER had anyone decline to accept American currency from me. Granted, sometimes you have to do a currency exchange, but it was accepted then.

I really couldn't care less if anyone wants to run a pen across my bills.
As long as the dinner was served well, and the wine / Jack Daniels was kept flowing... 

So, what is your point? You don't like 100s ??? I do. I love 100s. The more the better. I like gold too. Crazy guy huh?


----------



## CBinRI

casey1999 said:


> The full story from the captain is somewhere here on the internet (read it a few years ago). There were two female crew members, one issued a mayday on the radio without captains permission or knowledge. That started the coast guard resuce. The two crew were removed by CG but the captain wanted to stay with the boat. CG said no, you need to come off.


The boat certainly looked seaworthy, and it turned up later, as I understand. Very difficult dilemna when you have skittish crew. Even worse when they sneak in a Mayday call.


----------



## smackdaddy

Granite's nothing! THIS is still one of the pimpiest boats (Irwin 52) I've ever seen!


----------



## knothead

I hesitate to add my thoughts here for fear of my intentions being misunderstood but, what the heck.

I only want to emphasize the fact that the chainplates are just as important and just as much a part of the "rig" as the turnbuckle, terminals and the wire itself. 
For some reason, and I think the reason is that it's a difficult job, the chainplates are often ignored or just cursorily inspected when the boat gets a rerig. 
I myself will often only be able to advise the owner to replace the chainplates. I'm not equipped to tackle the jobs that involve a lot of carpentry and fiberglass work. A lot of riggers aren't. So all I can do is recommend that they do it themselves or hire someone to do it. 
Have I mentioned that it's hard? If you hire someone to do it, it's really expensive too. And usually, if you pull a twenty year old chainplate to inspect it, you have to think that it only makes sense to replace it anyway. Even if you don't see anything wrong with it. So add the expense of the new chainplates to the job and it can run into thousands of dollars on top of the new rigging. 
A lot of people can only afford to get new shrouds and stays and furlers and stuff. The chainplates are out of sight and out of mind. 
It's understandable. 

But bottom line. And I'm truly not disparaging anyone or second guessing anyone so please don't get defensive. OK 

If you don't inspect your chainplates, you haven't inspected your rig. 

If your visible rigging components are worn out, you should at the very least thoroughly inspect the hidden ones. 

For what it's worth.


----------



## tommays

DougSabbag said:


> Yes, but I would rather have them then not. I have NEVER had anyone decline to accept American currency from me. Granted, sometimes you have to do a currency exchange, but it was accepted then.
> 
> I really couldn't care less if anyone wants to run a pen across my bills.
> As long as the dinner was served well, and the wine / Jack Daniels was kept flowing...
> 
> So, what is your point? You don't like 100s ??? I do. I love 100s. The more the better. I like gold too. Crazy guy huh?


I love 100 dollar bills  having traveled the USA more than most by many different means like 50 thousand miles by motorcycle in a three year Span I have found many places that will outright NOT take them


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> Granite's nothing! THIS is still one of the pimpiest boats (Irwin 52) I've ever seen!


Are all the statues glued down for when the weather turns rough? And is all the upholstery stainmaster so when I get sea sick and puke, it cleans up easily?


----------



## GeorgeB

Knothead, I have a couple of questions. What do you think about those Amsteel emergency stays I see marketed around? I am not familiar at all with a Gulfstar 50 – are both the upper and lower shrouds terminated into the same chain plate? Why couldn’t you sail with just the mizzen and fwd stay sail if the mainmast’s chainplate was the problem? (using halyards etc. to help stabilize the mast.) On single spreader sloops I always assumed that you could go down to reef#2 and the storm jib on the inner forestay to keep the loads near the lower shrouds if an upper “gave way”.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> To JohnEisberg,
> 
> You are doing a great job of presenting a case that the stern is not an access point.
> 
> Now explain that to the Captain of the Kim Jacob who did just that with a harness and a line.


As others have pointed out, the captain in question doesn't have a reputation in this incident, or I'm guessing in your own view, for good judgment.

Maybe it's a miracle he survived being lowered into the sea over the transom, and then hoisted aboard. Maybe also, it has something to do with the fact that he had the luxury of attaching his line while he was still on deck, and of otherwise equipping himself appropriately for the attempt, whereas you would have had to bring your dinghy almost directly under the ship's plummeting transom, and you didn't have the luxury of bringing with you whatever equipment your ample crew had been able to bring out of their ample stores.

And of course, all you have to go on is the story as told by the captain himself... surely there was a very stressful situation and he might not even remember every detail. It's hard to imagine how lowering a person into the water in that situation and then hoisting them up again could be accurately described as "smooth". Yes, the captain was not obviously injured, but that doesn't mean it was the ideal way to go; maybe (pure speculation) he just told you that it went smoothly so that you wouldn't feel like you had put him in danger.

As for it being his ship and therefore he should know the best way to hoist a person aboard, well, I'm not convinced. You said yourself the Amver-participating crews are not trained, and I'm guessing the captain has not spent a lot of his free time being lowered and hoisted off different parts of his vessel in rough seas, to see which one was best. As for the Kim Jacob having 13 awards, well, those awards are not for rescues, they're a publicity thing for being in the program, which the Kim Jacob has been for 13 years (according to Amver, Saving Lives at Sea Since 1958: Amver ship saves two sailors in dramatic Atlantic rescue).

I have very little sailing experience but I've seen how the stern of a small boat behaves in comparatively benign seas. I wouldn't ever put my body or another vessel under the stern of a larger vessel. It says something that at least some countries' regulations specify that pilot ladders shall be fitted on each side as close to the midships as possible, and that after climbing a short distance, you should be able to get into the ship safely (The Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders and Hoists) Regulations 1987).

It really sucks that after what seems to be to be all the best choices on your part for several years leading up, your boat should have been so cruelly handled in a matter of hours.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> mitiempo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you called for assistance instead of extraction what could a ship have done?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps help me fix the oil cooler problem. And, or, help me fix the stays.
Click to expand...

Wow, are you _serious_???

A large merchant vessel, costing tens of thousands of dollars per day to operate, and sometimes operating on a schedule nowadays calculated in _hours_, is now expected to render mid-ocean assistance to a cruising _sailboat_, to effect an _engine repair_?

At a minimum, any boat headed offshore or across an ocean should be carrying at least one spare shroud or equivalent material to replace a potential failure of the boat's longest shroud&#8230; 200' or more of a rope such as T-900 can be a _really_ nice thing to have aboard to deal with a rigging failure or emergency, IMHO no boat should be heading across an ocean without an assortment of emergency rigging components like Sta-Loks, bulldog clamps and whatever else one might need to attempt to stabilize a compromised rig&#8230; If you didn't have the materials aboard to effect some sort of replacement to the starboard shrouds, and attempt some sort of self-rescue, well... sorry, but that boat was not ready to go to sea...

If you're only gonna read one book between now and your next offshore passage, I'd suggest you make it this one:

Amazon.com: Offshore Sailing: 200 Essential Passagemaking Tips (9780071374248): William Seifert, Daniel Spurr: Books


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> Wow, are you _serious_???
> 
> A large merchant vessel, costing tens of thousands of dollars per day to operate, and sometimes operating on a schedule nowadays calculated in _hours_, is now expected to render mid-ocean assistance to a cruising _sailboat_, to effect an _engine repair_?
> 
> At a minimum, any boat headed offshore or across an ocean should be carrying at least one spare shroud or equivalent material to replace a potential failure of the boat's longest shroud&#8230; 200' or more of a rope such as T-900 can be a _really_ nice thing to have aboard to deal with a rigging failure or emergency, IMHO no boat should be heading across an ocean without an assortment of emergency rigging components like Sta-Loks, bulldog clamps and whatever else one might need to attempt to stabilize a compromised rig&#8230; If you didn't have the materials aboard to effect some sort of replacement to the starboard shrouds, and attempt some sort of self-rescue, well... sorry, but that boat was not ready to go to sea...
> 
> If you're only gonna read one book between now and your next offshore passage, I'd suggest you make it this one:
> 
> Amazon.com: Offshore Sailing: 200 Essential Passagemaking Tips (9780071374248): William Seifert, Daniel Spurr: Books


Looks like a good book- just placed and order. Looks like some good reading,
Regards


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Good point, BTW, I have not heard of any recent pirate attacks (unlike say a year ago where it happened every few days). Is the pirating still bad?


Well, as another cruiser was just murdered about 2 weeks ago - yeah, I'd say it's still pretty bad...

Being a French citizen, not many Americans noticed, however:

PIRATE ATTACK: Another Cruising Sailor Murdered

In related news, the Danish family that had been taken several months ago, were recently released after the payment of a $3 million ransom...

(Otherwise known as "bail", if you prefer the more politically correct term applied to the release of the American hikers just flown out of Iran )


----------



## DougSabbag

AdamLein said:


> As others have pointed out, the captain in question doesn't have a reputation in this incident, or I'm guessing in your own view, for good judgment.
> 
> Maybe it's a miracle he survived being lowered into the sea over the transom, and then hoisted aboard. Maybe also, it has something to do with the fact that he had the luxury of attaching his line while he was still on deck, and of otherwise equipping himself appropriately for the attempt, whereas you would have had to bring your dinghy almost directly under the ship's plummeting transom, and you didn't have the luxury of bringing with you whatever equipment your ample crew had been able to bring out of their ample stores.
> 
> And of course, all you have to go on is the story as told by the captain himself... surely there was a very stressful situation and he might not even remember every detail. It's hard to imagine how lowering a person into the water in that situation and then hoisting them up again could be accurately described as "smooth". Yes, the captain was not obviously injured, but that doesn't mean it was the ideal way to go; maybe (pure speculation) he just told you that it went smoothly so that you wouldn't feel like you had put him in danger.
> 
> As for it being his ship and therefore he should know the best way to hoist a person aboard, well, I'm not convinced. You said yourself the Amver-participating crews are not trained, and I'm guessing the captain has not spent a lot of his free time being lowered and hoisted off different parts of his vessel in rough seas, to see which one was best. As for the Kim Jacob having 13 awards, well, those awards are not for rescues, they're a publicity thing for being in the program, which the Kim Jacob has been for 13 years (according to Amver, Saving Lives at Sea Since 1958: Amver ship saves two sailors in dramatic Atlantic rescue).
> 
> I have very little sailing experience but I've seen how the stern of a small boat behaves in comparatively benign seas. I wouldn't ever put my body or another vessel under the stern of a larger vessel. It says something that at least some countries' regulations specify that pilot ladders shall be fitted on each side as close to the midships as possible, and that after climbing a short distance, you should be able to get into the ship safely (The Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders and Hoists) Regulations 1987).
> 
> It really sucks that after what seems to be to be all the best choices on your part for several years leading up, your boat should have been so cruelly handled in a matter of hours.


Their stern was not plummetting at all. This boat was not pitching, at all.
She is a 900 foot oil tanker. You're correct, you have very little experience with these things.

It was not any miracle that he went down and up off of the stern... so, you're still second guessing, arguing, not believing, convinced that YOU know how it must have been, or would be, huh? Since I WAS THERE, and WAS PERSONALLY SWIMMING AROUND THE KIM JACOB, I think I am the better judge of WHERE SHE WAS LEAST DANGEROUS TO BE AROUND.

But, don't believe me, tell us again how SURE you are that she would have to be pitchpoling like your boat does....

Oh, again, thank you for your review of how much it sucks to have lost the Triumph. Gee, do you think I might be WAY AHEAD OF YOU on that little concept?

Go outside of the ICW someday and look at the tankers moving around. Then when you see they are not pitching, revise all of your suppositions and speculation of miracles, and people covering up dangerous acts, etc.

Until then, excuse yourself for wasting this thread with nothing but speculation based upon what? You looked something up on the internet?

Found where the ladder goes, huh? WOW.

Either believe what happened, or why come to this thread? To tell me how it SHOULD have happened, PER YOUR SUPPOSITION? WHY ?!?!?!


----------



## mitiempo

Doug

I know a ships pilot with many years experience - he and his associates would never board a ship from the stern.

For someone who failed you are pretty cocksure and egotistical I think.

Yes we are sorry for your loss but your attitude isn't what it could be.


----------



## DougSabbag

knothead said:


> If you don't inspect your chainplates, you haven't inspected your rig.
> 
> If your visible rigging components are worn out, you should at the very least thoroughly inspect the hidden ones.
> 
> For what it's worth.


Why did you feel a need to add this concept to this thread?

Haven't I already mentioned what broke? Wouldn't that indicate that the chainplates needed to be replaced?

What is your perceived gain from stating this, NOW obvious wisdom.

Please, now tell us all how you also decree that all oil coolers should be replaced at such and such a frequency!

And. like others felt the need, tell us to only wear such and such a PFD.

Perhaps you should tell us who to cross with, as some have, they should be experienced sailors with a specific title.

And jump right in with how you have to declare any monetary transactions over $10K too! Or else, (according to one paranoid sailor) it is a felony.

My chainplates were behind the interior walls. The last time I had those walls down, about 3 years earlier, the chainplates looked wonderful. Since then, we had sailed from Fort Lauderdale to Boston, actually Boothbay Harbor; plus numerous "day sails" too.

But, I am sure you remove your interior walls, what every 3 months? Oh I can hear you now, at least before a crossing !!

Come over here and I will show you the LISTS of things we had to do in the time previous to our attempted crossing. Long, long lists of many many things. But YOUR list would have included replacing the things which broke for us. Wonderful... so do you want a medal now?

What is your point? YOU would have replaced your chainplates???? FO. uke


----------



## DougSabbag

mitiempo said:


> Doug
> 
> I know a ships pilot with many years experience - he and his associates would never board a ship from the stern.
> 
> For someone who failed you are pretty cocksure and egotistical I think.
> 
> Yes we are sorry for your loss but your attitude isn't what it could be.


"he and his associates" were not there. "he and his associates" were not the Captain of the Kim Jacob. "he and his associates" might have an open mind to REALITY, and adapting to that, or else "he and his associates" are doomed to failures themselves.

Approaching in a pilot boat and approaching by swimming are clearly different.

The reality I experienced no matter how much you people want to redefine it, happened the way it happened. No attitude is going to change that unless you choose an attitude which is based upon speculation vs reality.

I am here representing REALITY as was experienced. The Captain acted as he thought best, and SMOOTHLY WENT DOWN AND UP in a harness into the ocean to try to swim over to get me. He did not choose to go off the side.

But, you are SURE he should have!! Right?! WTF???? Where do YOU get off?

You sure are right, my attitude is going down hill very quickly, now that I am bothering to respond to the MOST EGOTISTICAL bunch of know it alls on this planet. SO EGOTISTICAL that they refuse to accept the reality, because in their personal simulators, on their shoulders, they wouldn't imagine things would go the way that they did.

And you're telling ME how it should / must have been. Come on.


----------



## mitiempo

He probably would have, although I should not speak for him. 

Knothead is a respected rigger.


----------



## mitiempo

Doug

You experienced the reality.

When you decided to tell your story on the internet for the world you opened the series of events leading up to the chainplate failing and the rescue to everyone for opinion and speculation. If you don't want us to second guess anything you or your rescuers did you shouldn't post here. You should just write a book.

Did you have this attitude during the Coast Guard debriefing?


----------



## xymotic

I'm betting the coast guard didn't find the color of the granite all that interesting.


----------



## DougSabbag

mitiempo said:


> Doug
> 
> You experienced the reality.
> 
> When you decided to tell your story on the internet for the world you opened the series of events leading up to the chainplate failing and the rescue to everyone for opinion and speculation. If you don't want us to second guess anything you or your rescuers did you shouldn't post here. You should just write a book.
> 
> Did you have this attitude during the Coast Guard debriefing?


I can tell you that the CG did NOT have the attitude or feel a need to start spouting all the little wisdoms of this vaulted crew on the internet.
"Second guessing" is in conflict with REALITY.

I did NOT START THIS THREAD. Now I am really sorry I provided you arm chair sailors with the fodder to rip someone else for their misfortune.

That YOU would replace this or that, is a MOOT POINT now.

Don't you get that?

There wouldn't be any market for a book about this. No celebrities were involved, no loss of life, nothing too spectacular happened.

And obviously, the few sailors who would read it, intitially to learn something, before reaching the end would already be telling themselves and their friends how this would never happen to them, because they don't have granite counters.......

Or, the even more ludicrous statement that nothing would break for them.

Even if you buy a BRAN NEW BOAT to do a crossing, something could easily break. If your experience does not support that reality than you are not that experienced.

I was employed a few years ago for a company importing multi million dollar boats, (Alaskans) into Fort Lauderdale, and my job was to install a lot of the electronics.

Well, EVERY SINGLE BOAT had "issues" before ever going to a customer.

And, I have been with people who recieved their BRAN NEW BOATS and they had the infamous lists within their first week.

The day that a boat exists which nothing will break on, is a LONG WAY in the future, IF EVER, from here.

But you folks keep on telling yourselves and us how YOU would always do this or that.

AS much as that might be true, what you don't do, will bite you. Better yet, even having NEW chainplates is NO ABSOLUTE guarantee that they still couldn't break.

Now that IS EXPERIENCE talking.

Speculators are just blowing hot air.

That YOU would replace this or that, is a MOOT POINT now.

That YOU would replace this or that, is a MOOT POINT now.

That YOU would replace this or that, is a MOOT POINT now.

OK? got it?


----------



## DougSabbag

xymotic said:


> I'm betting the coast guard didn't find the color of the granite all that interesting.


Nobody discussed that at all.

Nobody asked why I had money with me.

Nobody asked if I had checked the weather.

Nobody suggested that I should have used a different PFD.

Nobody suggested or shared that they would have replaced their chainplates.

Nobody suggested or shared that they would have replaced their oil cooler.

Nobody suggested that the Captain should have come down the side.

Instead they were very interested in WHAT HAPPENED.


----------



## xymotic

DougSabbag said:


> Nobody discussed that at all.
> 
> Nobody asked why I had money with me.
> 
> Nobody asked if I had checked the weather.
> 
> Nobody suggested that I should have used a different PFD.
> 
> Nobody suggested or shared that they would have replaced their chainplates.
> 
> Nobody suggested or shared that they would have replaced their oil cooler.
> 
> Nobody suggested that the Captain should have come down the side.
> 
> Instead they were very interested in WHAT HAPPENED.


Yeah, well see there's the problem right there. F'n idiots. *I* woulda belittled you for having granite that was _obviously_ 4mm too thick. WTF were you thinking putting the extra weight of 4mm too thick granite in!?!?

**that's sarcasm folks, in case it wasn't clear enough**

Also, Doug I do give you a great deal of latitude having to deal with a spouse, AND with the information you had at the time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that you were actually in two way radio comms with the USCG, right? Or did you set off an EPIRB?

Either way I can see how one thing leads to another in a situation like this. In fact I had it happen to me recently on a much smaller scale. I got in a jam, I had an easy out so I took it instead of methodically exploring **ALL** options. It's human nature and as you yourself have pointed out there were things to be learned. unlike this thread, in that case everybody contributed and it became a fairly useful discussion.

OF COURSE you could have done this or that differently. I wish I'd picked a different lunch today and I could have avoided an unpleasant 'experience' in the bathroom.


----------



## mitiempo

Every boat, new or used, requires a thorough going over at best, a refit at worst, before an offshore trip such as the one you attempted. 

Whether a rigging component, part of the engine and its systems, the electrical, steering, water supply, or the hull and deck structure itself is concerned, all have to be checked and checked again for possible issues. 

If you had succeeded, this thread wouldn't exist, but you didn't.

Under the circumstances, did you expect all of us to just nod and agree with you?


----------



## DougSabbag

mitiempo said:


> He probably would have, although I should not speak for him.
> 
> Knothead is a respected rigger.


But what would he (by any chance) NOT check or do? 
Anything at all? For instance, is it just barely possible that he would NOT fully check:

A tank (fuel or water) for rupturing???????
The block for cracks??????
The rudder skeg for cracks???????
ALL ELECTRICAL WIRES for ABSOLUTELY NO CHAFFING??????????
ALL LP tank lines for NO CRACKS????????
The keel bolts???????
That ALL ELECTRICAL devices do not have any corrosion which could lead to any electrical fires?
That ALL SPARS are without any doubt fracture free?

I am sure he would not check ALL those things. Yet any one of them COULD spell the end to an otherwise fine voyage.

We all have to accept some risk when we leave the dock.

Even the NASA Shuttle Columbia, BLEW UP, after millions of man hours checking EVERYTHING, and BILLIONS Of dollars of equipement, etc.

These things happen. DO NOT TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD HAVE DONE SUCH AND SUCH.

Want to hear me say that **** too?

OK, I will always check my chainplates before any cruise.
I will always check my oil cooler before any cruise.
I will always check my block for cracks, my cylinder head for cracked valve seats, my water and fuel tanks for any cracks, my LP tank lines for any cracks, my rudder skeg for any cracks, my rudder cables for any frays, my rigging both standing and running for any problems, and test their actual stretching capacities vs. their specs....

And on and on and on you could go. But, REALLY? Come on.

Look, if you are absolutely religious about checking this or that, great. But do not tell me about your perfection; not here, not now.

I will never believe that ANY boat is absolutely 100% error free. 
100% guaranteed not to break ANYTHING.
Doesn't exist.

But for THIS thread, that is not the question, or the point.

This thread is about what happened, not YOUR perfection.


----------



## DougSabbag

mitiempo said:


> Every boat, new or used, requires a thorough going over at best, a refit at worst, before an offshore trip such as the one you attempted.
> 
> Whether a rigging component, part of the engine and its systems, the electrical, steering, water supply, or the hull and deck structure itself is concerned, all have to be checked and checked again for possible issues.
> 
> If you had succeeded, this thread wouldn't exist, but you didn't.
> 
> Under the circumstances, did you expect all of us to just nod and agree with you?


And who made you God? How can you be so absolutely **** sure that given YOUR method of checking a vessel, nothing could go wrong!?

We DID a refit. COMPLETE. But, now comes the issue. At what point were specific things done?! Apparently we should have done the motor last, instead of first, so that the oil cooler would have been new in 2011 instead of new in 2005. Or instead of restoring the cabins 3 years agao, which provided the chainplate inspection, that should also have been done last???? Oh wait a minute... you can't do everything last can you? 

By the time you have checked EVERYTHING, it is time to check AGAIN.

Following that, you would never leave the dock.

Have you NEVER had anything go wrong in your boat(s)? EVER?
Nothing ever broke because you checked everything, knew it's life expectancy so well, NOTHING EVER?????

Come on. Get off the Happy Horse ****.


----------



## DougSabbag

xymotic said:


> Yeah, well see there's the problem right there. F'n idiots. *I* woulda belittled you for having granite that was _obviously_ 4mm too thick. WTF were you thinking putting the extra weight of 4mm too thick granite in!?!?
> 
> **that's sarcasm folks, in case it wasn't clear enough**
> 
> Also, Doug I do give you a great deal of latitude having to deal with a spouse, AND with the information you had at the time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that you were actually in two way radio comms with the USCG, right? Or did you set off an EPIRB?
> 
> Either way I can see how one thing leads to another in a situation like this. In fact I had it happen to me recently on a much smaller scale. I got in a jam, I had an easy out so I took it instead of methodically exploring **ALL** options. It's human nature and as you yourself have pointed out there were things to be learned. unlike this thread, in that case everybody contributed and it became a fairly useful discussion.
> 
> OF COURSE you could have done this or that differently. I wish I'd picked a different lunch today and I could have avoided an unpleasant 'experience' in the bathroom.


We had rented an Iridium Sat phone. So yes we could call anyone anywhere anytime.

Thank you for "seeing" how one thing can lead to another, and admitting that EVEN you have experienced failures....

But, whether you can or can not admit to these realities, they are nevertheless realities. Most of the time, (I am 55 and have never had anything anywhere near this level of loss.... NEVER LOST ANY BOAT AT ALL, or even close), we basically check what each of us suspects and or knows to be questionable. OF course a "rigger" will check the rigging a tad more than a diesel mechanic, or an electrician, etc.

And usually we catch our big issues before they bite us too bad. Or we recover from them without any insurance claims.

But, sometimes, even to those of us who have worked our asses to the ground, for hundreds and hundreds of hours, sometimes something catches us by surprise. And even rarer, at the VERY WORST TIME.

On July 27th 2011, that happened to me, to my boat, and to my wife.
And we sufferred a loss. But, unlike the astronauts in the shuttle we all came through alive. So, did we still do a better job than they did at preparations??  Some might have to say yes.

But do not tell NASA what you would have done. How you would have added extra glue to those heat shield panels.... And especially do not tell that to any of the dead astronauts should you ever meet up with them.

Because I can guarantee they will tell you to FO.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag:778064 said:


> Until then, excuse yourself for wasting this thread


Well, throughout my comment I gave you the benefit of the doubt, so I might as well continue, and chalk up your extreme rudeness to a result of the stress of all you're been through, not to mention a couple of days of arguing on the internet. I will in no way assume that it is representative of your regular nature, nor will I take your unnecessarily defensive attitude as indication that there is more going on here than meets the eye.

Thanks for educating me about the behavior of large ships. In return, you may be interested to learn that BC is nowhere near the ICW. But we do have great cruising grounds (albeit lots of freighter traffic) and if your adventures ever take you to the west coast, I hope you'll visit.


----------



## mitiempo

Doug

You keep mentioning Columbia. They had an investigation and every single item was discussed and dissected. That is how the breed is improved. That is how people learn - from mistakes made in the past, either their own or those of others. 

And yes, sometimes whoever made the mistake can get defensive. But it should be done. To learn it really has to be done.


----------



## DougSabbag

AdamLein said:


> Well, throughout my comment I gave you the benefit of the doubt, so I might as well continue, and chalk up your extreme rudeness to a result of the stress of all you're been through, not to mention a couple of days of arguing on the internet. I will in no way assume that it is representative of your regular nature, nor will I take your unnecessarily defensive attitude as indication that there is more going on here than meets the eye.
> 
> Thanks for educating me about the behavior of large ships. In return, you may be interested to learn that BC is nowhere near the ICW. But we do have great cruising grounds (albeit lots of freighter traffic) and if your adventures ever take you to the west coast, I hope you'll visit.


Sir, I do apologize for my rudeness.

I should not be replying when people have only accomplished pissing me off.

I lived in the San Francisco area throughout the 1980s. That is where I learned my computer programming skills.

Perhaps, as much as you did not deserve a rude response, it might be accepted that, as you suspected, I have been piled on here, on top of a much more stressful life than usual. So, I might be described "on edge".

Therefore, when someone tries ( from my point of view) to tell me what they are sure is the reality, and that is in conflict with my experience 1000 miles East of Boston, it is VERY frustrating.

I should be a bigger man and just sign off and allow all the "experts" here to tell each other how they would never be in this situation, or how they would have checked all these things, and how their boats don't fail, nor do they ever make any erroneous decisions.

So, if I can't be civil, I won't reply at all.

(if I don't reply to something you guys can tell would lite me up, just know that I am saying FO dude, go F yourself. Just know it, and that will save me being rude or crude.)


----------



## DougSabbag

mitiempo said:


> Doug
> 
> You keep mentioning Columbia. They had an investigation and every single item was discussed and dissected. That is how the breed is improved. That is how people learn - from mistakes made in the past, either their own or those of others.
> 
> And yes, sometimes whoever made the mistake can get defensive. But it should be done. To learn it really has to be done.


OK, you saw the list. Make like NASA and CHECK EVERYTHING / always.

BUT, to tell the survivor that he should have acquired a different PFD or that he should have changed the oil cooler... etc., doesn't that seem to you to be a bit of a moot point, to the SURVIVOR?

And then NASA could replay the tapes. However, in this / my case I have people telling me how much the Kim Jacob was pitching, such that the Captain must be a miracle to have lived through what he did.

Would NASA have made totally erroneous accusations to the survivors?
Would NASA make it a them against us adversarial conversation?

No, they wouldn't and neither should that happen here.


----------



## chrisncate

The OP:


> Details are still sketchy, but S/V Triumph, a Gulfstar 50 ketch that was based at my marina, has been lost somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. The couple on board was rescued by a passing cargo vessel and is safe and unharmed, but lost everything they own. They departed for Europe on 7/10 from Boston. All we know is they had some trouble with the headsail which they thought they fixed, but ended up losing the sail, and the mast was also questionable at that point. They eventually ended up taking on water and abandoned ship on 7/27. That's literally all the details I have.


Well, at least we have more info now..


----------



## Minnewaska

For sure, if I ever lose my boat and all my belonging, I won't bare my soul here. Doug jumped in to provide a first hand account that we had no right to receive. In fact, many beg to hear these. Then, many proceed to document why no one should ever be as forthcoming as Doug. A real shame.

Doug, I hear your pain. It's been provoked, but also predictable. You've been around long enough to know the phases of deep loss....... Denial then Anger then Morning then Recovery. You know where you are on the curve and it's fully understandable. I wish you a speedy recovery, my friend. Thanks again for sharing something we can all learn by.


----------



## imagine2frolic

Well Doug it looks like things didn't go as you suspected. Either here, or at sea. I applaud your honesty in relating your side of the story. It's the nature of the internet to second guess, and question. Some can do it tastefully, and some can't. Unfortunately you yourself have not taken kindly to the second guessing, or criticism. This is throwing fuel on the fire.

I understand, because I am writing a blog, and last month while leaving Panama for Hawaii my unknown crew turned out to be a disaster. His Southern Ocean sailing experience was a wee bit embelished. He caused so much grief, and physical damage to the boat. After being 700 miles west of Costa Rica I made the decision to turn around to get him off the boat. I was berated by some for writing the truth of why I made my decision. You need to have a thick skin here. BEST WISHES with your boat of the future.......*i2f*


----------



## knothead

Sorry you took offense at my post Doug. I was afraid you would but I was hoping that you would see that my purpose was only to emphasize how important it is to consider the condition of your chainplates. I was hoping that others, who may be planning to regig their boats or about to undertake a passage would be able to learn from your experience. (and mine). 
The purpose of my post was not to second guess what you did but to hopefully prevent the same type of thing from happening to someone else. 
Perhaps I should have just started another thread.
Good luck in the future. Sorry again that you thought I was picking on you. I wasn't. I understand what you did and why you did it. 

By the way people. You can have x-rays taken of inaccessible or built in parts. Probably not inexpensive, but surely cheaper than replacing a boat.


----------



## JonEisberg

GeorgeB said:


> Knothead, I have a couple of questions. What do you think about those Amsteel emergency stays I see marketed around?


Well, I won't presume to answer on behalf of a professional rigger, but here's my layman's opinion...

I presume you're referring to the Emergency Shroud Kit like the one from Colligo? They make absolutely beautiful stuff, their free-flying furlers, for example, are pure works of art, very elegant bits of gear...

However, the emergency shroud kit seems ridiculously overpriced, to me... You can easily configure something that will perform the same function yourself, using ordinary thimbles, and so on...

Ropes like Amsteel and Vectran-12 are absurdly easy to splice, there's no reason anyone can't make up their own spare kit for a fraction of the cost of the pre-made ones I've seen...

This new generation of high-modulus rope is one of the best developments for sailors in recent years, and anyone planning to go places on a boat can't possibly have too much of it stashed away... It really has eliminated the need to carry that big coil of spare wire rope in your lazarette, IMHO...


----------



## knothead

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I won't presume to answer on behalf of a professional rigger, but here's my layman's opinion...
> 
> I presume you're referring to the Emergency Shroud Kit like the one from Colligo? They make absolutely beautiful stuff, their free-flying furlers, for example, are pure works of art, very elegant bits of gear...
> 
> However, the emergency shroud kit seems ridiculously overpriced, to me... You can easily configure something that will perform the same function yourself, using ordinary thimbles, and so on...
> 
> Ropes like Amsteel and Vectran-12 are absurdly easy to splice, there's no reason anyone can't make up their own spare kit for a fraction of the cost of the pre-made ones I've seen...
> 
> This new generation of high-modulus rope is one of the best developments for sailors in recent years, and anyone planning to go places on a boat can't possibly have too much of it stashed away... It really has eliminated the need to carry that big coil of spare wire rope in your lazarette, IMHO...


Oops, I missed that question. However, I don't think I could have answered it better.

One last thought. There are different reasons for starting or adding to a thread. Doug, I presumed that the reason that you chose to be so open with us in relating your unfortunate experience was because you were interested in helping others learn from it. Perhaps the reason was that you just needed to vent or just needed a little sympathy. There's nothing wrong with that. But please don't get upset with others when they guess the former. After all, you never said otherwise.


----------



## Maine Sail

mitiempo said:


> Every boat, new or used, requires a thorough going over at best, a refit at worst, before an offshore trip such as the one you attempted.
> 
> Whether a rigging component, part of the engine and its systems, the electrical, steering, water supply, or the hull and deck structure itself is concerned, all have to be checked and checked again for possible issues.
> 
> If you had succeeded, this thread wouldn't exist, but you didn't.
> 
> Under the circumstances, did you expect all of us to just nod and agree with you?


That is just totally ridiculous. You 100% can NOT predict failures to 100% certainty. Anyone who thinks they can is in total denial.

I have seen and can point to multiple examples and catastrophic failures of BRAND NEW equipment. I deal with "manufacturer defects" on a fairly regular basis.

Like a friend who's brand new Yanmar, less than 300 hours, threw a piston clip and destroyed the engine. Of course this was his fault, right? He replaced this engine to go cruising.

Or a customer with a brand new bank of Rolls batteries that had an internal weld failure and killed the entire bank in just a few weeks. Or the boom goose-neck that failed on a brand new vessel during delivery. Steering failures, rigging failures etc. I have seen them all, even when brand new. New or re-fit is no guarantee of failure free.

Hell our own EPIRB was dead and it was not until I sent it in for a new battery that they notified me it was inoperable. The second one was taken out by a lightning / EMP and I am, going to guess I should have "known better" about that like Doug...?

Earlier this year our club was practicing MOB drills and one inflatable life jackets failed to fill "automatically" as they are intended to.

I've also watched a BRAND NEW, very expensive, carbon fiber spar fail at the spreader. I've seen a spar on a two year old boat split vertically and another buckle & dent at the boom vang. I have seen booms snap too and not all were old or beyond their useful life span.

I suppose all of these events would have been Doug's fault too? Should that carbon spar have been replaced before each sail?

This thread, with the exception of a few, is couch sailing second guessers at their best... Sorry Doug for the immature treatment you have been given here. It is, of course, easy to second guess sitting on your couch..

This thread is really causing me to re-think my time spent here. The immature posts and child like attitudes here are sad to say the least.

Like you I have been in some NASTY situations and will know never to share ANY of it here with the know-it-all, couch sailing, behavior of those who've never "been there"... I lived to tell but we made many decisions that I would have done differently when I had the benefit of "hindsight"..

Sad really.... I can begin to see why so many good contributors have left SN..


----------



## dmcMaine

DougSabbag said:


> OK, you saw the list. Make like NASA and CHECK EVERYTHING / always.
> 
> BUT, to tell the survivor that he should have acquired a different PFD or that he should have changed the oil cooler... etc., doesn't that seem to you to be a bit of a moot point, to the SURVIVOR?
> 
> And then NASA could replay the tapes. However, in this / my case I have people telling me how much the Kim Jacob was pitching, such that the Captain must be a miracle to have lived through what he did.
> 
> Would NASA have made totally erroneous accusations to the survivors?
> Would NASA make it a them against us adversarial conversation?
> 
> No, they wouldn't and neither should that happen here.


Well, NASA might not, but the congressional inquiry is a whole different ball of wax.  Then the poor scientist who penned the (ignored by superiors) warning memo "Heat shield tiles could fail" becomes the scapegoat.

But that is all beside the point. How about a better comparison: Jessica Watson? If you recall, before her solo nonstop circumnavigation she took her S/V Pink Lady out for a first solo sea trial and managed to collide with a merchant vessel (while sleeping). Was her trip examined every which way but Sunday? Yep! By her, her team, her parents, the Australian govt, and every single person following her on the internet. Was the survivor second-guessed and accused from here to kingdom come? You betcha! Was she actually glad that people were so harsh on her? Actually (according to her book) she was. She still intended to attempt the trip, and she was determined to find and squish any mistakes she had made. So she took the criticism, she repaired Pink Lady and she adjusted her approach to solo sailing.

Examining every possible different decision is a moot point for a survivor only if that survivor has no plans to try again, or has no intentions of learning from the experience. From your early posts, you clearly do intend to try again. So anything that contributed to your current situation should be examined (and no, I don't mean the granite countertops!). Sometimes that is difficult to do. It is easy to get defensive about it. But everything from preparations, to system redundancy, to effecting repairs at sea, financial risk, fatigue management, crew dynamics, and rescue procedures needs to be examined so that next time your chances of success are even higher.

Talking about your experience on a forum like this can be rough, I know. It is hardly a cathartic activity.  But it can help you next time, and it can certainly help anyone else here who might be considering a trans-Atlantic journey in the future.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> Sir, I do apologize for my rudeness.
> 
> I should not be replying when people have only accomplished pissing me off.
> 
> I lived in the San Francisco area throughout the 1980s. That is where I learned my computer programming skills.
> 
> Perhaps, as much as you did not deserve a rude response, it might be accepted that, as you suspected, I have been piled on here, on top of a much more stressful life than usual. So, I might be described "on edge".
> 
> Therefore, when someone tries ( from my point of view) to tell me what they are sure is the reality, and that is in conflict with my experience 1000 miles East of Boston, it is VERY frustrating.
> 
> I should be a bigger man and just sign off and allow all the "experts" here to tell each other how they would never be in this situation, or how they would have checked all these things, and how their boats don't fail, nor do they ever make any erroneous decisions.
> 
> So, if I can't be civil, I won't reply at all.
> 
> (if I don't reply to something you guys can tell would lite me up, just know that I am saying FO dude, go F yourself. Just know it, and that will save me being rude or crude.)


Dude, there are always some that will gleefully hammer on people who've had some misfortune to make themselves look better. These people are clearly d1cks. Just blow them off and don't respond.

Then there are others, good people, who will question what happened from a position of experience. Knothead is a prime example of one of these. This guy is pure gold Doug. No doubt. You should listen to him.

Then there are others, good people, who will question what happened from a position of simple learning, going over the scenario in their minds and asking "what if...X". It's not meant to belittle you - it's just meant to think it through.

I would offer that most of what you see around here is 2 and 3. The problem is that mixed in with these good people are a couple of 1s and the noise level gets pretty high pretty quick because they are usually the first on the scene. It actually used to be WAY worse around here than it is now in this regard. So consider yourself lucky.

The way you can tell who's who is their follow up after you rip them a new one. Do they keep ratcheting it up? Or do they give you some leeway?

My advice is to chill out and blow off the 1s. We will help you handle them...unless you get so pissed that you become one of them (heh-heh). Rest assured, the rest of us just want to learn something - and some of that learning involves mistakes that were made - not knowingly, not through some outright negligence as you point out, not that could have been completely foreseen as you point out - but were made.

The bottom line is you're absolutely right. The ones who spout perfection are the ones who either don't sail at all, or are next in the water when their perfection sinks around them.


----------



## DougSabbag

Maine Sail said:


> That is just totally ridiculous. You 100% can NOT predict failures to 100% certainty. Anyone who thinks they can is in total denial.
> 
> I have seen and can point to MULTIPLE examples and catastrophic failures of BRAND NEW equipment. I deal with "manufacturer defects" on a failry regular basis.
> 
> Like a friend who's brand new Yanmar, less than 300 hours, threw a piston clip and destroyed the engine. He replaced this engine to go cruising. Or a customer with a brand new bank of Rolls batteries that had an internal weld failure and killed the entire bank in just a few weeks. Or the boom goose-neck that failed on a brand new vessel during delivery. Steering failures, rigging failures etc. I have seen them all even when brand new.
> 
> Hell our own EPIRB was DOA and it was not until I sent it in for a new battery that they notified me it was inoperable. The second one was taken out by a lightning / EPM and I am, going to guess I should have "known better" about that like Doug...?
> 
> Earlier this year our club was practicing MOB drills and one inflatable life jackets failed to fill "automatically" as they are intended to.
> 
> I've also watched a BRAND NEW, very expensive, carbon fiber spar fail at the spreader. I've seen a spar on a two year old boat split vertically and another buckle & dent at the boom vang. I have seen booms snap too and not all were old or beyond their useful life span.
> 
> I suppose all of these events would have been Doug's fault too?
> 
> This thread, with the exception of a few, is nothing but couch sailors at their best... Sorry Doug for the immature treatment you have been given here. This thread is causing me to re-think my time spent here as I truly do not want to be associated with attitudes like I have seen in this thread.
> 
> Like you I have been in some NASTY situations and will know never to share ANY of it here with the know-it-all, couch sailing, behavior of those who've never "been there"... I lived to tell but we made many decisions that I would have done differently when I had the benefit of "hindsight"..
> 
> Sad really.... I can begin to see why so many good contributors have left SN..


FINALLY!!!! SOMEONE GETS IT! THANK YOU!

To all the others who want to mention that I should have changed my chainplates and my oil cooler (which should be f__king obvious in my FIRST post), get OFF of your soap boxes!

You know, all you arm chair sailors NEVER HAVE MENTIONED checking the thru hulls!!!!

Well, I did. I removed all 13 of them! Replaced about half of them, and restored the rest. Rebedded, replaced many pads, etc., etc.

We can only do so much, and we can only do it so often, BUT, even with BRAN NEW thru hulls, and even an entirely bran new boat, things still FAIL, and often at the WORST possible times.

As far as a learning opportunity, as I said, anyone who read AT THE BEGINNING of my posting what went wrong, should (just like I realized when they broke) that it sucks if these break.

And it sucks if a thru hull fails too!!! And it sucks if any electrical fires are started by just one short!!!! And we could go on and on and on about what would suck if it happened in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

So, for anyone trying to learn from this, the thing to learn is that you have to do your best at checking, replacing, restoring, as much as you can, BUT, no matter how much work you do, when you leave the dock, it is always on a wing and a prayer.

Because even a billionaire with all the teams of mechanics, riggers, ship rights, electricians, plumbers, etc., can NOT GUARANTEE that NOTHING WILL FAIL.

Just do your best at staying ahead of the failures, and perhaps having as many spares as you can afford onboard is another idea.

But if one more person tells me I should have changed my f__king chainplates I think I will track you down and shove one where the sun don't shine.

Got it?


----------



## DougSabbag

dmcMaine said:


> Well, NASA might not, but the congressional inquiry is a whole different ball of wax.  Then the poor scientist who penned the (ignored by superiors) warning memo "Heat shield tiles could fail" becomes the scapegoat.
> 
> But that is all beside the point. How about a better comparison: Jessica Watson? If you recall, before her solo nonstop circumnavigation she took her S/V Pink Lady out for a first solo sea trial and managed to collide with a merchant vessel (while sleeping). Was her trip examined every which way but Sunday? Yep! By her, her team, her parents, the Australian govt, and every single person following her on the internet. Was the survivor second-guessed and accused from here to kingdom come? You betcha! Was she actually glad that people were so harsh on her? Actually (according to her book) she was. She still intended to attempt the trip, and she was determined to find and squish any mistakes she had made. So she took the criticism, she repaired Pink Lady and she adjusted her approach to solo sailing.
> 
> Examining every possible different decision is a moot point for a survivor only if that survivor has no plans to try again, or has no intentions of learning from the experience. From your early posts, you clearly do intend to try again. So anything that contributed to your current situation should be examined (and no, I don't mean the granite countertops!). Sometimes that is difficult to do. It is easy to get defensive about it. But everything from preparations, to system redundancy, to effecting repairs at sea, financial risk, fatigue management, crew dynamics, and rescue procedures needs to be examined so that next time your chances of success are even higher.
> 
> Talking about your experience on a forum like this can be rough, I know. It is hardly a cathartic activity.  But it can help you next time, and it can certainly help anyone else here who might be considering a trans-Atlantic journey in the future.


But telling me that I should have changed my chainplates IS NOT NEWS.
That was painfully obvious the second it happened.

Telling me I should have used a different PFD IS NOT NEWS.
I knew it within 10 minutes of my near drowning experience.

What CAN be "learned" from this experience, because you can NOT guarantee zero failures of the ship, is WHEN TO CALL THE CG. And, that YOU should manage the actions of the "rescuer", as best you can especially if you see they are about to do something REALLY REALLY UNHEALTHY.

Those are the areas of the experience I have shared which CAN be learned to people's future advantage.

Otherwise, to listen to the Monday morning "experts", all chainplates should be replaced. Which is NOT going to guarantee that even NEW ONES will not fail. In fact if you make any errors installing the new ones, like torquing them incorrectly, you might well have introduced a failure point where there was NONE.

Do your best at keeping your boat ship shape... but what you can learn from ME, is when NOT to call the CG. And things along THOSE lines.

Have a nice day.


----------



## DougSabbag

knothead said:


> Oops, I missed that question. However, I don't think I could have answered it better.
> 
> One last thought. There are different reasons for starting or adding to a thread. Doug, I presumed that the reason that you chose to be so open with us in relating your unfortunate experience was because you were interested in helping others learn from it. Perhaps the reason was that you just needed to vent or just needed a little sympathy. There's nothing wrong with that. But please don't get upset with others when they guess the former. After all, you never said otherwise.


Yes, I hoped to help others with some insight and experience from my errors.

My errors were NOT that I did not change the chainplates. That is NOT what to learn here. Because if you take that path you eventually get to the reality that even a NEW BOAT can fail.

What there IS TO LEARN from me, is WHEN NOT TO CALL THE CG.
And, to manage your rescuer if they are about to make things WORSE.

We could also explore the dynamics of crew selection.....

BUT, do not dwell on what broke. Something ALWAYS breaks. Telling me I should have replaced the things which broke is so stupidly obvious I don't know how you can type it with a straight face. Well, nobody is seeing your faces, BUT, you get the point.

If we took 1000 BRAN NEW BOATS across the Atlantic today, we would have a huge list of the equipment failures which occurred during their cruises.
You can NOT avoid that using mankind's devices as they exist today.

What you can do is learn best how to deal with failures out to sea, especially from those who have done it.

And I have admitted that I did NOT deal with mine correctly.

Got it?


----------



## DougSabbag

knothead said:


> Sorry you took offense at my post Doug. I was afraid you would but I was hoping that you would see that my purpose was only to emphasize how important it is to consider the condition of your chainplates. I was hoping that others, who may be planning to regig their boats or about to undertake a passage would be able to learn from your experience. (and mine).
> The purpose of my post was not to second guess what you did but to hopefully prevent the same type of thing from happening to someone else.
> Perhaps I should have just started another thread.
> Good luck in the future. Sorry again that you thought I was picking on you. I wasn't. I understand what you did and why you did it.
> 
> By the way people. You can have x-rays taken of inaccessible or built in parts. Probably not inexpensive, but surely cheaper than replacing a boat.


Look, we all appreciate someone who knows what they are doing, like this guy. And given tons of money, (XRAYS OF MY BOAT?!?!), this could possibly be the sort of repairman you might want on your team.

But, sir, we are wll past the ugly reality that the chainplates broke. And by telling people that they should replace their chainplates is NOT A GUARANTEE that they won't have any chainplate problems. 
In fact if 1000 sailboats changed their chainplates today, would you care to provide YOUR estimate of what percentage would IMMEDIETLY have chainplate problems?

I am also not saying to never replace chainplates. I am saying that is NOT what to learn from my experience. Sure, go check all your chainplates.

But, for those who focus on their chainplates, they might instead have an electrical fire! Or, a thru hull failure!!!! Or, or, or, or, .... that list will NEVER END. Equipment failure can not be prevented with 100% success.

Do your best at maintenance, BUT what I can provide uniquely, is the first hand experience of when not to call the CG. 
And, what can go wrong when a 900 foot tanker and a 50 foot sailboat meet.
And crew dynamics.....

But, I am sure you are real good at rigging, and that is very nice. 
Have a nice day.


----------



## junkrig

DougSabbag said:


> ... snip ... We all have to accept some risk when we leave the dock....


Or when we stay home on the couch... inactivity is clearly more dangerous than cruising.

Or when we drive to work. Surely I don't even have to tell anyone that.

LIGHTEN UP EVERYBODY!!!!!


----------



## Visitor1111

DougSabbag said:


> Perhaps help me fix the oil cooler problem.
> 
> Luckily, after forcing us into the ocean, they did pull us up to their deck.
> 
> And they were all very nice to us. (see the picture of the crew and us on their deck in my "album" attached to my profile.
> 
> We DID thank them profusely. So, don't get in a tizzy that we wern't "thankful".
> 
> uke


Above just confirmed what kind of the Captain you are&#8230;&#8230;.smiling but not thinking so&#8230;what for???? You sad that they were polite to you&#8230;.why then you had to smile instead to refuse to take picture with the people who "almost cost your life"&#8230;sounds strange to me&#8230;.. To be polite is normal culture when you have the visitors on board&#8230; Did their politeness give you the strength to spit on them now???

Had to return again not for the reason that I have found this pages interesting but for the purpose of protecting title of the Captain from the one using it and accusing others trying to cover their own mistakes&#8230;.such ones are not deserving of having it!!!!

Forced you into ocean????? But you have posted that you pushed your wife off the boat after securing her for tanker line and later you jumped into the sea after they came back for you securing yourself with tanker's line as well&#8230;..that what you had posted here&#8230;

Why you accepted assistance when they returned to you after first bad approach if you find them not competent to render it???? You shouldn't take that line and stay on your boat as it looks to me that Triumph was not so badly damaged as you are telling us if is true what you posted that it was transmitting signal for couple of days after she was abandoned&#8230;.or their help was really needed&#8230;

Reading all think that those people saved you and the way you address to them in you posts is something that no Captain should do&#8230; For sure that you had you mouth shut while you were there with them otherwise you wouldn't make picture with them smiling.

Now just some of many small details which are not holding water and you had posted them:

-	going under water to amaze tanker's crew. 
Not wise at all!!! In such waves according to normal practice and instructions they had to have you in sight at all the time in order to bring such big ship close to you and recover you from the water. With extra look out posted on the highest parts of the vessel it is very hard to keep and spot man in the water in calm sea and not even in such rough weather as it was there&#8230;. So I think that your diving was not helping them at all&#8230;..

-	you had presented so many details about positions of your own and vessel, crew activities while you were into the sea fighting for your life (vomiting under the water) which are not so clear to me. On one of the picture you posted there is lifebuoy so close to you. Why didn't you grab it if you was so aware of the situation and able to amaze crew by going under the water????? Looks that that you joke with them or the situation was quite different than you described&#8230;

Tips referring to operation:

To lower lifeboats in such weather??? Nonsense&#8230;. Boats on such vessel are about 6 tons weight and supported by two gravity davits&#8230; Quite far different from the small one presented on the movie where passenger vessel rescue guy from the boat&#8230;.. To send down minimum rescue crew of 4-5 people in such waves&#8230;..no tanker Master would do that as than he would have them in jeopardy as well!!!!

Stern approach???? Basic of the ship handling&#8230;. Leeside and closest midship as possible&#8230;

Check the movie posted by one of the guy recently when passenger vessel rescue guy from his boat. Looks to me more or less like pictures you have posted. Prior approach with main mast, after without (broken).

It would be much better if you share with us what actually went wrong from departure until you placed distress call as looking from my place based on distance you sailed would be great story for everyone to learn&#8230;.if you didn't.

Leave for your wife to write the book about and show us how you managed to instruct tanker's crew how to rescue you and how bad they were comparing to you.

Meanwhile I have short story for you:

Little boy was standing on the street and crying. When asked by old guy for the reason he is crying sad that he lost one dollar. Old man pulled one from his packet and gave it to little boy, but he start crying even more. Surprised old man asked him what is wrong and little boy answered: "If I didn't lose first one now I will have two"&#8230;.

You started this story and there is still space for you to share full story with us since beginning of you journey and help all people sailing to avoid dialing CG and passing ship's otherwise leave this post and quit "sinking" deeper than you are as there is no rescue except full true story to tell!!!!!!!

I am not blaming you for any mistakes made but for the way you selected and presented to us story partly only and the way you want but for the way you addressed to people that saved you admitted or not&#8230;.but the fact that you are here able to write about it showing that they did help you.

Finally hope that you and your story will not stop other honorable people sailing high seas to render assistance to others when required&#8230;&#8230;even if they will be treated as the tanker crew was treated on this post by you&#8230;

Wish you and your wife long and healthy life!!!!!!!!!


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> Sad really.... I can begin to see why so many good contributors have left SN..


I absolutely agree with everything else you wrote. Except this. Give me a break. If you don't actually think what's happening in this thread by a few people was not WAY worse just a little while back - you're very wrong.

(PS - I won't discuss it any more in this thread - but that's reality.)


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> So, for anyone trying to learn from this, the thing to learn is that you have to do your best at checking, replacing, restoring, as much as you can, BUT, no matter how much work you do, when you leave the dock, it is always on a wing and a prayer.


+ freakin' 1


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> But, sir, we are wll past the ugly reality that the chainplates broke. And by telling people that they should replace their chainplates is NOT A GUARANTEE that they won't have any chainplate problems.
> In fact if 1000 sailboats changed their chainplates today, would you care to provide YOUR estimate of what percentage would IMMEDIETLY have chainplate problems?


I don't agree with you in this one. Way too hyperbolic in your logic. If, to Knot's point, I'm re-rigging my boat and know that all of it is 30 year-old rigging gear, there is no doubt that, again to Knot's point, changing out ALL of that 30-year-old gear is better than changing out only some of it.

That's just the truth of it.

Does it mean that having changed all of it there is now a 0% chance any of that will fail? Of course not. But the chances are inarguably higher than if I mix new and old gear - especially in areas of serious stress. So let's be reasonable here.

More to the point, does knowing this mean I would actually _do it_? Not at all. There are all kinds of things on my boat that I know could/should be done better. And I'm gambling. It's a matter of money, time, and one's willingness to accept risk.


----------



## CBinRI

Maine Sail said:


> That is just totally ridiculous. You 100% can NOT predict failures to 100% certainty. Anyone who thinks they can is in total denial.
> 
> I have seen and can point to multiple examples and catastrophic failures of BRAND NEW equipment. I deal with "manufacturer defects" on a fairly regular basis.
> 
> Like a friend who's brand new Yanmar, less than 300 hours, threw a piston clip and destroyed the engine. Of course this was his fault, right? He replaced this engine to go cruising.
> 
> Or a customer with a brand new bank of Rolls batteries that had an internal weld failure and killed the entire bank in just a few weeks. Or the boom goose-neck that failed on a brand new vessel during delivery. Steering failures, rigging failures etc. I have seen them all, even when brand new. New or re-fit is no guarantee of failure free.
> 
> Hell our own EPIRB was dead and it was not until I sent it in for a new battery that they notified me it was inoperable. The second one was taken out by a lightning / EMP and I am, going to guess I should have "known better" about that like Doug...?
> 
> Earlier this year our club was practicing MOB drills and one inflatable life jackets failed to fill "automatically" as they are intended to.
> 
> I've also watched a BRAND NEW, very expensive, carbon fiber spar fail at the spreader. I've seen a spar on a two year old boat split vertically and another buckle & dent at the boom vang. I have seen booms snap too and not all were old or beyond their useful life span.
> 
> I suppose all of these events would have been Doug's fault too? Should that carbon spar have been replaced before each sail?
> 
> This thread, with the exception of a few, is couch sailing second guessers at their best... Sorry Doug for the immature treatment you have been given here. It is, of course, easy to second guess sitting on your couch..
> 
> This thread is really causing me to re-think my time spent here. The immature posts and child like attitudes here are sad to say the least.
> 
> Like you I have been in some NASTY situations and will know never to share ANY of it here with the know-it-all, couch sailing, behavior of those who've never "been there"... I lived to tell but we made many decisions that I would have done differently when I had the benefit of "hindsight"..
> 
> Sad really.... I can begin to see why so many good contributors have left SN..


It might have something to do with this guy:

Captain HINDSIGHT - YouTube


----------



## kd3pc

smackdaddy said:


> I don't agree with you in this one. Way too hyperbolic in your logic. If, to Knot's point, I'm re-rigging my boat and know that all of it is 30 year-old rigging gear, there is no doubt that, again to Knot's point, changing out ALL of that 30-year-old gear is better than changing out only some of it.
> 
> That's just the truth of it.
> 
> Does it mean that having changed all of it there is now a 0% chance any of that will fail? Of course not. But the chances are inarguably higher than if I mix new and old gear - especially in areas of serious stress. So let's be reasonable here.
> 
> More to the point, does knowing this mean I would actually _do it_? Not at all. There are all kinds of things on my boat that I know could/should be done better. And I'm gambling. It's a matter of money, time, and one's willingness to accept risk.


I don't agree here, after looking at a lot of metal products designed and built in the past 30 years on drag cars, air frames, motorcycles as well as boats, power and sail...both failures and "good" parts...

I would suggest that the material of the past is better quality, better machined and perhaps over designed for the intended use. Especially those parts that were in fact made here in the US. I have looked at heim joints, chainplates, ladder bars and many other components that 30 years later are FAR better condition than 1 or 2 year old ones.

Much of the newly created stuff is junk pure and simple, and sadly unless you have an NDE (non destructive evaluation) Lab at your disposal - you will never know, as MS pointed out until you NEED it.

As to DOug's situation, I think in reading about it, he did as well as could be expected in preparing for his journey.


----------



## LandLocked66c

This thread is making me dizzy!


----------



## dhays

DougSabbag said:


> Nobody discussed that at all.
> 
> Nobody asked why I had money with me.
> 
> Nobody asked if I had checked the weather.
> 
> Nobody suggested that I should have used a different PFD.
> 
> Nobody suggested or shared that they would have replaced their chainplates.
> 
> Nobody suggested or shared that they would have replaced their oil cooler.
> 
> Nobody suggested that the Captain should have come down the side.
> 
> Instead they were very interested in WHAT HAPPENED.


Doug,

The CG aren't a bunch of sailboat owners and would-be cruisers. Speaking for myself, I am asking what I would have done if faced with a similar set of circumstances and how to avoid those circumstances. You said you entered this thread to provide information that may help educate others. Well, second guessing and asking "what if" questions is part of that process.

I think some have been overly harsh towards you, but that is simply a reflection of their own personality issues. Your being overly defensive simply fuels that. If you want folks to be sympathetic, then you need to present yourself as a sympathetic person.

NASA has a program that allows pilots and ATC personnel to send in reports of errors made. These are used to research air traffic safety and these accounts are published for the benefit of all pilots and ATC personnel. While the published accounts are anonymous. simply by sending the mea culpa to NASA the writer gets a certain amount of immunity if the error is discovered by regulatory agencies. The point is that mistakes can be very educational, not only to those that make the mistakes but for those who can learn from the experience of others. You can, and should, learn from the critique of your actions by others.

I'm just sorry that good intentioned critiques and discussion has turned into personal attacks on both sides.


----------



## DougSabbag

Visitor1111 said:


> Above just confirmed what kind of the Captain you are&#8230;&#8230;.smiling but not thinking so&#8230;what for???? You sad that they were polite to you&#8230;.why then you had to smile instead to refuse to take picture with the people who "almost cost your life"&#8230;sounds strange to me&#8230;.. To be polite is normal culture when you have the visitors on board&#8230; Did their politeness give you the strength to spit on them now???
> 
> Had to return again not for the reason that I have found this pages interesting but for the purpose of protecting title of the Captain from the one using it and accusing others trying to cover their own mistakes&#8230;.such ones are not deserving of having it!!!!
> 
> Forced you into ocean????? But you have posted that you pushed your wife off the boat after securing her for tanker line and later you jumped into the sea after they came back for you securing yourself with tanker's line as well&#8230;..that what you had posted here&#8230;
> ........
> 
> Finally hope that you and your story will not stop other honorable people sailing high seas to render assistance to others when required&#8230;&#8230;even if they will be treated as the tanker crew was treated on this post by you&#8230;
> 
> Wish you and your wife long and healthy life!!!!!!!!!


I started my posting to this thread, in order to add the details which I have added. I HAVE provided all the pertinent details. About all I have left out is how many times we had sex onboard. And I am not about to fill people in on that.

I have even mentioned our shift schedule, and some of the minor equipment failures besides the ones which stopped our passage.

I have, as I did when onboard the Kim Jacob, written that we do and did appreciate the response when called for assistance.

Another vessel, I was told, disregarded the distress call.

BUT, without any argument, smashing our boat with us on her, could not be something to thank anyone for. The Captain of the Kim Jacob was quite distraught about the ramifications as they unfolded in front of him, of his decision to intersect our sea anchor line.

I am not and never would say anything negative about these people. They were all good people, with the best of intentions, and we thank them for their efforts. EXCEPT, there IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT in the process of transferring humans from a 50 foot sailboat to a 900 foot tanker in the middle of the Atlantic.

When I was smiling, it was because I was (and am) so very glad to be alive.
Thank God they did not leave me there to die.

BUT, had they not even arrived in the first place, i.e., had I not called for them, I would not have been drowning in the Atlantic on July 27th 2011.
And, the Triumph would not have been totalled by the Kim Jacob.

Both parties, the crew of the Triumph, AND the crew of the Kim Jacob, made errors that day. All of these errors can be blamed on their respective Captains, of which I am one.

That does not mean that I am not thankful for their response. I am.
That means there was room for improvement in how that response was conducted.

As far as not being possible to deploy a lifeboat; well, we disagree on that one.

As far as I could see from the "test" deployment onboard the Kim Jacob, 2 days later, it is, as you described, a gravity deployment on cables.
Well, LET IT DOWN! Come get me out of the ocean, and then bring it back to the stern of the Kim Jacob, since it could not be brought back up via those same cables.

Extract all the occupants from the life boat using lines and harnesses.

Then tow the lifeboat from the stern, the remaining 2 days to port.

As far as your confused statements of me "going down" and making it difficult for the crew to see me, WOW, do you really think I was playing with them????

I was fighting with all of my remaining strength to return to the surface!
Yet, until I vomitted out the water I had taken into my body, I COULD NOT REGAIN THE SURFACE. NO MATTER HOW HARD I FOUGHT.

This was not something I was doing for fun. In that concept you are so completely off base I can't tell you. I was absolutely sure I was going to die.
I did not, and do not, want to die. I would not "play" with my own life, (or anyone else's) by almost drowning, repeatedly.

As far as my not reaching the life bouy, which as the pictures show, was not too far away from me, I WAS ALMOST DEAD WITH EXHAUSTION. I was wearing flannel lined LL Bean Jeans, a full North Face Jacket which is heavy enough for Mount Everest, sneakers, socks, underwear, yes a PFD, a belt with a large metal (one of those Texas types) buckle, glasses, (which dissappeared on one of my "play" submersions), and was taking on water into my body. I TRIED, and tried and tried to get to a bouy, but I wasn't making it very far, which was VERY FRUSTRATING TO ME, as well you might imagine.

As far as our leaving the Triumph after she was crushed, as I have mentioned, that was an error too. Sorry, I thought I was supposed to use the lines which were being thrown to us to hoist us to their deck.
One of those lines which had been shot over us, had (unknown to me until I went into the water) hooked onto the back of my PFD, and was attached to the drifting Triumph, which pulled me AWAY from the Kim Jacob. 
Quite a surprise to everyone, but almost KILLED ME, as I was being pulled underwater!!!!!!

All of this screams that there was room for improvement in this extraction process.

And I would be more than happy to discuss this with the entire crew and Captain of the Kim Jacob. I did ask him why they did not deploy either of their 2 life boats to get me, and after we got past the difficulty there would be in getting that lifeboat back onto its' cables, (I pointed out you could just tow it), he relented with the reality that they are not Coast Guard trained rescuers.

So, they WANTED to help, and had all the best intentions, BUT what happened was violent and almost deadly. As close to causing a death as you can come.

From that reality, I have to say that I should not have called for assistance.

Others still want to say I should have changed my chainplates.... uke


----------



## smackdaddy

kd3pc said:


> I don't agree here, after looking at a lot of metal products designed and built in the past 30 years on drag cars, air frames, motorcycles as well as boats, power and sail...both failures and "good" parts...
> 
> I would suggest that the material of the past is better quality, better machined and perhaps over designed for the intended use. Especially those parts that were in fact made here in the US. I have looked at heim joints, chainplates, ladder bars and many other components that 30 years later are FAR better condition than 1 or 2 year old ones.
> 
> Much of the newly created stuff is junk pure and simple, and sadly unless you have an NDE (non destructive evaluation) Lab at your disposal - you will never know, as MS pointed out until you NEED it.
> 
> As to DOug's situation, I think in reading about it, he did as well as could be expected in preparing for his journey.


Good point. And I'm definitely no metallurgist. I'll leave that to you and Knot.

But, as a sailing consumer, and having at least a cursory knowledge of the issues surrounding metal fatigue/corrosion, I could very easily be talked into doing it all when I'm doing it. It just makes sense. That's all I'm saying.

On the other hand, your advice would save me a few thousand - so I'd probably take it in a heart beat too. I'm easy.

Maybe you just need to be real picky about what you're buying. Or work with a good dude like Knot so you know.


----------



## DougSabbag

kd3pc said:


> I don't agree here, after looking at a lot of metal products designed and built in the past 30 years on drag cars, air frames, motorcycles as well as boats, power and sail...both failures and "good" parts...
> 
> I would suggest that the material of the past is better quality, better machined and perhaps over designed for the intended use. Especially those parts that were in fact made here in the US. I have looked at heim joints, chainplates, ladder bars and many other components that 30 years later are FAR better condition than 1 or 2 year old ones.
> 
> Much of the newly created stuff is junk pure and simple, and sadly unless you have an NDE (non destructive evaluation) Lab at your disposal - you will never know, as MS pointed out until you NEED it.
> 
> As to DOug's situation, I think in reading about it, he did as well as could be expected in preparing for his journey.


Ahhhh, the voice of experience.

Just to add some more.... I also own a 1969 Triumph TR-6. Well, likewise, many of the parts which I have acquired to replace some lasting 30 + years were JUNK the moment I took them out of the box. Then, some of those new parts only lasted a small fraction of the time the original parts had lasted.

Just changing large metal parts, without good cause, is hard to rationalize.

Though those Monday morning quarterbacks sure will, AFTER something breaks! Ah ha they will say, you should have replaced that!

Granted, (to SmackDaddy), the laws of probability support your post that we would all be better off with new chainplates, possibly..... but as you admitted, most of us don't replace large metal parts without GOOD CAUSE.

When was the last time anyone replaced a mast, just because it is old?????
Has anyone replaced their rudder skeg lately?
Replaced your keel bolts lately?
OR your thru hulls, or ALL of your electrical wires?????????

IF we go down that path, even I would be dead broke real soon.

So, we do the best we can, and replace what we know needs to be replaced.


----------



## LandLocked66c

DougSabbag said:


> So, we do the best we can, and replace what we know needs to be replaced.


Like granite counter tops! :laugher I kid, I kid....


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> Granted, (to SmackDaddy), the laws of probability support your post that we would all be better off with new chainplates, possibly..... but as you admitted, most of us don't replace large metal parts without GOOD CAUSE.


Damn straight! And most of the time, for most of us, that "GOOD CAUSE" is only when it breaks! Heh-heh.

I just hope and pray that all the stuff I've overlooked/ignored on my boat breaks in the slip.

Of course, the Captain Ron Imperative always comes into play.


----------



## CharlieCobra

This place has gotten surly and ill tempered. Smack, I disagree with ya on the posters still here. Way more self righteous testosterone flowing these days. Not from the core but from some others whom shall remain nameless. Some folks need to take their Ritalin or check there argumentative egos at the door.


----------



## smackdaddy

CharlieCobra said:


> This place has gotten surly and ill tempered. Smack, I disagree with ya on the posters still here. Way more self righteous testosterone flowing these days. Not from the core but from some others whom shall remain nameless. Some folks need to take their Ritalin or check there argumentative egos at the door.


Well, I'll put it this way...this thread is a far, far cry from Solar Stik, My Day Sucked, Bulldogs, Need a Boat...(and on and on). Sure, one or two dudes have been pretty jerky and spun things up. But that's child's play compared to yesteryear. As you say, the difference is _it's not "the core"_. And that's a good thing.

Bottom line, if things were worse than before, SN wouldn't have seen the pretty dramatic growth it's seen over the past couple of years.

But, this is FightClub stuff - not Triumph. So, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

(PS - when are you making your norther run CC?)


----------



## tempest

It's not often we get an opportunity to hear directly from the survivors of a rescue at sea to learn from their experience. The news reports and the write-ups afterward often leave unanswered questions. Doug, came here to report his experience and in doing so freely listed all the mistakes he felt he made within his first few posts, that we may possibly learn from them. I thought his list was pretty complete. I think it displays a fair amount of confidence and courage to expose yourself to such close scrutiny in a public forum. 
Most of what was to be learned happened over 300 posts ago, and it was duly noted, so thanks Doug. 

I wouldn't let yourself get too upset by critiques from someone who hasn't gotten off their jackstands and only has a cruising " Philosophy"


----------



## eherlihy

Hey Smack,

I forgot to ask earlier; did this count as a BFS? He shared the story, and battled some trolls. Can you spare him a hat?


----------



## veprjack

Doug wrote, "About all I have left out is *how many times we had sex onboard*. And I am not about to fill people in on that."

I happen to know, and will tell anyone who is willing to pay the $5.00. Oh, and you have to cover my medical expenses that will, no doubt, be substantial after Evelyn is through with me...


----------



## veprjack

Oh, I forgot to mention that, no matter how often Doug had sex or in what positions or where he did it on the boat, there will be those on this thread who will criticize him for not doing it as often or in the way *they* believe it should have been done. Ahhh, human nature - it's what keeps me in business...

I'll give you a tease - he did it three times by himself on a midnight watch, hallucinating about a beautiful mermaid that turned out to be a fat porpoise...


----------



## smackdaddy

eherlihy said:


> Hey Smack,
> 
> I forgot to ask earlier; did this count as a BFS? He shared the story, and battled some trolls. Can you spare him a hat?


Well, you're asking a very tough question, dude. On the one hand, as we all know, the bar for BFS is extremely high. It can't involve rescue. So, I've got to stay true to the purity of the philosophy.

On the other hand, Doug survived near-death in what sounds like some insanely harrowing conditions through sheer will. He was then willing to come here and lay it all on the line. And then he definitely kicked some butt on the trolling.

So, yeah. I'd say he rates. I mean those animals ripped his t-shirt off him! He needs a fine replacement.

Doug, if you want some crappy swag to show off, head over to the BFSShop site link in my sig and register via the Log In. Then I'll set it up so you can order something on me.


----------



## LandLocked66c

veprjack said:


> Doug wrote, "About all I have left out is *how many times we had sex onboard*. And I am not about to fill people in on that."
> 
> I happen to know, and will tell anyone who is willing to pay the $5.00. Oh, and you have to cover my medical expenses that will, no doubt, be substantial after Evelyn is through with me...


Hopefully he gave the Granite counter top some use!!! :laugher


----------



## veprjack

To think, I've eaten off that counter top - I have a REALLY funny comment to make here, but again - I don't want to spend quality time in the ER recovering from Evelyn's wrath! lol...


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> Well, you're asking a very tough question, dude. On the one hand, as we all know, the bar for BFS is extremely high. It can't involve rescue. So, I've got to stay true to the purity of the philosophy.
> 
> On the other hand, Doug survived near-death in what sounds like some insanely harrowing conditions through sheer will. He was then willing to come here and lay it all on the line. And then he definitely kicked some butt on the trolling.
> 
> So, yeah. I'd say he rates. I mean those animals ripped his t-shirt off him! He needs a fine replacement.
> 
> Doug, if you want some crappy swag to show off, head over to the BFSShop site link in my sig and register via the Log In. Then I'll set it up so you can order something on me.


WOW!!!!! How excellent!

I will always cherish it! As a footnote, it would be my only hat, since I lost all the others... so, it would be a most welcome way to start a new collection.

Thank you Captain!


----------



## eherlihy

DougSabbag said:


> WOW!!!!! How excellent!
> 
> I will always cherish it! As a footnote, it would be my only hat, since I lost all the others... so, it would be a most welcome way to start a new collection.
> 
> Thank you Captain!


I am happy to see that you got something from this thread - other than grief...

Thanks Smack!


----------



## DougSabbag

veprjack said:


> Doug wrote, "About all I have left out is *how many times we had sex onboard*. And I am not about to fill people in on that."
> 
> I happen to know, and will tell anyone who is willing to pay the $5.00. Oh, and you have to cover my medical expenses that will, no doubt, be substantial after Evelyn is through with me...


Jack has NO IDEA about this subject. But, feel free to pay him for HIS estimates / guesses.


----------



## GeorgeB

Dear Doug;
Thank you for sharing your harrowing story. You are indeed fortunate to have survived your ordeal. I for one, see nothing you need to be apologetic about. In my eyes, you made no mistakes, committed no errors. My personal reaction to your story is “there for the grace of God, go I”. I am sure that there are other experienced sailors on this website as I who have been in situations at sea that have spiraled out of our control. The ones where there was a real possibility we won’t survive and the realization that our wives could be widows before the next day. I am haunted by these experiences and that is why your story resonated with me. I have questions, but they are for my better understanding and are not intended to be critical. If there is a more appropriate venue, perhaps you or Mainesail can PM me the URL so we can dialog without so many keyboard captains getting in the way.


----------



## DougSabbag

LandLocked66c said:


> Hopefully he gave the Granite counter top some use!!! :laugher


Actually, the granite counters were very good for providing a great "work bench", much to my wifes' dismay.

On a personal note, I am not tall enough to have utilized them for marital bliss.... 

So Jack, you have no need to recoil from the thought of having eaten upon them, except perhaps that there might have been some left over oil from Perkins parts..... or saw dust from sanding something.... or acetone from cleaning something..... so.... actually, you might well be MORE concerned about what WAS on those counters, as opposed to your imagination.


----------



## DougSabbag

GeorgeB said:


> Dear Doug;
> Thank you for sharing your harrowing story. You are indeed fortunate to have survived your ordeal. I for one, see nothing you need to be apologetic about. In my eyes, you made no mistakes, committed no errors. My personal reaction to your story is "there for the grace of God, go I". I am sure that there are experienced sailors as I who have been in situations at sea that have spiraled out of our control. The ones where there was a real possibility we won't survive and the realization that our wives could be widows before the next day. I am haunted by these experiences and that is why your story resonated with me. I have questions, but they are for my better understanding and are not intended to be critical. If there is a more appropriate venue, perhaps you or Mainesail can PM me the URL so we can dialog without so many keyboard captains getting in the way.


You my feel free to either email me at [email protected] or call me at 617-817-6856
I would be more than happy to answer whatever questions I can.


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
Thanks for your continued post. Looking back, would you recommend calling off the rescue if you knew what the outcome was going to be? And if you did call the rescue off, what actions would you have taken to return the boat to port? 
Regards


----------



## eherlihy

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> Thanks for your continued post. Looking back, would you recommend calling off the rescue if you knew what the outcome was going to be? And if you did call the rescue off, what actions would you have taken to return the boat to port?
> Regards


Didn't he answer this here;


> About the decision to abandon the vessel...
> 
> Though I can agree in the interests of the marriage to the sage advice from one of you above, nevertheless, what our abandonment came too close to costing was our LIVES.
> 
> So, being "conservative" acted in an inverse dynamic when the "rescuers" arrived.
> 
> We were not extracted in a safe manner. We were really much safer onboard our own boat and could have dealt with the issues at our own pace, in a much safer manner than what proceeded to happen.
> 
> To WingNWing, re-talk to Dan about when to abandon. This is not a decision to be made through fear, since we made almost every single erroneous decsion we could make, with that as our compass.
> 
> The night before the calamity, when we discussed our options, we had calmly / correctly ascertained our options, and they were all much better than abandoning turned out to be.
> 
> It was the sight of a lot of water in the bilge that pushed the human mind to making wrong choices.
> 
> The water was probably (realized in retrospect) from the holes on the deck where the stays had pulled through. A little duct tape could have stopped that. But, Hell, I had fiberglass / epoxy, gel coat, and even Imron paint onboard. So, not that I would, but I could have actually rebuilt the deck holes perfectly.
> 
> The bilge pumps were probably simply plugged. How many times had I (or you) cleared the end of the intake hose? I could have done that again.
> 
> When I was sinking, and barely making it up to the surface, what probably drove me to find the personal strength to fight so hard to live was the anger that I had put myself in the water, in that situation, from all the wrong choices.
> 
> You don't bring a 50 foot sailboat alongside a 900 foot tanker without having some major issues. And they had (as I discussed with the Captain of the Kim Jacob later) no interest in deploying either of their 2 lifeboats with 32 person capacities....
> 
> I was really on my own to save myself. Nobody was jumping over board to get me.
> 
> Don't leave your ship because of fear, leave her because she is REALLY sinking without any recourse / hope. Because the "rescue" might easily cost you your life.


and here;


> these were the mistakes I made:
> 
> 1. I should damn well have known that the oil cooler was past it's life expectancy of 5 - 7 years, and changed it. It was 7 years old. CHANGE YOUR OIL COOLER EVERY 5 YEARS.
> 2. I should have fixed the deck leaks COMPLETELY. Then, I should have checked the chainplates using the special dye they use to do that. Not just look at them.
> 
> 3. I should have turned around and headed back to Boston when the oil cooler broke.
> 
> 4. I should have not called the Coast Guard when the stays broke.
> 
> 5. We should have TOLD THE TANKER NOT TO INTERSECT OUR SEA ANCHOR LINE.
> 
> 6. We should have STAYED ON THE BOAT until the tanker either deployed a life boat to get us, or accomplished getting some lines to us, wherein we attached those to harnesses to hoist us to their deck.
> 
> 7. I should not have let go of the Triumph after having gotten back to her in the open ocean, then: see #6.
> 
> 8. (Earlier) I should have selected a much better life preserver, or even used my Boston Whaler.... but that would still be in conflict with #6, though would have been better than jumping over board with what I had for a PFD.
> 
> 9. I should have paid for the insurance with REPLACEMENT VALUE, not the cheaper stated value policy we bought; at least for the crossing. We are receiving $135,500.00 BUT we had "over improved" the Triumph, wherein we are losing over $300,000. AND we are having a hell of a time getting any financing, even with $50,000 down. We are hearing it is the "economy". Translation: banks are not giving loans like they used to.
> 
> And finally, I should have hired a fellow sailor man to do the crossing with me. We would have addressed the issues as they cropped up, and would have supported each other to continue in that mode, rather than freaking out, and demanding that I show I care about her feelings / fears.
> 
> We had discussed the issues the night before the calamity, after the stays had broken. Evelyn was quite ready to bolt. I talked her into my plan of slowly sailing back to Boston.
> But, I had also offerred to have just her extracted from the Triumph, and I would sail home. She said she wouldn't leave me alone, but don't I care about HER feelings??
> 
> So, with that in mind, when I opened the engine room door the next morning and we saw the water sloshing around in there, I gave up to her. BIG MISTAKE, considering I came as close to dying as you can, and with the "economy" we are stuck without a boat.
> 
> I was the Captain, and I should have held to the responsibilities of that before the desire to maintain domestic tranquility. Now I am not a Captain, AND the domestic scene is less than wonderful too. Since we do not have our "home", and I don't have anything to do anymore. And I can't blame anyone or anything else except me.
> 
> So, Captains, learn from Doug Sabbags' mistakes. In the LONG run, you will be much happier.


----------



## casey1999

eherlihy said:


> Didn't he answer this here;
> 
> and here;


Roger that, Lost it in all the noise!


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> Thanks for your continued post. Looking back, would you recommend calling off the rescue if you knew what the outcome was going to be? And if you did call the rescue off, what actions would you have taken to return the boat to port?
> Regards


Gee, not to be too harsh, but I hate retyping.... all of your questions were answered / covered previously in this thread.

Fair winds.


----------



## DougSabbag

Ohhhh, now I see that Eherlihy provided all that research to you! 

You lucky sailor!


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> WOW!!!!! How excellent!
> 
> I will always cherish it! As a footnote, it would be my only hat, since I lost all the others... so, it would be a most welcome way to start a new collection.
> 
> Thank you Captain!


My pleasure. Happy to throw in.

But, I'm no captain. Just another chump who loves the hell out of big sailing.

Without doubt, you showed a serious set of stones by puking sea water for 3 hours until they pulled you out. So, as I said above, you definitely deserve to join the hundreds of badass sailors who sport the coveted Gear.

WTH, I'll even throw in a couple of "Type 12-Step PFDs" (BFS Boozies) for some additional floatation if you ever have another need. I'm feeling generous! But you have to register for me to give you the "BFS Badass Discount".


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> My pleasure. Happy to throw in.
> 
> But, I'm no captain. Just another chump who loves the hell out of big sailing.
> 
> Without doubt, you showed a serious set of stones by puking sea water for 3 hours until they pulled you out. So, as I said above, you definitely deserve to join the hundreds of badass sailors who sport the coveted Gear.
> 
> WTH, I'll even throw in a couple of "Type 12-Step PFDs" (BFS Boozies) for some additional floatation if you ever have another need. I'm feeling generous! But you have to register for me to give you the "BFS Badass Discount".


Smack, i'll clean your bilge for some koozies! Just sayin...  I mean since you are being generous...


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> Ohhhh, now I see that Eherlihy provided all that research to you!
> 
> You lucky sailor!


Doug, 
That "research" did not really answer my question, but I was afraid of asking again because I did not want to rub you the wrong way as you seem a sensative type. Now that you need to add an unecessary comment, I will also add one you may consider unnecessary.

When I bought my boat, I bought one I could handle myself, fix myself, and if need be abandon at sea without devistating me financially (boat is insured for paid amount and I paid cash). My purchased boat is also capable of sailing in any ocean throughout the world, and in fact mine has circumnavigated and similar models hold more circumnavigation records than any other model of similar size. I purchased the boat for its history of being able to sail in almost anything. When I take that boat to sea, I realize every trip may be its last. Like you, I attempt to go over every system, and attempt to make every system work, knowing that nothing is completely reliable. For me safety of the crew is the most important thing, boat is secondary. My boat is set up to circumnavigate singlehanded. My plan is that if I have crew problems, I have ability to send them on their way and get my boat back to port.

What I do not get is all your 20/20 hind sight. You and your wife asked to be removed from your boat and that is what the captain did. Before you left your boat, what were you thinking would happen to it? Any salvage of the boat would cost at least $300K (I think you said a tow was $250,000 from your breakdown location). So what I don't get is why be so hard on the Captain who saved you and your wife. When you asked to be rescued at sea any rescuer should assume your boat is as good as trash. If I ever need rescuing, that will be my thought of my boat (note I will be stepping up to a life raft). The other thing, you say the captain should have towed you in a life boat behind a 900 foot ship- yea right, how safe is that? You gotta give that captain some extreme credit for him to go himself into the water for you. I hope you have written him a thank you letter and send him Christmas cards.

Anyway, I am truly happy you have your lives and wish you well in whatever direction you go.
Aloha


----------



## casey1999

Hey Doug, one other thing, if you think you were treated bad here at SN, go check out the post on Mike Calabrasse. That guy got ripped without ever replying to anyone on the thread. Anyway, I really do appreciate you post here and hope everything turns in your favor.


----------



## smackdaddy

casey1999 said:


> Hey Doug, one other thing, if you think you were treated bad here at SN, go check out the post on Mike Calabrasse. That guy got ripped without ever replying to anyone on the thread. Anyway, I really do appreciate you post here and hope everything turns in your favor.


Even that was a pastry-fest compared to what would have happened on SA (to either thread). This site is seriously mellow compared to that place. And I love SA!


----------



## Minnewaska

casey1999 said:


> ......So what I don't get is why be so hard on the Captain who saved you and your wife .....


Casey, I'm sure it is just a part of the grieving process. I think it would be impossible for Doug to answer this with the same clarity he may have several more months down the road.


----------



## DougSabbag

Minnewaska said:


> Casey, I'm sure it is just a part of the grieving process. I think it would be impossible for Doug to answer this with the same clarity he may have several more months down the road.


Pretty funny. "part of the grieving process"  :laugher

If I am perceived as being "hard" on the Captain of the Kim Jacob, that is erroneous.

What I have pointed out is that mistakes were made by both of us.

Our boat was smashed to bits with us on deck, so, it was by the grace of God that neither Evelyn nor I were likewise squished or injured by falling debris / mast, etc., and I came as close to drowning as possible without actually STAYING down.

I am not being hard on anyone. I am saying we both made mistakes.

My biggest mistake was calling for help. As I have posted numerous times.

OK?


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> That "research" did not really answer my question, but I was afraid of asking again because I did not want to rub you the wrong way as you seem a sensative type. Now that you need to add an unecessary comment, I will also add one you may consider unnecessary.
> 
> When I bought my boat, I bought one I could handle myself, fix myself, and if need be abandon at sea without devistating me financially (boat is insured for paid amount and I paid cash). My purchased boat is also capable of sailing in any ocean throughout the world, and in fact mine has circumnavigated and similar models hold more circumnavigation records than any other model of similar size. I purchased the boat for its history of being able to sail in almost anything. When I take that boat to sea, I realize every trip may be its last. Like you, I attempt to go over every system, and attempt to make every system work, knowing that nothing is completely reliable. For me safety of the crew is the most important thing, boat is secondary. My boat is set up to circumnavigate singlehanded. My plan is that if I have crew problems, I have ability to send them on their way and get my boat back to port.
> 
> What I do not get is all your 20/20 hind sight. You and your wife asked to be removed from your boat and that is what the captain did. Before you left your boat, what were you thinking would happen to it? Any salvage of the boat would cost at least $300K (I think you said a tow was $250,000 from your breakdown location). So what I don't get is why be so hard on the Captain who saved you and your wife. When you asked to be rescued at sea any rescuer should assume your boat is as good as trash. If I ever need rescuing, that will be my thought of my boat (note I will be stepping up to a life raft). The other thing, you say the captain should have towed you in a life boat behind a 900 foot ship- yea right, how safe is that? You gotta give that captain some extreme credit for him to go himself into the water for you. I hope you have written him a thank you letter and send him Christmas cards.
> 
> Anyway, I am truly happy you have your lives and wish you well in whatever direction you go.
> Aloha


Read the "research" again! OR, read the whole thread. All your questions ARE answered here, and many numerous times.

Highlights:

"Hard on Captain" answer: Not hard, but we both made mistakes:

1. Triumph totalled by being smashed with us on the deck.
a. Only by the grace of God were we not killed from the falling debris.
2. I came as close to drowning as is possible without STAYING down.

I did not say the Kim Jacob should have towed me in a life boat.

I said, (what would make a lot more sense), to tow the life boat WITHOUT anyone in it, assuming that the lifeboat could not be hoisted using the deployment cables. Doesn't THAT make a lot more sense now?

Overall, apparently you have not read the salient portions of this thread since you have confused these concepts to the point of being completely irrational, besides just straight out missing where ALL of your questions and bizarre points have been addressed, repeatedly, in detail.

Are you a "speed reader"?? 

If it wasn't worth your time to read it entirely, then why is it worth your time at all? And if it isn't worth YOUR time for you to read it, then it surely is not worth MY time to repeat things just for you....

What is frustrating is that wherever you "go astray" in your conceptual reasoning with only partial reading comprehension, you end up with finding faults with me through the twisting of reality into the irrational.

So, this is clearly either not really worth your time to focus and read, or you are laboring under some sort of a personal challenge rendering you incapable of doing so successfully.

Have a pleasant weekend!

Bye Bye.....


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Hey Doug, one other thing, if you think you were treated bad here at SN, go check out the post on Mike Calabrasse. That guy got ripped without ever replying to anyone on the thread. Anyway, I really do appreciate you post here and hope everything turns in your favor.


"treated bad"... well Casey1999, in many instances, as with YOU, it was not so much that I was treated bad, it was more of a frustration from people who did not seem to READ what was written.

Some people, like you, asked the most bizzare questions, which showed they had not read the previous statements.

For instance, asking me about towing me in the life boat for days.....
Where / how did you come up with that?

Granted, apparently I am too easily frustrated by these sort of confusions, which I can only attribute to personal issues, lack of focus, or just plain laziness preventing someone from reading what is written.

I would not be the sort of person to be a teacher of challenged people.
I would really be the wrong person to have that job.

I can only respect those people who can deal with that job... but that's not something I can do.

Good luck Casey.


----------



## chrisncate

Just say the word forum...

I'm right behind you guys if you need me for anything..


----------



## DougSabbag

chrisncate is obviously dying to perform some juvenile actions for everyone.

Such a character, huh?


----------



## smackdaddy

chrisncate said:


> Just say the word forum...
> 
> I'm right behind you guys if you need me for anything..


Who's this "forum" you keep speaking to?










Okay - this thread has jumped the shark. I'm off to the Heavy Weather Thread...or FC...or The Hen House.


----------



## CalebD

There are ways to close a thread. 
I believe that the original poster can do it as can the moderators if asked nicely.
Most of the useful information was posted back in the earlier parts of this thread. 
Nighty, nite!


----------



## LandLocked66c

Let's end this thread, it's getting painful!


----------



## Patient

Doug, just wanted to thank you for your insight and painful recollection made here in wake of your loss.

Fair winds to you and best of luck with your future sailing adventures!


----------



## DougSabbag

Thank you very much too.

I am glad to have been able to share the details behind some choices which went very, very wrong.

For those who caught the essence of the value of this, you're welcome, and I truly hope that having read this might have given you something to remember if, God forbid, you find yourself in similar straights.

For those who want to focus on how this all could have been avoided by replacing the chainplates / oil cooler previous to leaving the dock, well, you are correct, but that is not the value of this thread. Because nobody can ever guarantee that nothing will fail; *and when it does fail*, the value of this thread should kick in.

Do not abdicate your role as Captain and give up. Do not call for help prematurely, because, as I have illustrated, instead of just walking off your boat, that call could end your life.

Fair winds.........


----------



## bubb2

DougSabbag said:


> Do not abdicate your role as Captain and give up. Do not call for help prematurely, because, as I have illustrated, instead of just walking off your boat, that call could end your life..


The best advice given in the 422 posts of this thread.


----------



## b40Ibis

This is what I have learned- Don't abandon ship, let the ship abandon you.


----------



## veprjack

Doug, delicious Grapeleaves, or the GRAPES OF WRATH! Besides, I abide by "the ten second rule"! I thought it was a new recipe you were experimenting with, and NOW you tell me it was acetone? Well, if I'm going to commit to this lifestyle, I'd better get used to it! lol...

I have not been aboard a lot of different boats (unless you count my fantasy trips to boat shows/Newport, etc.) - But I have to say that _S/V Triumph_ was one of the more beautiful and better funtionally designed. It was a tragic loss (which you've courageously, *honestly* and generously turned into a classroom here for all of us); based on your ingenuity, perseverance and skills, you WILL find another gem and make it your home!


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> For those who want to focus on how this all could have been avoided by replacing the chainplates / oil cooler previous to leaving the dock, well, you are correct, but that is not the value of this thread. Because nobody can ever guarantee that nothing will fail; *and when it does fail*, the value of this thread should kick in.
> 
> Do not abdicate your role as Captain and give up. Do not call for help prematurely, because, as I have illustrated, instead of just walking off your boat, that call could end your life.


Here's the primary lesson I take away from your story... I made a reference to it about 200 posts ago, but I'll repeat it again... (wouldn't be the first time that's happened in the course of this thread (grin))

In any post mortem analysis of such a chain of events/failures/decisions, it's important to try to isolate a single turning point - that had it been managed differently - might have altered the outcome...

The rigging failure, while significant, was IMHO _not_ such a moment... Sure, it would re-define the voyage, the Azores were no longer the likely destination, but it certainly need not have resulted in the loss of the boat, and could have been recovered from with a jury rig of the starboard shrouds. Indeed, you were fortunate it occurred on the starboard side, sailing on port tack from your location presented you with a far wider array of options to make port...

If I've been reading your narrative correctly, for me the single seminal, defining moment came with the "discovery" of a flooded bilge... That was when your wife apparently lost faith in any possibility of self-rescue, and you were distracted from dealing with the management of the issues with the boat, and wound up making decisions that might have been heavily clouded by emotions, rather than a more dispassionate analysis of what was going on...

One item always tops every list of adages about what is most important about going to sea on a small boat... Right up there with "Stay on the boat", and above "Keep the keel-side pointed down, and the mast-side pointed up", it is this:

"Keep the water _outside_ of the boat..."

No one should ever be "surprised" by an alarming amount of water in the bilge, especially when sailing offshore... A check of the bilges should be such an ingrained habit and part of the crew's shipboard routine, one of those things that can't possibly be done too often... I'd suggest every hour, at a minimum - better yet, every time you think of it... If you just had a look only 20 minutes earlier, but the thought occurs to do so again, _do it_...

Of course, it helps a lot if your boat is configured to make such a check as easy as possible... I really like having a large open grate at the foot of the companionway anyway, and it can often serve to help monitor the status of the bilges at a glance... On larger boats like Doug's, depending on the configuration of the bilges, a high water alarm could be recommended...

You must become aware of anything out of the ordinary in the bilges, at the earliest possible indication of a change... If it turns out to be a leak in your freshwater supply, early detection could spell the difference between aborting and continuing the passage... And, of course, once bilge water level begins to rise, it only serves to make the detection or isolation of the source of the ingress - whether it be a particular thru-hull, or whatever - all the more difficult, once more of the bilge becomes submerged...

I can't possibly stress this too much, how vital it is to continuously monitor the status of a boat's bilge when sailing anywhere, but particularly offshore... It should be, literally, right up there with routinely scanning the horizon... (grin)


----------



## SVAuspicious

Hi Doug,

I'm curious about a sensitive issue. You have been clear that you think calling for help was an error. The fact that I agree isn't relevant. *grin* In retrospect, does Evelyn feel that calling for help was appropriate or not? You said earlier that as a couple you are working through the ramifications of your experience and I respect that. I'm still interested in her thoughts in hindsight relative to yours. I would find the answer of value in planning my own time offshore with Janet. So far we have settled into me sailing and her flying.


----------



## svHyLyte

Doug--

At the time you discovered the blown Oil Cooler, did you close the raw water intake or leave it open? Further, did or did you not have a "high water" alarm.


----------



## emoney

Jon makes a good point when he says, "Here's the primary lesson "I" take.....". Stories such as these best serve the individual in their own unique way. I'd say if this scenario played out in front of 10 different people, you'd come up with at least 5 different avenues of response, starting with those evil chainplates (nudge nudge/wink wink). Notwithstanding the petty bickering, the thread has, at both the least and the most had a happy ending. There's a lot to be said for that.


----------



## eherlihy

svHyLyte said:


> Doug--
> 
> At the time you discovered the blown Oil Cooler, did you close the raw water intake or leave it open? Further, did or did you not have a "high water" alarm.


Answered earlier - he did shut off the seacock. I don't believe that he had a HW alarm.


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> Read the "research" again! OR, read the whole thread. All your questions ARE answered here, and many numerous times.
> 
> Highlights:
> 
> "Hard on Captain" answer: Not hard, but we both made mistakes:
> 
> 1. Triumph totalled by being smashed with us on the deck.
> a. Only by the grace of God were we not killed from the falling debris.
> 2. I came as close to drowning as is possible without STAYING down.
> 
> I did not say the Kim Jacob should have towed me in a life boat.
> 
> I said, (what would make a lot more sense), to tow the life boat WITHOUT anyone in it, assuming that the lifeboat could not be hoisted using the deployment cables. Doesn't THAT make a lot more sense now?


Sorry, No that still does not make sense. Re-read you post, sorry for misinterpretation, you threads are a little hard to follow because of all the shoulda, coulda, woulda's. Let me try again, you expect the captain to deploy a life raft and indanger his crew, then, if they cannot get it back on board, tow it (with no one onboard- got it). I am not sure if a life boat can be towed at the say 20knots the kim jacob is running, but even if it could, there is likely the tow line would break. Then what, the captain could get a cable around his prop and disable his 900 foot ship, and/or he would lose a life raft I am guessing new might cost 100k. Now if this happen, captain will probably lose his job and not get further employment as captain. Would you pay for all these damages? And in doing this method, no guaratee it is any safer than how you were recovered. Still extremely dangerous to move from your boat to a life raft or from life raft to a 900 foot ship in 10 foot seas. Also, moving from a boat that is still floating and is in relatively good shape to a life raft or rescue craft is know to be very dangerous and has been known by most experienced sailors for over 30 years (study 1979 Fastnet).

The other thing you mentioned, you quoted captain as saying "we are not the coast guard" then you go off in your interpretation as that means he cannot deploy a life raft to rescue you. I am not sure we really know what he meant by the statement. I do not think he was saying they were not doing everything they could to get you and your wife aboard in the safest way possible. My guess is that he was saying he did not have the best rescue resources and training, which is understandable- their job is to carry oil.

When a sailor goes to sea, he/she should do so knowing they could lose everything, and whatever help they do get should be appreciated without questioning.

Finally, I would rather be slow with apparently learning and reading disabilities, but with a boat, than be a washed out computer programmer who's job can be outsourced to china. And with all this money your corporation has apparently been able to "hide", I am not sure why money is such a big issue.

The sad part of all this, I do not think you have learned anything from your ordeal.


----------



## DougSabbag

SVAuspicious said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> I'm curious about a sensitive issue. You have been clear that you think calling for help was an error. The fact that I agree isn't relevant. *grin* In retrospect, does Evelyn feel that calling for help was appropriate or not? You said earlier that as a couple you are working through the ramifications of your experience and I respect that. I'm still interested in her thoughts in hindsight relative to yours. I would find the answer of value in planning my own time offshore with Janet. So far we have settled into me sailing and her flying.


Well, as a forethought to your question, I believe the real "issue" was her loss of confidence, in me to be able to fix the boat. I might have alluded to this earlier, but throughout our previous years of cruising, no matter what was going on, and occasionally we were actually in much worse straights, she always felt secure that I had her, (the boat), under control. In serious storms, she still felt that critical requirement of confidence. Sure, there was anxiety, but basically, Doug would get us through this, as always.

The "cascade effect" which has been referred to here, not only included the various parts which broke, but our bodies and strength over the weeks.
And apparently her confidence.

I have not mentioned the other things which broke during our cruise; because these were unrelated, and all resolved successfully. But, perhaps they did relate through the _confidence_ thread. We had also spent YEARS on a refit to the Triumph, which sometimes included repairs to repairs; i.e., having to redo that which did not work the first time. That refit, technically ended a year or so previous to our crossing attempt, but as you all know, the "list" never ended.

So, she has witnessed, worked on, and helped finance a never ending maintenance process to the Triumph throughout her relatively short marine life.

In our computer development careers, once you work the bugs out of your program, it works forever. Not so on the Triumph, (or any boat), and that is something she isn't as comfortable with as me, or perhaps you.

So, with the years of the refit, followed by repairs along the Eastern Seaboard the previous summer, then even at the dock in Boston, right up until we left, she never experienced "it is done". Then, as little things, (little to me...?), broke along our way this past July, even though they were resolved, this was still chipping away (along with the miles from shore) at her confidence that the Triumph would ever really be done.

And, some repairs, like a small leak from the deck, or the smell of diesel, or the staining from condensation during the winter of our NEW teak & holly sole, wouldn't "resolve". She did not see me accomplishing their termination. She saw attempts without success. Now from my point of view these failures were 1 out of a 1000, but nevertheless, they played a part toward July 27th.

So, when the stays broke, and I fairly soon thereafter declared the end of our trip to Europe, followed by the water in the bilge, she had had enough.

Footnote: Things that also broke during our cruise to Europe:

1. A shackle at the top of the jib, which required both of us to address.

2. The mizzen boom traveler, which had broken a dozen times before.

3. A block involved with the mizzen boom.

4. Early along in our cruise, but after enought time to have really effected us, it was learned that a cooler had slid across the floor in front of our water maker and actuated the pump switch of the water maker, (a serious electricity user), to the on position. This ran for days, and drained our house batteries a lot, and put us "behind the eight ball" as we had a long way to go to catch up / recharge our batteries. This specifically effected Evelyn, being the ships' cook, since it effected our freezer / refrigeration systems. She had great concerns about the temporary warming of our frozen food supplies.

5. Our navigation software from Rosepoint which also drives our digital radar, had recently (just before we left) been updated, without our intentional acceptance, (it just updated like so many other systems do on your computer), BUT for the radar to work with this update, we needed a code from the vendor! We did not know this until we were in a fog bank, off the coast of Massachusetts. So, the radar did not work.

6. At one point, erroneously, a hatch above the main saloon was left partially open, which allowed water to enter and soak the settee, and everything on the table.

Now these things happen, as well we all know. And God knows someone or maybe a whole platoon of people will have all sorts of "suggestions" about how to avoid these things, (which I will react to by saying FO), but, these and our 4 hours on / 4 hours off shift schedule had worn us down, and I believe had also diminished her confidence in the cruise as a whole.

She lost the "faith" that some day we would be enjoying life, instead of battling it.

We should have spent more time cruising to small islands, while in Fort Lauderdale, instead of focusing on the refit. Then she would have had more happy times to remember, as I do.

So, what was your question.....? Oh right: would Evelyn say calling for help was appropriate, in retrospect.

Well, I am not sure. We are driving to Annapolis tonight, then to Florida, then back before Wednesday, related to the new Triumph acquisition process, and we have discussed that we will discuss all of this then.

However, considering that (as I predicted to her on July 26th), we are having a real hard time dealing with all the repurcussions and challenges of replacing what was lost, which will take a lot longer to complete than the 3 weeks I estimated to her for a 3 knot / slow slog back to Boston, she damn well should see that it was "inappropriate" to call at that time.


----------



## smackdaddy

casey1999 said:


> Finally, I would rather be slow with apparently learning and reading disabilities, but with a boat, than be a washed out computer programmer who's job can be outsourced to china. And with all this money your corporation has apparently been able to "hide", I am not sure why money is such a big issue.
> 
> The sad part of all this, I do not think you have learned anything from your ordeal.


Dude, you're crossing the line. Where did your aloha go?


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, you're crossing the line. Where did your aloha go?


All pau, used it all up here on SainNet.
Aloha (had just a little saved for you Smack)


----------



## smackdaddy

casey1999 said:


> All pau, used it all up here on SainNet.
> Aloha (had just a little saved for you Smack)


Well go sailing then! Bring back a BFS with pics! That'll refill the aloha jar without a doubt!


----------



## jimjazzdad

Sorry casey1999, but I think you are out of line. 

From the forum rules: "The owners of SailNet.com have the right to remove, edit, move or close any forum thread for any reason and we reserve the right to block your access to this site for any reason including if you: ...
* Post messages that are objectionable and meant to offend or incite conflict" 

Why do these threads get get so vituperative? Sure everyone has a right to an opinion but with that right goes the reponsability to be respectful of others. Come on Sailnet...shape up!


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Sorry, No that still does not make sense. Re-read you post, sorry for misinterpretation, you threads are a little hard to follow because of all the shoulda, coulda, woulda's. Let me try again, you expect the captain to deploy a life raft and indanger his crew, then, if they cannot get it back on board, tow it (with no one onboard- got it). I am not sure if a life boat can be towed at the say 20knots the kim jacob is running, but even if it could, there is likely the tow line would break. Then what, the captain could get a cable around his prop and disable his 900 foot ship, and/or he would lose a life raft I am guessing new might cost 100k. Now if this happen, captain will probably lose his job and not get further employment as captain. Would you pay for all these damages? And in doing this method, no guaratee it is any safer than how you were recovered. Still extremely dangerous to move from your boat to a life raft or from life raft to a 900 foot ship in 10 foot seas. Also, moving from a boat that is still floating and is in relatively good shape to a life raft or rescue craft is know to be very dangerous and has been known by most experienced sailors for over 30 years (study 1979 Fastnet).
> 
> The other thing you mentioned, you quoted captain as saying "we are not the coast guard" then you go off in your interpretation as that means he cannot deploy a life raft to rescue you. I am not sure we really know what he meant by the statement. I do not think he was saying they were not doing everything they could to get you and your wife aboard in the safest way possible. My guess is that he was saying he did not have the best rescue resources and training, which is understandable- their job is to carry oil.
> 
> When a sailor goes to sea, he/she should do so knowing they could lose everything, and whatever help they do get should be appreciated without questioning.
> 
> Finally, I would rather be slow with apparently learning and reading disabilities, but with a boat, than be a washed out computer programmer who's job can be outsourced to china. And with all this money your corporation has apparently been able to "hide", I am not sure why money is such a big issue.
> 
> The sad part of all this, I do not think you have learned anything from your ordeal.


The Kim Jacob travels at only *EIGHT knots *per hour.

They had over 3 inch thick lines, which should NOT BREAK to tow a life boat, at 8 knots, but if the tow line broke, it would not wrap around the prop.

Yes, I DO think my life is worth the value of a f__cking LIFE BOAT. What is a "life boat" for if not to SAVE A LIFE, and as much as YOU might not agree mine is worth saving.

When the help we recieve includes squishing us and our boat, I DO NOT APPRECIATE IT. PERIOD. If you think I should thank whoever did that, well we are different people. If you asked me to help you and I came over and destroyed your boat and basically watched you almost drown, what would you get me for Christmas?

I DID profusely thank them for waiting and throwing bouys to me until I got to one, thereby saving me from a sure death. But I am not going to THANK THEM for destroying my boat, WITH US ON IT, as that came within inches of killing us in a most violent messy way right there!

There are other ways to transfer people which would be better. Accept that or not, that is YOUR problem, not mine.

Yes, when he said they are not the CG, he meant they do not have the training or the equipment. But, I am not the CG either, and I could SEE better ways to use the equipment they had and did not use to get people out of the water.

It is easy for you to sit there and not agree with me, but YOU WERE NOT DROWNING while looking at a pair of life boats sitting pretty on the deck.

You did not live through a 50 foot sailboat being SMASHED TO SMITHERINES all around you, through someone's idea, which I really have no idea what that idea WAS???? What did he think would happen by intersecting my sea anchor line? I am not a tanker captain, but when we realized, (too late to tell him to stop), that he was intersecting it, I turned to Evelyn and said: This is not going to go well. Though that was a HUGE understatment, perhaps the biggest understatement of my life.

No argument, the transfer had danger written all over it, no matter how it is done, but considering they had responded numerous times before to AMVER requests you would think they would have learned NOT TO DO what they DID.

If you get a flat tire on the highway, and a trucker pulls over to help you, but, (by mistake) runs over your car with his truck, then pushes you down a cliff, how much would you THANK HIM? Sure, thanks for the "thought" but I can not thank them for the action. There really are times when you would rather not be "helped" if that is what happens. If the "savior" can't do the saving in a reasonable manner, then perhaps they shouldn't get involved.

Agree, or not, I don't care.


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> Well go sailing then! Bring back a BFS with pics! That'll refill the aloha jar without a doubt!


What is BFS? Been trying to figure that out, remember, I am a slow learner.


----------



## casey1999

jimjazzdad said:


> Sorry casey1999, but I think you are out of line.
> 
> From the forum rules: "The owners of SailNet.com have the right to remove, edit, move or close any forum thread for any reason and we reserve the right to block your access to this site for any reason including if you: ...
> * Post messages that are objectionable and meant to offend or incite conflict"
> 
> Why do these threads get get so vituperative? Sure everyone has a right to an opinion but with that right goes the reponsability to be respectful of others. Come on Sailnet...shape up!


Hey, make my day.

BTW, I think Doug has been breaking these rules and others in nearly every post.


----------



## DougSabbag

And just because apparently I can't leave anything un-responded to, I am not a washed out computer programmer. My list of clients is quite extensive, and well known nationally, and even globally. I write up to date code using free form RPG ILE with embedded SQL, on the Power Server Series made by IBM. This technology used to be called the AS/400 and is often referred to as such.
I am highly paid, and IN DEMAND. Today alone I have recieved almost 10 emails, and 3 telephone calls from headhunters trying to place me into contracts.
And though our tax plan was not well timed to qualify for loan applications, it is quite legal, unlike your accusation of hiding income. 
And, I do not know of ANY programmers challenging my success from China. NONE at all, sailor.


----------



## smackdaddy

casey1999 said:


> What is BFS? Been trying to figure that out, remember, I am a slow learner.


This thread - "Big Freakin' Sails":

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/47351-big-freakin-sails.html

Some really awesome tales of big sailing adventures. You got any?


----------



## DougSabbag

And finally to Casey1999, I have provided you with plenty of the details of my experience for whatever your interest in my life might be.
But, I will not be replying to your questions / accusations any more.

If you do not agree with my life, fine, but leave me alone.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> If the "savior" can't do the saving in a reasonable manner, then perhaps they shouldn't get involved.
> 
> Agree, or not, I don't care.


I'm going to disagree with you on this particular point Doug. You are both alive and home. That's about as reasonable an outcome as you can expect when you ask someone to save your life.


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> This thread - "Big Freakin' Sails":
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/47351-big-freakin-sails.html
> 
> Some really awesome tales of big sailing adventures. You got any?


I got some, wouldn't post here on sail net. Not after we have seen how Mike Calabrasse and Doug faired.


----------



## smackdaddy

casey1999 said:


> I got some, wouldn't post here on sail net. Not after we have seen how Mike Calabrasse and Doug fared.


Heh-heh. Now THAT'S funny coming from you!

Hey, I took a beating on my first BFS post too. So what?


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> I'm going to disagree with you on this particular point Doug. You are both alive and home. That's about as reasonable an outcome as you can expect when you ask someone to save your life.


Yea, that is what "Good Samaritain Laws" are for. Otherwise nobody would help anybody.

Good Samaritan law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eherlihy

- © Sam Fentress


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> I'm going to disagree with you on this particular point Doug. You are both alive and home. That's about as reasonable an outcome as you can expect when you ask someone to save your life.


I asked for "assistance". The CG insisted that it be an extraction, or nothing.

The responder nearly killed us, while violently destroying a 50 foot sailboat.

The responder did not deploy any lifeboats which they had to get a drowning man.

My wife would have gotten into their life boat and come over to get me; why wouldn't any of the crew do that?

I would have deployed a life boat and gotten into it to get you.

If the responder is not really inclined to do what it might take to save a drowning man, and does things which come within inches of killing everyone onboard, then perhaps they should stick to delivering their oil.

I thank them for remaining on the scene and for what they did do that was not violently destructive, i.e., throw bouys at me until I managed to get to one, but as much as this is a very fine line to travel, I would much rather that THAT boat had not responded at all.

We are alive and home, true, but, they did more things toward a *completely different result *than they did toward the present result.

Sorry, but that is what happened.


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
Here are specs for Kim Jacob (think it is same ship) Cruise speed looks like 13 knots up to 17 knots. Maybe she was going slower to canada. Life boat speed 6 knots, so she would have probably been surfing even at 8 knots, but definitely at 13 knots under tow- Not a good thing for a life boat to be doing in 10 foot seas.
http://www.frontline.bm/pdf/mtkimjacob.pdf


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> You did not live through a 50 foot sailboat being SMASHED TO SMITHERINES all around you, through someone's idea, which I really have no idea what that idea WAS???? What did he think would happen by intersecting my sea anchor line? I am not a tanker captain, but when we realized, (too late to tell him to stop), that he was intersecting it, I turned to Evelyn and said: This is not going to go well. Though that was a HUGE understatment, perhaps the biggest understatement of my life.


Sorry, but this is one thing that has perplexed me from the outset...

A ship like the KIM JACOB is hardly capable of turning on a dime, and his final approach towards you had to have occurred in relatively slow motion. If she was going to cross your sea anchor, that had to have been foreseeable well in advance...

Couldn't you have dropped or cut the rode, once it became apparent what was about to occur?


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> Here are specs for Kim Jacob (think it is same ship) Cruise speed looks like 13 knots up to 17 knots. Maybe she was going slower to canada. Life boat speed 6 knots, so she would have probably been surfing even at 8 knots, but definitely at 13 knots under tow- Not a good thing for a life boat to be doing in 10 foot seas.
> http://www.frontline.bm/pdf/mtkimjacob.pdf


REPEAT:

And finally to Casey1999, I have provided you with plenty of the details of my experience for whatever your interest in my life might be.
But, I will not be replying to your questions / accusations any more.

If you do not agree with my life, fine, but leave me alone.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but this is one thing that has perplexed me from the outset...
> 
> A ship like the KIM JACOB is hardly capable of turning on a dime, and his final approach towards you had to have occurred in relatively slow motion. If she was going to cross your sea anchor, that had to have been foreseeable well in advance...
> 
> Couldn't you have dropped or cut the rode, once it became apparent what was about to occur?


He had previously attempted to catch our sea anchor on their previous pass by our bow using a grappling hook. But, on their first pass they were too far forward and couldn't reach the sea anchor. So, on their second pass, initially it looked like they would just be coming in closer. When you're dealing with a 900 foot tanker and a 500 foot line, it isn't until it is too late to determine that their course will intersect rather than slip by the line.

AND, I did not know how bad this would turn out in order to be inspired to cut any lines. As I said, I only felt that this would not turn out well.....

But, more importantly, what is your point in asking me these questions?
Why didn't you do this or that.... couldn't you see this or that.....

Sorry that you are perplexed. Sucks huh?


----------



## DougSabbag

PLEASE SOMEONE KILL THIS THREAD. STOP IT. 

ALL of the information and background is here already. Going over it again and again, trying to argue the realities is all useless. 

People will not accept that which happened, and I DO NOT CARE. Tough. STAY PERPLEXED.

If you won't simply believe it, fine, don't believe anything!!!! The Captain of the Kim Jacob told me they travel at 8 knots. I WAS ONBOARD. Do you REALLY want to ARGUE THAT POINT????

Now move along, nothing to see here......


----------



## eherlihy

Been in this situation before... That's what prompted my earlier (graphic) post.

Easiest solution, and sometimes the hardest, is to just walk away.

If the graphic was too obscure; see Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Visitor1111

DougSabbag said:


> PLEASE SOMEONE KILL THIS THREAD. STOP IT.
> 
> ALL of the information and background is here already. Going over it again and again, trying to argue the realities is all useless.
> 
> People will not accept that which happened, and I DO NOT CARE. Tough. STAY PERPLEXED.
> 
> If you won't simply believe it, fine, don't believe anything!!!! The Captain of the Kim Jacob told me they travel at 8 knots. I WAS ONBOARD. Do you REALLY want to ARGUE THAT POINT????
> 
> Now move along, nothing to see here......


Have tried not to come back here but sorry Doug, you are the one "calling" me&#8230;

Just to clarify that big tankers are making at least 13 kts according most of the standard Charter Parties and don't think so that Kim Jacob is different or there is everything wrong on that tanker because Doug say so!!!!

I don't believe&#8230;&#8230;as Kim Jacob departed West Africa on certain date and arrived Canada on certain date as well (data from the internet) and rough calculation showing that they were making average speed of above 12 kts!!!!!!................easy to check&#8230;&#8230;and for your info all lifeboats according SOLAS and LSA code are tested to sustain being towed at about 6 kts max in calm water and that Captain knew that very well I presume&#8230;..it was his judgment not to lower the boats and looking from my side it was correct because if he did it might be that he would find him self in situation to decide whom to assist 4-5 crew members he send down or to you&#8230;.and what do you think to whom would he decide to help!!!!!!! If you check data for those big ships and their lifeboats all will be clear to you as well&#8230;.just if you want to&#8230;.

Sound that you are sad he didn't make more mistakes apart of those you had "identified"&#8230;..than he would be on some pages around&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

You posted that your wife was ready to go down into lifeboat and take you out&#8230;.

What you tried to say with that???? That she love you so much to risk her life to you or that all on board of tanker were not brave and able to lower those boats if it was safe to do!!!!!! Why did they went into water for you, than?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man,&#8230;&#8230; I can not accept all those things regardless tragedy you had because will confuse and guide in wrong direction people who are not familiar with them which will cause more harm than good to them in case that they need to relay on your words in the future&#8230;think about that as so many of them are visiting this pages to learn something new&#8230;hope no one will need any advice from this post particularly, but&#8230;&#8230;

And again just friendly advice: Stop showing here, buy new boat and enjoy in coastal sailing focusing on your life and leave high seas, oceans and tankers to others&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;one word relax&#8230;.you deserved it&#8230;.second chance had been given&#8230;.

Long and happy life!!!!!


----------



## SVAuspicious

Doug, As always thanks for your honesty in responding to my question. I have some thoughts but it will take a bit to post them coherently. Since you are heading in my direction, if your schedule has you stopping in Annapolis I'd be happy to buy you a round and shake your hand. Give me a call 443-327-9084 on your way through. 

sail fast.


----------



## smackdaddy

Visitor1111 said:


> Have tried not to come back here but sorry Doug, you are the one "calling" me&#8230;
> 
> Just to clarify that big tankers are making at least 13 kts according most of the standard Charter Parties and don't think so that Kim Jacob is different or there is everything wrong on that tanker because Doug say so!!!!
> 
> I don't believe&#8230;&#8230;as Kim Jacob departed West Africa on certain date and arrived Canada on certain date as well (data from the internet) and rough calculation showing that they were making average speed of above 12 kts!!!!!!................easy to check&#8230;&#8230;and for your info all lifeboats according SOLAS and LSA code are tested to sustain being towed at about 6 kts max in calm water and that Captain knew that very well I presume&#8230;..it was his judgment not to lower the boats and looking from my side it was correct because if he did it might be that he would find him self in situation to decide whom to assist 4-5 crew members he send down or to you&#8230;.and what do you think to whom would he decide to help!!!!!!! If you check data for those big ships and their lifeboats all will be clear to you as well&#8230;.just if you want to&#8230;.
> 
> Sound that you are sad he didn't make more mistakes apart of those you had "identified"&#8230;..than he would be on some pages around&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;
> 
> You posted that your wife was ready to go down into lifeboat and take you out&#8230;.
> 
> What you tried to say with that???? That she love you so much to risk her life to you or that all on board of tanker were not brave and able to lower those boats if it was safe to do!!!!!! Why did they went into water for you, than?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Man,&#8230;&#8230; I can not accept all those things regardless tragedy you had because will confuse and guide in wrong direction people who are not familiar with them which will cause more harm than good to them in case that they need to relay on your words in the future&#8230;think about that as so many of them are visiting this pages to learn something new&#8230;hope no one will need any advice from this post particularly, but&#8230;&#8230;
> 
> And again just friendly advice: Stop showing here, buy new boat and enjoy in coastal sailing focusing on your life and leave high seas, oceans and tankers to others&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;one word relax&#8230;.you deserved it&#8230;.second chance had been given&#8230;.
> 
> Long and happy life!!!!!


Visitor, I'm just curious, were you on the Kim Jacob? You do know a lot about this stuff.


----------



## casey1999

Little off topic, but maybe good at this point we break away. Interesting the Kim Jacob only had one engine. Is this typical of merchant ships? Sure would want to make sure that puppy were running good. Hate to be on a lee shore in a storm with that tanker full of oil. Even with good maintenance, as we have found "things break". Would think twin diesels and props would be the way to go. Any naval design experts out there?


----------



## mitiempo

Many freighters and tankers are single engine. They do not need the ultimate in maneuverability as they use tugs in harbor/docking situations.


----------



## casey1999

mitiempo said:


> Many freighters and tankers are single engine. They do not need the ultimate in maneuverability as they use tugs in harbor/docking situations.


I'm thinking more in terms of reliability when far out at sea. Two engines, one breaks, still got one engine. Also, with all these freighters running around with one engine, I would think their must be some type of "AAA" for the high seas to do major at sea engine repairs. On top of the single engine potential problem, seems a lot of these ships are not maintained well.


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Little off topic, but maybe good at this point we break away. Interesting the Kim Jacob only had one engine. Is this typical of merchant ships? Sure would want to make sure that puppy were running good. Hate to be on a lee shore in a storm with that tanker full of oil. Even with good maintenance, as we have found "things break". Would think twin diesels and props would be the way to go. Any naval design experts out there?


Virtually all large merchant ships and VLCCs are single screw, though many modern ships have a modest auxiliary backup engine...

A couple of very good reads out there, Noel Mostert's SUPERSHIP, although now somewhat outdated, remains the definitive classic:

Amazon.com: Supership (9780394494807): Noel Mostert: Books

Just read OCEAN TITANS a couple of years ago, it's a terrific book:

Amazon.com: Ocean Titans: Journeys in Search of the Soul of a Ship (9781599210384): Daniel Sekulich: Books

One of the most fascinating chapters in the latter is regarding the world of ship-breaking, mostly done today in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan... This YouTube video is extremely well done, brilliantly photographed, and well worth a look at what can only be a hellish line of work:

Shipbreakers in Gadani beach, Pakistan - YouTube


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> He had previously attempted to catch our sea anchor on their previous pass by our bow using a grappling hook. But, on their first pass they were too far forward and couldn't reach the sea anchor. So, on their second pass, initially it looked like they would just be coming in closer. When you're dealing with a 900 foot tanker and a 500 foot line, it isn't until it is too late to determine that their course will intersect rather than slip by the line.
> 
> AND, I did not know how bad this would turn out in order to be inspired to cut any lines. As I said, I only felt that this would not turn out well.....
> 
> But, more importantly, what is your point in asking me these questions?
> Why didn't you do this or that.... couldn't you see this or that.....
> 
> Sorry that you are perplexed. Sucks huh?


OK, fair enough... Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that you have been overly critical of the Master and crew of the KIM JACOB, is all...

In any rescue, it is incumbent on those being rescued to be as pro-active as possible... You've been very critical of their reluctance to launch a lifeboat, and yet you had an unsinkable Boston Whaler ready to deploy from your own stern davits, which might have afforded a much safer means of transfer...

But you're right, I wasn't there, that's all only supposition on my part...

Much credit goes to you for being as candid and forthcoming as you have been, Doug... As I originally stated my doubts that I would have lasted 3 hours in the North Atlantic that day, I also doubt I would have endured what has transpired in this thread as long as you have, and you've definitely earned my grudging respect for that...

Best wishes to you and your wife, hope you're able to find a suitable replacement for TRIUMPH...


----------



## eherlihy

Jon,

Don't begrudge the guy. Doug gave us HIS perspective. The captain and crew of the KIM JACOB are as free to contribute to this forum as anyone else. If they do, they should identify themselves as being present at the scene of the incident, lest they be considered part of the peanut gallery (like me). Personally, I would also very much like to hear Mrs. Sabbag's perspective, but she hasn't shared, at least in this forum.

I know that I would NOT have survived 3 hours of puking under water. I also know that I would be seriously pi$$ed off if a "rescuer" crushed my boat. I would also probably be a lot less level headed than Mr Sabbag.

Thanks to Doug, I have realized that when it comes time to transit the coast on NJ on my O'day, on way to Florida from Boston, I will either enlist other help, or solo. My wife ("The Admiral") is NOT coming with me PERIOD.

The destruction of s/v Triumph, and the rescue of Evelyn and Doug is history. WE CAN"T CHANGE IT! We can all learn from Doug's ordeal, and IMHO we should all be grateful that he has chosen to *candidly *share his experience. Please stop dwelling on the; would have, should have, could have's. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Learn from it, and be grateful that you can learn without having to experience it yourself!.

And please join me in telling the trolls to zip it.


----------



## mitiempo

The engine and its equipment are.


----------



## mitiempo

To change the subject from rescue a bit when a modern freighter/tanker visits Vancouver in the winter they come in Juan de Fuca straight, the direct route. 
The older more run down ships go north and pick up a pilot in Prince Rupert often and come down the inside as this route offers a lot more protection for an aging ship.


----------



## mitiempo

Getting back to the rescue, there has been no mention of scuttling the Triumph. I was under the impression that it was considered proper so as not to leave a hazard to navigation. I know Paul Lim scuttled his boat off Australia before leaving it. And in this link http://www.aqua.ac.nz/past_meetings/AQUA 2010 - Crisis Management.pdf
Dr. Charles Bradfield, after rescue by the Navy, was ordered to scuttle.

Excerpt below.


----------



## imagine2frolic

Yep stepping up to the raft still rings true. In my case I just sit on the bottom once she's turtled.........*i2f*


----------



## flyingwelshman

*Lessons learned*

Things I've learned from this thread:


Don't take preparedness and seaworthiness of your vessel and crew for granite.

Whether you are being hauled up the stern of a bouncing supertanker, or just chillin' in the cockpit: Winstons Taste Good (like a cigarette should!)










Oh yeah - one more: Never get involved in a land war in Asia!


----------



## junkrig

DougSabbag said:


> He had previously attempted to catch our sea anchor on their previous pass by our bow using a grappling hook. But, on their first pass they were too far forward and couldn't reach the sea anchor. So, on their second pass, initially it looked like they would just be coming in closer. When you're dealing with a 900 foot tanker and a 500 foot line, it isn't until it is too late to determine that their course will intersect rather than slip by the line.
> 
> AND, I did not know how bad this would turn out in order to be inspired to cut any lines. As I said, I only felt that this would not turn out well.....
> 
> But, more importantly, what is your point in asking me these questions?
> Why didn't you do this or that.... couldn't you see this or that.....
> 
> Sorry that you are perplexed. Sucks huh?


There is a military saying that applies here: All plans are off when the first shot is fired.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> I'm curious about a sensitive issue. You have been clear that you think calling for help was an error. The fact that I agree isn't relevant. *grin* In retrospect, does Evelyn feel that calling for help was appropriate or not? You said earlier that as a couple you are working through the ramifications of your experience and I respect that. I'm still interested in her thoughts in hindsight relative to yours.* I would find the answer of value in planning my own time offshore with Janet. So far we have settled into me sailing and her flying.*


Uhh, Dave - don't you know that there's a reason God put Bermuda where he did? (grin)

A shakedown cruise out to Bermuda and back is the PERFECT offshore test of boat and crew, for any East coast sailor contemplating extended voyaging...

No way of proving this, of course, but I would bet anything the sort of tragedy that befell RULE 62 would not have occurred, had the crew been given such an introduction to what passagemaking can be like, in advance...

It's the perfect distance, long enough to settle into an offshore routine, but not so long you and your partner are likely to kill each other enroute... Beautiful destination in which to recover and make up, if necessary... And, plenty of flights back to the States, if the trip out showed she's not cut out for passagemaking...


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> The "cascade effect" which has been referred to here, not only included the various parts which broke, but our bodies and strength over the weeks. And apparently her confidence.


I referred to the cascade effect earlier and I believe that it hasn't gotten enough attention in our discussions here. It isn't the first thing to break that usually results in disaster, it is the third thing. It behooves us all to treat the first breakage as potentially the first step in a chain of causality that can lead to great distress.

By way of example, on a delivery from Florida to Maryland a hose came off the pressure water pump in part due to unfortunate location of the pump too close to the engine. We caught it and fixed it but were left with only a few gallons of water in the tank. We could have likely finished our trip with what we had in bottles but I elected to head into Beaufort NC for water (and breakfast) before continuing. It seemed the safer course. We still made St Lucie to Annapolis in 4 days 19 hours even with the diversion. *grin*



DougSabbag said:


> In our computer development careers, once you work the bugs out of your program, it works forever. Not so on the Triumph, (or any boat), and that is something she isn't as comfortable with as me, or perhaps you.


It makes me nuts. I accept it, but it makes me nuts. *sigh* I feel that way about dusting too -- I already dusted once, why should I have to do it again?



DougSabbag said:


> ... along with the miles from shore ...


Distance from shore can have a huge psychological effect on people. I had one crew member some years ago that got quite sea sick well offshore, and only well offshore.



DougSabbag said:


> At one point, erroneously, a hatch above the main saloon was left partially open, which allowed water to enter and soak the settee, and everything on the table.


I have been accused of being a Nazi on that subject. I do not allow hatches or ports to be opened underway. Water in the boat is simply too detrimental. Fortunately my galley is adjacent to the companionway so in most conditions it provides sufficient ventilation for cooking underway. I do most or all the cooking underway so Janet doesn't have to deal with the heat.



DougSabbag said:


> but, these and our 4 hours on / 4 hours off shift schedule had worn us down, and I believe had also diminished her confidence in the cruise as a whole.


I can feel myself wearing out after three or four days of sailing with only two aboard. Like you, we stand 4 on/4 off to give the off-watch sufficient rest. Still the disruption builds up. On deliveries and our own cruises we regularly take on extra crew. As a delivery skipper I have a long list of crew candidates so it isn't difficult to find someone who wants to go. There are lots of fora that allow qualified crew to be recruited, such as Offshore Passages Opportunities. It can be a challenge to let a stranger or even some friends into one's home for a passage. I treat the experience like providing any other safety tool.

Best of luck.


----------



## DougSabbag

SVAuspicious.... Thank you.


----------



## DougSabbag

svHyLyte said:


> Doug--
> 
> At the time you discovered the blown Oil Cooler, did you close the raw water intake or leave it open? Further, did or did you not have a "high water" alarm.


Already answered.... read earlier posts.


----------



## DougSabbag

Visitor1111 said:


> Have tried not to come back here but sorry Doug, you are the one "calling" me&#8230;
> 
> Just to clarify that big tankers are making at least 13 kts according most of the standard Charter Parties and don't think so that Kim Jacob is different or there is everything wrong on that tanker because Doug say so!!!!
> 
> I don't believe&#8230;&#8230;as Kim Jacob departed West Africa on certain date and arrived Canada on certain date as well (data from the internet) and rough calculation showing that they were making average speed of above 12 kts!!!!!!................easy to check&#8230;&#8230;and for your info all lifeboats according SOLAS and LSA code are tested to sustain being towed at about 6 kts max in calm water and that Captain knew that very well I presume&#8230;..it was his judgment not to lower the boats and looking from my side it was correct because if he did it might be that he would find him self in situation to decide whom to assist 4-5 crew members he send down or to you&#8230;.and what do you think to whom would he decide to help!!!!!!! If you check data for those big ships and their lifeboats all will be clear to you as well&#8230;.just if you want to&#8230;.
> 
> Sound that you are sad he didn't make more mistakes apart of those you had "identified"&#8230;..than he would be on some pages around&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;
> 
> You posted that your wife was ready to go down into lifeboat and take you out&#8230;.
> 
> What you tried to say with that???? That she love you so much to risk her life to you or that all on board of tanker were not brave and able to lower those boats if it was safe to do!!!!!! Why did they went into water for you, than?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Man,&#8230;&#8230; I can not accept all those things regardless tragedy you had because will confuse and guide in wrong direction people who are not familiar with them which will cause more harm than good to them in case that they need to relay on your words in the future&#8230;think about that as so many of them are visiting this pages to learn something new&#8230;hope no one will need any advice from this post particularly, but&#8230;&#8230;
> 
> And again just friendly advice: Stop showing here, buy new boat and enjoy in coastal sailing focusing on your life and leave high seas, oceans and tankers to others&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;one word relax&#8230;.you deserved it&#8230;.second chance had been given&#8230;.
> 
> Long and happy life!!!!!


First of all, your argument about the cruising speed with a full load of oil on the Kim Jacob is with the Captain of that vessel, not me. He told me, and I observed 8 knots. Now, if you do not believe that, TALK TO THEM, NOT ME.

As far as putting out a life boat to save a drowing man, or not, if you wouldn't deploy a life boat to save a drowning man then please don't answer the AMVER call for assistance. Because sometimes that call will require you to deploy a life boat.

And if you don't "like" deploying a life boat to save a drowning man, imagine if YOU were that drowning man and you were looking up at the life boat sitting pretty on the deck.... wouldn't you be SCREAMING for them to deploy it to save you?

As far as having to choose who to save if a life boat is deployed. Well, all those people in the life boat would be IN A LIFE BOAT, so they would be fine.
It is the poor dude in the OCEAN who is NOT FINE. So, the life boat gets the drowning man, then motors to the stern of the tanker, and ALL the men are hoisted up to the deck.

As far as why the men wouldn't deploy a life boat to get the drowning man, but my wife would, I suppose you would have to ask those men. But, it would appear that, again, they really did not want to put themselves in any sort of an uncomfortable or even slightly dangerous position to save a man, because they, (unlike my wife) did not care as much about the drowning man as she did. That would seem VERY OBVIOUSLY TRUE. So, with that truth established, AGAIN, perhaps they should not have answered the AMVER call, since they were not really up for saving a drowning man, unless it could be done from the deck.

As far as your advice to me to stay close to shore; well, again, what I have learned is not to ask the CG for an AMVER respondent to save me, because they will only do so if they can stay on their deck... except for one man, the Captain, who did try to save me. AND, they could kill you from their erroneous actions and still expect to be thanked? Excuse me, but it takes more than just the good thoughts to earn thanks. It takes actions.
Staying on deck while watching a man drown (after smashing his boat to bits) is not the sort of heroic efforts which qualifies for any medals, does it?!

So, as much as you seem to want to diminish me as a person worthy of being saved, I have to point out the reality that the crew of that vessel was not willing to save me if it required placing themselves in jeopardy, no matter how slight the jeopardy. So, they should not have gotten involved at all.

Granted, this sort of attitude might remove some participants from the AMVER program, but were they really FULL participants anyway? No, so no great loss.

Through maritime history there have been various life saving groups, for instance out of Gloucester, who would (in any conditions), go out to sea to save people. And some of those people died trying to save others.
If you want to be a "savior" when called, than understand the responsibility, and accept it; or else don't get involved.

Do not stand on a deck and watch a man drown, while leaning on a life boat which you refuse to deploy at all.


----------



## DougSabbag

SVAuspicious said:


> Doug, As always thanks for your honesty in responding to my question. I have some thoughts but it will take a bit to post them coherently. Since you are heading in my direction, if your schedule has you stopping in Annapolis I'd be happy to buy you a round and shake your hand. Give me a call 443-327-9084 on your way through.
> 
> sail fast.


I just drove there, and Saturday met with Richard on Challenge, a 53' Amel.

Now I am in Forida. But, we are driving back (to Boston) tomorrow.

So, as we are cruising by Annapolis, I will call you! It should be in the early evening.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> OK, fair enough... Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that you have been overly critical of the Master and crew of the KIM JACOB, is all...
> 
> In any rescue, it is incumbent on those being rescued to be as pro-active as possible... You've been very critical of their reluctance to launch a lifeboat, and yet you had an unsinkable Boston Whaler ready to deploy from your own stern davits, which might have afforded a much safer means of transfer...
> 
> But you're right, I wasn't there, that's all only supposition on my part...
> 
> Much credit goes to you for being as candid and forthcoming as you have been, Doug... As I originally stated my doubts that I would have lasted 3 hours in the North Atlantic that day, I also doubt I would have endured what has transpired in this thread as long as you have, and you've definitely earned my grudging respect for that...
> 
> Best wishes to you and your wife, hope you're able to find a suitable replacement for TRIUMPH...


As far as being "ovely critical of the Master and Crew of the Kim Jacob"... well, they surely did have the right thoughts, initially, i.e., let's save this poor sailor and his wife. Great, wonderful! The world needs more good Samaratins.

But, they smashed the Triumph with the people onboard whom they were there to save. Amazingly, the TRiumph crew managed to avoid the violent destruction, through no actions of the Kim Jacob crew.

Then, the crew watched the Captain of the Triumph drowning, for 3 HOURS, from their DECK, with only their Captain willing to try to get the drowning man.

If YOU were that drowning man, how many medals would you be creating for the people who watched from the deck??

As far as the Boston Whaler... once I jumped overboard, that was out of reach. AND, another detail.... when the Triumph was smashed, the plug for the Whaler was lost into the smashed interior of the Triumph.

AND, as I have itemized, I did make MANY mistakes. Read them again if you really need to increase your level of finger pointing toward me. But, if you don't mind, how about just keeping that to yourself, because I came as close to paying the ULTIMATE PRICE for my errors as I could have without actually doing so, on top of the losses I HAVE PAID. Which are SUBSTANTIAL.

And thank you for your good wishes.


----------



## DougSabbag

mitiempo said:


> Getting back to the rescue, there has been no mention of scuttling the Triumph. I was under the impression that it was considered proper so as not to leave a hazard to navigation. I know Paul Lim scuttled his boat off Australia before leaving it. And in this link http://www.aqua.ac.nz/past_meetings/AQUA 2010 - Crisis Management.pdf
> Dr. Charles Bradfield, after rescue by the Navy, was ordered to scuttle.
> 
> Excerpt below.


I just love your statement: "I was under the impression that it was considered proper so as not to leave a hazard to navigation."

Perhaps you read where I hung onto the Triumph after I was dragged for a 1/4 mile some of which UNDER WATER, and finally got to hang onto the jib?

Had she been scuttled, I would also be "scuttled".

After she was smashed, we all went into another gear. And that gear was self preservation. PERIOD.

So, by asking this question, it would appear that you either did not read the
description of the events, or you have not been able to visualize that scene.

There was no opportunity to scuttle the Triumph, beyond the excellent attempt which the Kim Jacob did toward that sort of goal....

Considered proper..... WOW, what a sense of humor.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> Uhh, Dave - don't you know that there's a reason God put Bermuda where he did? (grin)
> 
> A shakedown cruise out to Bermuda and back is the PERFECT offshore test of boat and crew, for any East coast sailor contemplating extended voyaging...
> 
> No way of proving this, of course, but I would bet anything the sort of tragedy that befell RULE 62 would not have occurred, had the crew been given such an introduction to what passagemaking can be like, in advance...
> 
> It's the perfect distance, long enough to settle into an offshore routine, but not so long you and your partner are likely to kill each other enroute... Beautiful destination in which to recover and make up, if necessary... And, plenty of flights back to the States, if the trip out showed she's not cut out for passagemaking...


FYI: Evelyn and I have cruised through 60 + knot storms, out to sea; which kept us out to sea for over 3 days. We have been onboard through 4 hurricanes in Southern Florida. Last summer we cruised from Fort Lauderdale to Maine, and a lot of that was well offshore, in the Gulf Stream.
We have cruised from Florida to the Bahamas numerous times, and all the way around Florida to Cortez, (near Tampa).
She earned her 6 pack Captains' license.
Once, when I broke 2 ribs, she had to handle raising / lowering sails in a pretty good storm. We have had all sorts of issues, emergencies, challenges...
I could go on and on, but what I am leading up to, is that a cruise to Bermuda could almost definetly not determine what you are trying to determine ahead of time.

Only being in the conditions which inspire the MayDay call can actually "test" what someone will do when in that condition. Everything shy of that can not be assumed to be a valid indicator of Jack....


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> =]As far as why the men wouldn't deploy a life boat to get the drowning man, but my wife would, I suppose you would have to ask those men. But, it would appear that, again, they really did not want to put themselves in any sort of an uncomfortable or even slightly dangerous position to save a man, because they, (unlike my wife) did not care as much about the drowning man as she did. That would seem VERY OBVIOUSLY TRUE. So, with that truth established, AGAIN, perhaps they should not have answered the AMVER call, since they were not really up for saving a drowning man, unless it could be done from the deck.


Doug, on your point about the lifeboat, the question I have on that is how capable are these boats of getting someone out of the water? It seems that unless these boats have pretty good maneuverability, it's hard to see how they would have effectively gotten to you in those conditions. And how you would have been pulled aboard (if it had a top hatch).

Granted, I don't know squat about tanker lifeboats. But they don't look like a nimble rescue platform when compared to the boat launched from the cruise ship in that previous vid I put up.

For reference, here's a vid of a freefall type being launched and driven in calm water.






And here's a crane lowered version taking a spill...






It just seems you're making a lot of assumptions about the captain's/crew's apparent disregard for your safety in the post above. And I can definitely see another side to the argument if this is the only option available. Even the CG will leave someone if it is judged to be too dangerous for the rescuer.


----------



## blt2ski

We are still arguing about this how many posts later?!?!?!


----------



## LandLocked66c

blt2ski said:


> We are still arguing about this how many posts later?!?!?!


I'm shooting for 50 pages!


----------



## AdamLein

LandLocked66c said:


> I'm shooting for 50 pages!


If you're not set up to view 100 posts per page, you're doing too much clicking


----------



## blt2ski

I'm at 25 pages reading 20 posts per page..........some of the posts/arguing are getting pretty petty IMHO, and really serving no purpose, other than to say a different opinion. Some like smackys say why the container ship may or may not have tried harder to rescue doug etc. One can debate reasons for Dougs boat being set up as it was, to no end........ after awhile, it is why are we talking/typing etc about something that is in the "been there done that did that"

just my $.02 not that I can buy much of anything for .02 any more. I still sorta kinda remember getting 20 peices of candy for .02! nickel candy bars..........

Marty


----------



## junkrig

blt2ski said:


> I'm at 25 pages reading 20 posts per page..........some of the posts/arguing are getting pretty petty IMHO, and really serving no purpose, other than to say a different opinion. Some like smackys say why the container ship may or may not have tried harder to rescue doug etc. One can debate reasons for Dougs boat being set up as it was, to no end........ after awhile, it is why are we talking/typing etc about something that is in the "been there done that did that"
> 
> just my $.02 not that I can buy much of anything for .02 any more. I still sorta kinda remember getting 20 peices of candy for .02! nickel candy bars..........
> 
> Marty


Longer, I believe, than DeniseO30's "sailing without a bra" threads. Not as much fun, though.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's the video of the _******_ that I was talking about earlier, where the boat is crushed by the cruise ship during the rescue. And these are pretty calm waters...


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> I could go on and on, but what I am leading up to, is that a cruise to Bermuda could almost definetly not determine what you are trying to determine ahead of time.
> 
> Only being in the conditions which inspire the MayDay call can actually "test" what someone will do when in that condition. Everything shy of that can not be assumed to be a valid indicator of Jack....


Hmmm, that sounds like someone who's never sailed to Bermuda, to me&#8230; (grin)

Actually, I was addressing Dave's concern, about ways to determine whether his wife was really cut out for a long bluewater passage. And, I stand by my opinion that a trip out to Bermuda is about as good a shakedown as there is, in trying to answer such a question&#8230;

There is very little comparison, IMHO, between riding the Gulf Stream up the East Coast from Florida, and the sort of _commitment_ involved in shooting for an offshore destination like Bermuda&#8230; Riding the Stream up the coast, one is rarely more than 80-100 miles offshore, and bailout options abound&#8230; Weather forecasting is far more precise that close to the US coast, all one has to do is sneak back inside the Stream if contrary weather threatens&#8230;

Once one crosses the Stream and is beyond the point of no return on a passage to Bermuda, you are "out there" to a degree you are not on a coastwise trip, and your only "bailout" is Bermuda&#8230; Should one suffer something like a lightning strike, or something similarly catastrophic that knocks out every system aboard, you still must find a relative speck in the ocean, surrounded by dangerous reefs&#8230; Should the same thing happen off the East coast, all you have to do is hang a left, and keep sailing until you run into a coastline largely covered with condos, and chances are good one could sail close enough to the beach to shout "Where am I?" to the lifeguards&#8230;

There's a good reason the Newport-Bermuda Race is one of the true classics of offshore racing, right up there with the Fastnet, and Sydney-Hobart&#8230; And, as anyone who's spent time in St George in November can attest, it's not uncommon for wives/partners to disembark there, telling their husbands in no uncertain terms that he needs to find someone else to accompany them the rest of the way to the islands, they're done&#8230;

In last year's Caribbean 1500, there were clearly some crews who had no idea what they were in for&#8230; The stupidity of a skipper bailing out into Oregon Inlet after one night at sea, because some of the crew were terrified of the prospect, or too sick to consider spending a second night offshore, well - there is simply no excuse for such a thing happening at the outset of a 1500 mile passage, and easily could have been avoided with a shakedown cruise&#8230;

I'm not suggesting such a trip would have made any difference in your case, but I really don't understand how one can be so certain that an offshore shakedown to a destination like Bermuda would be of no or minimal value in exposing potential weaknesses in a boat and crew contemplating an ocean crossing&#8230;


----------



## GeorgeB

I know from firsthand experience that the suction from even a slow turning prop on one of those 900 foot ships is tremendous. Not enough the take a (crippled) sailboat under, but definitely enough to pull it alongside the hull. (note to shelf: never have bad things happen, and never need rescue.)


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> I stand by my opinion that a trip out to Bermuda is about as good a shakedown as there is, in trying to answer such a question.


Independent of the Triumph case I agree that going to Bermuda is a reasonable test of boat and crew. The odd challenge is that at four(ish) days from Newport or Norfolk most people are just at the point of getting into the rhythm of being offshore when they arrive. Some people may well decide passages are not for them when, if on a passage a couple of days longer, might choose differently.

In some ways, Newport to Abaco non-stop or Norfolk to Tortola is a better initiation into passagemaking. Six to ten days is enough time to get over the initial anxiety and develop a rhythm. The nice thing about the two routes I noted is that Bermuda is a good bailout if someone simply can't make it. *grin*

All that said, passage to Bermuda is a good test of boat and crew. You may lose people who really can soldier on, but you aren't likely to have anyone continue that should not.

My vocabulary may be different than others but a coastwise passage up or down the US East Coast is coastal, not offshore. If you are a day or so from a bailout you simply aren't offshore. That doesn't make the Gulf Stream crossing from Florida to Bimini easier, but it isn't offshore in my book. If you won't be more than a reliable weather forecast from safe harbor you aren't offshore in my book.


----------



## casey1999

Since one of the main failures that led to the loss of the yacht was chain plate failure, I thought this article was interesting- just got it today (see page two- letters).
http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/assets/pdf/SeaworthyJuly2011.pdf
So even inspecting stainless steel chain plates may not mean much. I am thinking about installing titanium. See any problems?


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Since one of the main failures that led to the loss of the yacht was chain plate failure, I thought this article was interesting- just got it today (see page two- letters).
> http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/assets/pdf/SeaworthyJuly2011.pdf
> So even inspecting stainless steel chain plates may not mean much. I am thinking about installing titanium. See any problems?


I'm guessing as soon as you obtain a quote for chainplates fabricated from titanium, you'll see a "problem"... (grin)

Bronze is a good bet, but even they will cost a small fortune... I think going with massively oversized stainless is still a reasonable way to go, I doubled the thickness and increased the length when I replaced my originals...

Make sure you configure your chainplates to be easily inspected, the manner in which many builders "hide" them is a nasty trend... On more than one occasion, I've been below decks at a boat show, and have heard someone remark that they didn't like the look of an exposed chainplate, that it looked too"agricultural", or "unfinished"... Hide them at your peril, however, the ability to monitor the status of inboard chainplates for hints of rust or deck leaks is critical, IMHO...

Pretty sobering report about those particular chainplates - Pacific Seacraft has always been among the most highly regarded of builders, after all... Seems a fairly solid confirmation that sailing with 30 year old chainplates likely entails a serious degree of risk...


----------



## chrisncate

JonEisberg said:


> I'm guessing as soon as you obtain a quote for chainplates fabricated from titanium, you'll see a "problem"... (grin)
> 
> Bronze is a good bet, but even they will cost a small fortune... I think going with massively oversized stainless is still a reasonable way to go, I doubled the thickness and increased the length when I replaced my originals...
> 
> Make sure you configure your chainplates to be easily inspected, the manner in which many builders "hide" them is a nasty trend... On more than one occasion, I've been below decks at a boat show, and have heard someone remark that they didn't like the look of an exposed chainplate, that it looked too"agricultural", or "unfinished"... Hide them at your peril, however, the ability to monitor the status of inboard chainplates for hints of rust or deck leaks is critical, IMHO...
> 
> Pretty sobering report about those particular chainplates - Pacific Seacraft has always been among the most highly regarded of builders, after all... Seems a fairly solid confirmation that sailing with 30 year old chainplates likely entails a serious degree of risk...


Regarding titanium, I was talking to Andy Schell last spring about his and he said they weren't much more than stainless, and less than silicon bronze. They looked like silver and were lightweight. Neat stuff. Does titanium have crevice corrosion issues?

You can get a length of silicon bronze flat bar - 1/4" x 2" x 8' for about $300 bucks including shipping. This is what we made ours out of. It's easy to cut and drill, and I personally love bronze for it's lack of crevice corrosion issues and longevity. To me bronze makes a lot of sense cost and fabrication wise, not to mention as the material of choice. They only drawback I can see is the weight (not an issue for me, but..).


----------



## mitiempo

I just had new chainplates made of 316 stainless, longer than the old ones which were actually in excellent shape and 34 years old. 1/4" x 2" type 316 is only $15/ft. That makes the bronze you purchased 2 1/2 times as much.

Crevice corrosion doesn't happen overnight. Mine did leak but I'm not sure for how long. No evidence of any corrosion. I think if you keep them dry and inspect every four or 5 years they should last decades. They probably will need re-bedding in 5 years anyway. 

Most of the problems we see on our older boats were after many years of neglect and ignorance of the consequences. With what we know now and the proper maintenance I don't think that will happen again.


----------



## chrisncate

mitiempo said:


> I just had new chainplates made of 316 stainless, longer than the old ones which were actually in excellent shape and 34 years old. 1/4" x 2" type 316 is only $15/ft. That makes the bronze you purchased 2 1/2 times as much.
> 
> Crevice corrosion doesn't happen overnight. Mine did leak but I'm not sure for how long. No evidence of any corrosion. I think if you keep them dry and inspect every four or 5 years they should last decades. They probably will need re-bedding in 5 years anyway.
> 
> Most of the problems we see on our older boats were after many years of neglect and ignorance of the consequences. With what we know now and the proper maintenance I don't think that will happen again.


Oh, bronze costs more than ss to be sure, the way to make up the cost in material is to do the fabrication yourself. I am not equipped for anything but the most basic of small hole drilling in SS, but with bronze almost anyone can cut it with a jig saw with good metal blade and some powerful clamps to hold it down on a sawhorse. Same with drilling - just use lots of motor oil as you cut. Piece of cake.. 

As I understand it, crevice corrosion comes into play when oxygen is not present and water is, like in the area where the chainplate sticks up through the hull bedded into the deck.


----------



## mitiempo

That is correct - but keep it dry and there shouldn't be a problem. And it takes a while, so don't let a leak continue which means don't hide the chainplates.


----------



## CrazyRu

There is one problem with titanium - it can eat other less noble metals, directly connected to titanium part. So called galvanic corrosion.
Here is a link.
Connecting Titanium


----------



## mitiempo

That's easy to solve - make the whole damn rig out of titanium.


----------



## CaptFoolhardy

AdamLein said:


> If you're not set up to view 100 posts per page, you're doing too much clicking


I didn't even realize that was configurable. Thanks for the tip!


----------



## casey1999

mitiempo said:


> I just had new chainplates made of 316 stainless, longer than the old ones which were actually in excellent shape and 34 years old. 1/4" x 2" type 316 is only $15/ft. That makes the bronze you purchased 2 1/2 times as much.
> 
> Crevice corrosion doesn't happen overnight. Mine did leak but I'm not sure for how long. No evidence of any corrosion. I think if you keep them dry and inspect every four or 5 years they should last decades. They probably will need re-bedding in 5 years anyway.
> 
> Most of the problems we see on our older boats were after many years of neglect and ignorance of the consequences. With what we know now and the proper maintenance I don't think that will happen again.


For my 34 footer, I need a total of about 10 feet of chain plate. Using bronze the cost increase over stainless would be a total of $225 for material alone. When factoring in having a shop drill the 6 holes I need for each chain plate the cost increase may be a wash (ss more expensive to machine). Based on the potential for disimilar metal corrosion with titanium, sounds like bronze is the way to go. Actually my stem fitting is bronze. Even an extra $225 if it lets you sleep better while sailing in a storm, cost well worth it. Even if we were talking thousands of dollars increase, wouldn't that be worth it?

The point of me posting the arcticle is that even with a good inspection, no guarantee the chain plates are any good. So then you are faced with replacing the stainless plates every ___ years (you fill in the blank). I'd rather go with say bronze, not have to replace the chain plates for a very long time (my bronze stem fitting is 33 years old and still in great shape), and not have to worry about the unkown of creavice corrosion.

To be honest, don't understand why so many fittings on a boat are made of stianless. For what a gather, it mainly came about because stainless "looks" good. You hear so many stories of stainless just failing, even if a recent inspection indicated all was good. Bronze is the true marine metal.


----------



## casey1999

CrazyRu said:


> There is one problem with titanium - it can eat other less noble metals, directly connected to titanium part. So called galvanic corrosion.
> Here is a link.
> Connecting Titanium


Read item #8 of your link. Looks like Titanium should be ok with as a chain plate even if they are connected. The rigging should not be active, it should be passive.

Also found this site (interesting article):

Titanium Chainplates Info - Allied Titanium

they also sell titanium chain plates at about $200 each all fabricated.


----------



## AdamLein

casey1999 said:


> Bronze is the true marine metal.


Is bronze on boats guaranteed to always look bronze? Is there any way to tell whether my shiny metal bits are stainless, vs. some sort of plated bronze?


----------



## mitiempo

Adam

I don't think you will find any bronze on a Catalina 27. None I have seen anyway. And chromed bronze is rare now compared to years past.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Granite chain plates are the biznes right now! Just sayin...


----------



## casey1999

AdamLein said:


> Is bronze on boats guaranteed to always look bronze? Is there any way to tell whether my shiny metal bits are stainless, vs. some sort of plated bronze?


On my 33 year old boat a lot of the standing fittings and winches are chrome plated bronze. They still look strong. I can tell because the chrome plating has either been worn away or there may be small dings in the chrome where you can see the underlaying bronze.

BTW, the bronze is not shiny (after being on a boat), it is dull color bronze and salt water can give it a very dark green tinge. You could polish it, but that just removes good metal and takes away the protective petina.

Here is another interesting video:

Jack Chrysler Presents: Titanium - The Ultimate Metal for the Marine Environment


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Read item #8 of your link. Looks like Titanium should be ok with as a chain plate even if they are connected. The rigging should not be active, it should be passive.
> 
> Also found this site (interesting article):
> 
> Titanium Chainplates Info - Allied Titanium
> 
> they also sell titanium chain plates at about $200 each all fabricated.


Thanks for those links, amazing how quickly things have changed with the pricing on titanium, wasn't very long ago it was often jokingly referred to an Unobtainium, and for good reason... I've been using titanium anchor shackles for awhile, and they were still considerably more expensive than an equivalent stainless counterpart ...

If I were replacing or starting from scratch today, I'd probably have a good look at composite chainplates from a material such as G-10, a number of high-end builders appear to be going that route, as well... Probably pretty pricey, however, would be my guess...


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks for those links, amazing how quickly things have changed with the pricing on titanium, wasn't very long ago it was often jokingly referred to an Unobtainium, and for good reason... I've been using titanium anchor shackles for awhile, and they were still considerably more expensive than an equivalent stainless counterpart ...
> 
> If I were replacing or starting from scratch today, I'd probably have a good look at composite chainplates from a material such as G-10, a number of high-end builders appear to be going that route, as well... Probably pretty pricey, however, would be my guess...


Just to confirm, this link shows titanium chain plate pre fabed for many types of boats.
Titanium Chainplates, Items 1 to 50 of 90 - Allied Titanium

I have seen some new boats building the chain plate (of epoxy) right into the hull/deck) looks good although it seems their could be a very large stress concentration in the hole of the fiberglass chain plate- not sure if I would trust that over the long hual. Maybe for a short life race boat it is ok.
Regards


----------



## zedboy

casey1999 said:


> To be honest, don't understand why so many fittings on a boat are made of stianless. For what a gather, it mainly came about because stainless "looks" good. You hear so many stories of stainless just failing, even if a recent inspection indicated all was good. Bronze is the true marine metal.


Just out of curiosity, how much weaker is a typical bronze chainplate than its SS equivalent? Is bronze strong enough that other things (swages? mast-side fittings?) will fail first?

For that matter, I see that there are about a zillion copper alloys in the bronze family. What's typically used for marine applications?


----------



## casey1999

zedboy said:


> Just out of curiosity, how much weaker is a typical bronze chainplate than its SS equivalent? Is bronze strong enough that other things (swages? mast-side fittings?) will fail first?
> 
> For that matter, I see that there are about a zillion copper alloys in the bronze family. What's typically used for marine applications?


My understanding is silicone bronze is best in marine applications.

Here are specs:
Silicone Bronze: Ultimate strengthe 85k psi, Yield 55k psi
316 SS Ultimate strength 90K psi Yield 60k psi
304 SS Ultimate strength 73K psi Yield 31k psi

So Silicone Bronze should be fine- for practical purposes as strong as "new" 316 SS.

Good link:
Stainless Product Guide - AlcobraMetals.com

http://www.alcobrametals.com/guide.php?metal=2#silicon


----------



## xymotic

I have an OLD steel boat, and where the rigging attaches there is significant rust.

I'm not sure if these are 'chainplates' per se because they are welded to the boat, and I've not investigates exactly how they are constructed all that much.

But, it seems to me that one will never be abole to paint or protect that area, since the rig will move slightly and the shackles will rub, and also hold a tiny amount of water, which obviously will equal rust.

Which brings me to my question, is there a material that I could use to isolate the stainless rig from the steel chainplate? something like a g10 sandwich or a composite ring that the rig would attach to?

How can I better protect this area, and prevent THIS:


----------



## casey1999

xymotic said:


> I have an OLD steel boat, and where the rigging attaches there is significant rust.
> 
> I'm not sure if these are 'chainplates' per se because they are welded to the boat, and I've not investigates exactly how they are constructed all that much.
> 
> But, it seems to me that one will never be abole to paint or protect that area, since the rig will move slightly and the shackles will rub, and also hold a tiny amount of water, which obviously will equal rust.
> 
> Which brings me to my question, is there a material that I could use to isolate the stainless rig from the steel chainplate? something like a g10 sandwich or a composite ring that the rig would attach to?
> 
> How can I better protect this area, and prevent THIS:


A freind has an 85 foot steel ketch that he has sailed several times aroung the world and sailed continusely for the last 20 years. The boat also has steel chain plates welded to the hull like yours. The plates were corroded where the stainless pin goes through the hole in the steel chain plate for the shroud connection. I was surprised it has held. Maybe a marine grease would work at that location where the pin would rub.


----------



## tommays

I have to go with it depends keeping in mind i fix broken SS stuff for a living



















For example on the Cal 29 there are SIX chain-plates taking care of the load on at the widest part of the boat(the uppers shrouds are only 3/16 on and 8000# hull) and a 3/16 upper would POP before it got close to stressing the plate

All six were removed checked and buffed and given the light use they had for most of the boats life i not to worried

I have also never seen SS crevice corrode from the inside OUT it always starts on the surface and works IN


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> Doug, on your point about the lifeboat, the question I have on that is how capable are these boats of getting someone out of the water? It seems that unless these boats have pretty good maneuverability, it's hard to see how they would have effectively gotten to you in those conditions. And how you would have been pulled aboard (if it had a top hatch).
> 
> Granted, I don't know squat about tanker lifeboats. But they don't look like a nimble rescue platform when compared to the boat launched from the cruise ship in that previous vid I put up.
> 
> For reference, here's a vid of a freefall type being launched and driven in calm water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a crane lowered version taking a spill...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just seems you're making a lot of assumptions about the captain's/crew's apparent disregard for your safety in the post above. And I can definitely see another side to the argument if this is the only option available. Even the CG will leave someone if it is judged to be too dangerous for the rescuer.


The life boats on the Kim Jacob do not look like those. Theirs are actually named RESCUE LIFE BOATs i.e., they DO have SIDE openning doors.

So, theirs were MADE to RESCUE people, like the man they were watching drown for over 3 hours, in daylight.

And as I said, I would have deployed either of their RESCUE life boats and gotten YOU, or anyone I was watching drowning if I were on deck standing next to the RESCUE life boats they have.


----------



## AdamLein

Here are some photos of the _Kim Jacob_ from marinetraffic.com. Hard to really see the lifeboats in these shots.

_Pic deleted due to it being so damn big_


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's a blow up of the LB...(Is it just me or does this structure, davits, color, etc. look exactly like the video above? Could that video have been taken on the KJ??)


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> The life boats on the Kim Jacob do not look like those. Theirs are actually named RESCUE LIFE BOATs i.e., they DO have SIDE openning doors.
> 
> So, theirs were MADE to RESCUE people, like the man they were watching drown for over 3 hours, in daylight.
> 
> And as I said, I would have deployed either of their RESCUE life boats and gotten YOU, or anyone I was watching drowning if I were on deck standing next to the RESCUE life boats they have.


Fair enough. I'm just glad they got you on board one way or the other.


----------



## AdamLein

smackdaddy said:


> Here's a blow up of the LB...(Is it just me or does this structure, davits, color, etc. look exactly like the video above? Could that video have been taken on the KJ??)


The thought occurred to me, but I don't think so. The ship in the video doesn't have that big red tower just forward of the lifeboat crane.

Then again I suppose the red tower could be on the centerline or to port, and thus not show up in the video.


----------



## smackdaddy

AdamLein said:


> The thought occurred to me, but I don't think so. The ship in the video doesn't have that big red tower just forward of the lifeboat crane.
> 
> Then again I suppose the red tower could be on the centerline or to port, and thus not show up in the video.


Actually, I think I just found the report on that incident:

Selected Incident - Step Change in Safety

Not sure of the ship name though.


----------



## AdamLein

I think this is a longer version of the same video:

Lifeboat Drop - especially watch the last part - YouTube


----------



## AdamLein

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, I think I just found the report on that incident:
> 
> Selected Incident - Step Change in Safety
> 
> Not sure of the ship name though.


Something funny in here. A MODU is a "Mobile Drilling Unit", i.e. drilling platform. Similar reports talk about the AD22 as being the vessel carrying the lifeboat in this video... the AD22 is indeed a drilling platform. But the thing in the video doesn't look much like a drilling platform to my ignorant eyes.


----------



## smackdaddy

Youtube and Google are really letting us down here.

Where is a sailing-ex-tanker-captain when you need him? Swaaaaaaayyyyyyy?


----------



## CalebD

That there photo of the KJ shows it is a Panamax bulk carrier.
Sway indeed!
On the other hand it could be a cable layer...
or maybe even a tug boat!

It is definitely a ship to be reckoned with.


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> Here's a blow up of the LB...(Is it just me or does this structure, davits, color, etc. look exactly like the video above? Could that video have been taken on the KJ??)


When we were aboard, their RESCUE life boats were white; no these red ones!


----------



## DougSabbag

So, I have no idea when they changed from those red life boats to the white rescue life boats, but pretty much exactly where these red ones were is where the new ones are now.


----------



## DougSabbag

By the way.... I'm visting the NEW Triumph tomorrow. She is a 1992 Amel ketch, the 53 foot / Super Maramu. 
I hope to be bringing her up the coast to Boston in November. Should be a cold trip.

First I have to finish resealing her hull, which I will do in Fort Lauderdale at Playboy Boat Yard.

We hope to be moved onboard by Thanksgiving.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> We hope to be moved onboard by Thanksgiving.


Way to barely break your stride!


----------



## DougSabbag

Thank you! 

We're very excited to be getting such a fine vessel.


----------



## Minnewaska

DougSabbag said:


> By the way.... I'm visting the NEW Triumph tomorrow. She is a 1992 Amel ketch, the 53 foot / Super Maramu.
> I hope to be bringing her up the coast to Boston in November. Should be a cold trip.
> 
> First I have to finish resealing her hull, which I will do in Fort Lauderdale at Playboy Boat Yard.
> 
> We hope to be moved onboard by Thanksgiving.


Congratulations, Doug. Hope things settle down for you soon. I do not envy that November trip. Personally, I would point and shoot. Motor sail it on the rhumbline and get it over with. North of VA, that trip will be miserable at best. Best of luck.

I'm sure Thanksgiving will have great meaning for you, as you have much to be thankful for this year, despite the losses.


----------



## tommays

good luck with it i have always like the two that live in are area


----------



## montenido

Doug, I just looked up your model on Yachtworld. Found one in France. What a beautiful boat. I wish you all the luck, and hope you settle in nicely. Please include some pictures when you get the chance.

Cheers, Bill


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> When we were aboard, their RESCUE life boats were white; no these red ones!


No worries. You were there. I wasn't.

I just thought it was an interesting coincidence that the boat and davit in the video looked exactly like the boat in the KJ photo Adam put up.

And, to my earlier point, these orange boats do look like pretty inferior rescue platforms - so I could understand why a captain/crew wouldn't want to use one.

Post pics of your new boat when you get a chance...you lucky bastard!


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> By the way.... I'm visting the NEW Triumph tomorrow. She is a 1992 Amel ketch, the 53 foot / Super Maramu.
> I hope to be bringing her up the coast to Boston in November. Should be a cold trip.
> 
> First I have to finish resealing her hull, which I will do in Fort Lauderdale at Playboy Boat Yard.
> 
> We hope to be moved onboard by Thanksgiving.


Congratulations, Doug - that's great news... The very best of luck to you and Evelyn with her...

Does she have that twin pole rig on the shrouds that many of the older Amels had? I always thought that was one of old Henri's best ideas, a very practical arrangement to my eye, though I've never had the pleasure of sailing one of those boats...

You'll appreciate the helm station and windshield/dodger arrangement coming North, no doubt - good luck with the trip...


----------



## LandLocked66c

Congrats dood! Granite counter tops, are they in your/her future?


----------



## DougSabbag

Update.... I got here to look at the boat and she needs a lot more work than the price supports, so I have made a reduced offer to reflect the months of work required.
So, it is up to the seller to accept, or not.


----------



## eherlihy

Then it is time for a new thread in which you describe the issues, and vet ideas on how to best address them..


----------



## ArcherBowman

eherlihy said:


> Then it is time for a new thread in which you describe the issues, and vet ideas on how to best address them..


And link over to it.


----------



## hellosailor

"she needs a lot more work than the price supports,"
You mean, the granite countertops are _badly _in need of resealing? (VBG)

Is it just me, or has no one ever posted a thread "I saw the boat and it is exactly as described! And they forgot to mention, the galley knives are all Sabatier and plates real bone china!"

No really...there must be a law about "Whoever writes a boat-for-sale ad must be wearing beer googles at all times while writing it." Looking forward to hearing the rest.


----------



## alexdz

hellosailor said:


> "she needs a lot more work than the price supports,"
> You mean, the granite countertops are _badly _in need of resealing? (VBG)
> 
> Is it just me, or has no one ever posted a thread "I saw the boat and it is exactly as described! And they forgot to mention, the galley knives are all Sabatier and plates real bone china!"
> 
> No really...there must be a law about "Whoever writes a boat-for-sale ad must be wearing beer googles at all times while writing it." Looking forward to hearing the rest.


Having shopped for kids' cars recently I've come to the conclusion that while many people are knowingly lying about the condition of their cars, in a lot of cases I think they just don't realize how bad it is. Especially if you've had a car for a long time, the deterioration is gradual and people just don't notice how bad it's gotten as much as someone who gets into that same car for the first time. I imagine it's the same way with boats. Hell, I would say it even applies to spouses, although hopefully you're not trying to sell them.


----------



## hellosailor

Cars might actually be worse. Over the past years I've seen several Nooze Specials where they claim to have documented 90%, that's NINETY %, or more, of the used car ads as being simply shams or frauds. Often by someone who says "It was my ---'s car and I'm selling it for them" when the guy is really an unlicensed use car dealer who knows how much is wrong with it. Unlicensed often because it was taken away from them after too many complaints.

No, it couldn't be worse than the used car market, where a straight sale from a seller who isn't lying is a _documented _rarity.

Selling wives? How would you sell a wife? Even Henny Youngman couldn't GIVE his away. (VBG)


----------



## DougSabbag

Well, forget the Amel, now we're focused on Mikelson 51 or 56 ketches:

SKOL - a Mikelson 50' Pilothouse Ketch FOR SALE

BEAUTIFUL BOAT, I was on today!


----------



## DougSabbag

By the way, my concept on this thread is that it has evolved into the birth of a new "Triumph", in a way a memorial and also an impending "birth watch". 

So, belay the request for Amel 51s which are available, and replace with a request for links to any Mikelson 51s or 56s with the 3 cabin configuration, and ideally, the "in boom furler" rig.

Thank you!


----------



## DougSabbag

Oh, I am in Guatemala, looking at Skol SKOL - a Mikelson 50' Pilothouse Ketch FOR SALE but she (sadly) only has the 2 cabin design.

Does anyone know how good or bad they sail?


----------



## CrazyRu

DougSabbag said:


> Oh, I am in Guatemala, looking at Skol SKOL - a Mikelson 50' Pilothouse Ketch FOR SALE but she (sadly) only has the 2 cabin design.
> 
> Does anyone know how good or bad they sail?


Don't you know already, it depends on a skipper?


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> By the way, my concept on this thread is that it has evolved into the birth of a new "Triumph", in a way a memorial and also an impending "birth watch".
> 
> So, belay the request for Amel 51s which are available, and replace with a request for links to any Mikelson 51s or 56s with the 3 cabin configuration, and ideally, the "in boom furler" rig.
> 
> Thank you!


Wow, that's quite a switch...

IMHO, such a boat is hardly comparable to an Amel in the quality of the build, sailing ability, or ease of maintenance...

A Taiwanese boat of that size will require a massive amount of effort to maintain. It will not be a stellar performer under sail, in anything less than a lot of wind from an AWA of greater than 75 degrees, or thereabouts. The good news is, those old Ford Lehmans are about as solid and reliable a diesel as one could put in a boat like that, great engines...

However, if you're still planning to cross an ocean, that boat features a number of undesirable characteristics for sailing offshore... I would say those picture windows in the transom probably tops the list...


----------



## smackdaddy

And the counter tops are marble anyway. Deal killer.


----------



## DougSabbag

CrazyRu said:


> Don't you know already, it depends on a skipper?


So all boats sail the same? If there are any differences it is only from the different person at the helm?

I was hoping for insight based upon experience with the Mikelson, not "other factors".

So, have you sailed one of these?


----------



## PCP

DougSabbag said:


> Oh, I am in Guatemala, looking at Skol SKOL - a Mikelson 50' Pilothouse Ketch FOR SALE but she (sadly) only has the 2 cabin design.
> 
> Does anyone know how good or bad they sail?


That is a 30 year's old boat and even if cosmetically it is in good shape it will be very expensive to put it in an ocean crossing condition and even so there is always something that looked good but that can break after all those years.

Regarding sailing, that boat is a dog compared with the Amel. An Amel from the 90's has a relatively modern hull and is not too heavy for that kind of boat.

the Mikelson 50 you are talking about is a 40 year's old design from Gardner and it is much a boat of the 70's and not like a Vailat, a modern boat in its days.

It is heavy has a inefficient hull and it is slow. I hope it has a good engine and big diesel tanks because you are going to need them a lot.


















Regards

Paulo


----------



## cb32863

JonEisberg said:


> However, if you're still planning to cross an ocean, that boat features a number of undesirable characteristics for sailing offshore... I would say those picture windows in the transom probably tops the list...


But it's a happy boat......


----------



## casey1999

1988 AMEL Mango Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

What about the above Amel 53. Looks like a great boat. I'd never heard of an Amel before this thread. Sound to be great boats. This one the price looks great and is equiped for world navigation. It is in Maryland too, so close to your home. For the condition and outfitting the yacht looks great. I guess you need to see in person to verify.


----------



## Ninefingers

cb32863 said:


> But it's a happy boat......


Very Happy! And perhaps stoned judging by those eyes.


----------



## AdamLein

casey1999 said:


> 1988 AMEL Mango Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 
> What about the above Amel 53. Looks like a great boat.


Drool!!!

edit: a _winch control_ for the _genoa cars_.... wow. Just, wow.


----------



## PCP

casey1999 said:


> 1988 AMEL Mango Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 
> What about the above Amel 53. Looks like a great boat. I'd never heard of an Amel before this thread. Sound to be great boats. ....


Yes that's a great boat, also a 1988 boat like that Mikelson 50, but just look at the difference in the hull design:










The first Amel was designed by Henri Amel in 1965 and the last one, the 64 has been nominated for this year European boat of the year contest.

There are very few shipyards that can be proud of making boats for almost half a century. Till almost its recent death, Henri Amel was the designer and even when he blinded, for many years, still made his boats the way he wanted them.

AMEL - AMEL Yard

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999

PCP said:


> Yes that's a great boat, also a 1988 boat like that Mikelson 50, but just look at the difference in the hull design:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first Amel was designed by Henri Amel in 1965 and the last one, the 64 has been nominated for this year European boat of the year contest.
> 
> There are very few shipyards that can be proud of making boats for almost half a century. Till almost its recent death, Henri Amel was the designer and even when he blinded, for many years, still made his boats the way he wanted them.
> 
> AMEL - AMEL Yard
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I am very impressed, the AMEL looks solid.

The Mikelson 50 with that heavy pilot house is going to do some heavy rolling when it gets to some blue water I would imagine.


----------



## DougSabbag

After viewing the Amel in Guatemala, and then the Mikelson, both in the 
$200K price range, I was confronted with some realities:

The Amel's aft cabin is very small with a slightly larger than twin size bed.
As opposed to the giant platform bed of the Mikelson's aft cabin.

The Amel's showers are the sort where you are showering over the toilet, as opposed to having shower stall(s) and the BATH TUB in the Mikelson.

The Amel's deck is the sort where you have a small "walking" area, on the outside of the cabin housing. As opposed to the sweeping open deck of the Mikelson.

The interior of the Mikelson is thick solid teak, with LOTS of interior room and ALL the amenities anyone could ask for. Look at the pictures of the interior in the link SKOL - a Mikelson 50' Pilothouse Ketch FOR SALE and drool.

The rigg of the Mikelson is relatively new with exterior chainplates, and a boom furler. That is better than an inmast furler, as is in the Amel.

As far as someone's comment about the aft cabin port lights, they are strong enough that they have not been broken in 2 decades of ocean cruising, and they add quite a wonderful touch to your living / sleeping space.

Overall, please keep in mind, this would be a liveaboard vessel for us; not a racer, not a weekend cruiser.

The Mikelson will not reach the speed of the Amel, but I am not racing anyone. I am trying to enjoy life onboard a boat.

And did you see that pilot house cockpit? AND the secondary helm INSIDE the cabin? WOW.

From my point of view this is not a tough choice at all. I would much rather be in a Mikelson than in an Amel.


----------



## casey1999

Looked at the pics.
One man's dream is another man's nightmare-
Such is life


----------



## smackdaddy

It is a beautiful old boat. Hard to argue that. And I can see the appeal on a boat-as-home level.

It actually reminds me a lot of the Bumfuzzle's new boat.

Good luck with the purchase.


----------



## DougSabbag

hellosailor said:


> "she needs a lot more work than the price supports,"
> You mean, the granite countertops are _badly _in need of resealing? (VBG)
> 
> Is it just me, or has no one ever posted a thread "I saw the boat and it is exactly as described! And they forgot to mention, the galley knives are all Sabatier and plates real bone china!"
> 
> No really...there must be a law about "Whoever writes a boat-for-sale ad must be wearing beer googles at all times while writing it." Looking forward to hearing the rest.


There were no granite / marble / slate counter tops at all.
There is a hole in the hull from an interior electrical fire.
The hull is stripped of the gel coat, with HUNDREDS of voids because they used the wrong "tool" to remove the gel coat.
The hull is acquiring moisture as it is completely exposed to the elements, i.e, daily monsoon like rain.
The interior smells of cat urine.
The interior is a pig stye.
NONE of the electronics onboard work due to the as yet undiagnosed source of the electrical fire. To get to that burnt out area, the galley must be deconstructed, down to the hull.
There are no shower stalls, only the typical hand held shower(s) wherein you are showering over the toilet(s).
The aft cabin is tiny, with a bed just slightly larger than a twin bed.
The sails are beat.
The rigg is the original, i.e., 20 + years old.
There is mold and grunge throughout, and roaches.......

Want to buy her? Not me either.


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> It is a beautiful old boat. Hard to argue that. And I can see the appeal on a boat-as-home level.
> 
> It actually reminds me a lot of the Bumfuzzle's new boat.
> 
> Good luck with the purchase.


Thank you.

But, Skol only has the 2 cabin configuration, with a "utility room" just aft of the bow cabin, adjacent to the bow head. We're looking for the 3 cabin design, for sale.

But, if we can't find any as nice as Skol, we will consider re-doing her with the interior re-design.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Looked at the pics.
> One man's dream is another man's nightmare-
> Such is life


Please share the pictures of YOUR liveaboard. I'd like to see how your living quarters are so much better that you would look at Skol's as a nightmare.

And, share the pictures of YOUR deck too! Your rigg, your cockpit....

Must be quite amazing to see the Mikelson's as a nightmare!

AND, if yours is so much better, than I would be very interested in buying one.


----------



## smackdaddy

Let's be honest, from purely a sanding and varnishing point of view, casey has a point.

Again, I can see the appeal from a quality of living, and even an aesthetic standpoint, but from a quotient of maintenance standpoint...scary.

Just sayin'.


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> It is a beautiful old boat. Hard to argue that. And I can see the appeal on a boat-as-home level.
> 
> It actually reminds me a lot of the Bumfuzzle's new boat.
> 
> Good luck with the purchase.


What did they buy?

The Mikelson is along the same lines as a Hudson 50, or a Formosa 50, or a Force 50. Same design, built in generally the same boat yard.


----------



## smackdaddy

A 1982 Spindrift 43. It seems they actually got a great deal on it.

bumfuzzle | june 2010


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> Let's be honest, from purely a sanding and varnishing point of view, casey has a point.
> 
> Again, I can see the appeal from a quality of living, and even an aesthetic standpoint, but from a quotient of maintenance standpoint...scary.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Ohhhh, I didn't know THAT was his issue. Can't argue that! 

Well, I think there are some boats which boast that they have zero teak / wood to maintain.

While I am healthy enough to do so, I actually enjoy varnishing. It goes with the boating life, and is much better compared to, well let's see, sitting in a flourescently lit cubicle doing computer programming!


----------



## DougSabbag

I looked at Bumfuzzles link.... very interesting folks! Someone was telling me while I was in Rio Dulce, that a number of the folks on sailnet came down on them real hard as they were sharing their sailing / cruising plans. And since then, most of those sailnet critics have been silenced.... 

And yes, I do see a similarity to the Mikelson in what they bought. Apparently they like wood on their vessels. Theirs looks to be needing more attention than the ones we are looking at though.... I would assume there is also a large price difference.


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> Please share the pictures of YOUR liveaboard. I'd like to see how your living quarters are so much better that you would look at Skol's as a nightmare.
> 
> And, share the pictures of YOUR deck too! Your rigg, your cockpit....
> 
> Must be quite amazing to see the Mikelson's as a nightmare!
> 
> AND, if yours is so much better, than I would be very interested in buying one.


Doug,
My boat is only a 34 footer, does not compare to a Mikelson 50. My nightmare would be maintaining the Mikelson as I would need to do the work myself. Don't have the funds to pay someone and probably never will. On top of that, I can barely get my wife to go on day sails with me, just forget about live aboard or long cruises (she's just not into the sailing thing)- that's ok with me though, once I start extended cruises I will fly her to the destinations and put her up in a cheap hotel (I might even stay a few nights with her).

My other nightmare would be sailing the Mikelson 50 in a storm, can imagine getting thrown around a lot and a lot of system to maintain (and break).

Maybe at a mooring as a live aboard the Mikelson is good. But as a sailing vessel the Amel looks superior. All depends on what ya wanta do.

Like I say, such as life


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> My boat is only a 34 footer, does not compare to a Mikelson 50. My nightmare would be maintaining the Mikelson as I would need to do the work myself. Don't have the funds to pay someone and probably never will. On top of that, I can barely get my wife to go on day sails with me, just forget about live aboard or long cruises (she's just not into the sailing thing)- that's ok with me though, once I start extended cruises I will fly her to the destinations and put her up in a cheap hotel (I might even stay a few nights with her).
> 
> My other nightmare would be sailing the Mikelson 50 in a storm, can imagine getting thrown around a lot and a lot of system to maintain (and break).
> 
> Maybe at a mooring as a live aboard the Mikelson is good. But as a sailing vessel the Amel looks superior. All depends on what ya wanta do.
> 
> Like I say, such as life


Well Captain, I fully agree, now. I was erroneously taking the earlier comments as a negative to the beauty of the vessel. So, assuming you aren't maintaining her, it sounds like wouldn't mind being onboard her.

And, we'll watch the weather, as we always have.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> I looked at Bumfuzzles link.... very interesting folks! Someone was telling me while I was in Rio Dulce, that a number of the folks on sailnet came down on them real hard as they were sharing their sailing / cruising plans. And since then, most of those sailnet critics have been silenced....
> 
> And yes, I do see a similarity to the Mikelson in what they bought. Apparently they like wood on their vessels. Theirs looks to be needing more attention than the ones we are looking at though.... I would assume there is also a large price difference.


They are great people. I respect what they've done and are doing. And yes, they've been hammered on virtually every forum...by chumps virtually all of whom have far fewer miles under their keels. Such is the nature of forums.

Another thing I like about them is that they lay out every single cost. Here's exactly what they spent on their boat thus far:

bumfuzzle | spindrift costs

You ought to read their blog. It's a long slog. And I don't agree with everything they put forth. But it's a hell of a lot of fun.


----------



## tdw

Simply because someone disagrees with you is no good reason to jump down their throat. 

Consider that a warning if you wish, consider it a threat for all I care, but please, do consider it.

(gee whiz ... guess who got out on the wrong side of the bed this morning. )


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> As far as someone's comment about the aft cabin port lights, they are strong enough that they have not been broken in 2 decades of ocean cruising, and they add quite a wonderful touch to your living / sleeping space.
> 
> Overall, please keep in mind, this would be a liveaboard vessel for us; not a racer, not a weekend cruiser.
> 
> The Mikelson will not reach the speed of the Amel, but I am not racing anyone. I am trying to enjoy life onboard a boat.
> 
> And did you see that pilot house cockpit? AND the secondary helm INSIDE the cabin? WOW.
> 
> From my point of view this is not a tough choice at all. I would much rather be in a Mikelson than in an Amel.


I can't help but be struck by the comparison between 2 boats at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and wonder if you might be overlooking a wide variety of great offerings that reside in between those 2 extremes&#8230;

Seems apparent you are looking at boats from the inside-out, like 99% of the people at the Annapolis Show will this weekend - going directly below, and never taking a stroll around the deck, or even glancing up at the rig (grin) You're looking for a liveaboard, that's understandable, of course&#8230; But so far, the 2 boats you've shown interest in, indicate to me you may not be completely sure of what you want&#8230;

Bob Perry offers a consulting service for clients who are facing the same decision as you&#8230; I would think that might be money VERY well spent, towards the sort of investment you are about to make&#8230; Be honest with Bob about your intended use of the boat, and his guidance will be invaluable&#8230;

Particularly, if you are seriously considering a Taiwanese boat&#8230; In my experience, the quality of boats out of Taiwan can be all over the map&#8230; Some of it quite good, and some of it appalling . Few people know the Taiwanese boatbuilding industry better than Bob, of course&#8230;

I cut my teeth in the delivery business running Taiwanese trawlers, and have a considerable number of miles on the Island Trader 51, same hull as the Mikelson, both aft and center cockpits&#8230; Very few of those miles were under sail, I'd categorize those boats as more of a motorsailer, than a passagemaking sailboat, and not even remotely in the category of an offshore thoroughbred like an Amel&#8230; I look at that Mikelson, and see a cockpit that will be exhausting offshore. The freeboard on those boats is already quite exaggerated ( the price you pay for those "wide-open decks"), that boat will have a very high rolling moment, and you will really feel it in such a cockpit&#8230;

I don't know why they bothered with the inside helm, at least on the Island Traders, you couldn't see squat from down there&#8230; And, you'd definitely want to check out the steering - the Island Traders had a hydraulic system that - no matter how many times it was bled/pressurized - had an incredibly sloppy feel

I have to wonder at your casual dismissal of the maintenance schedule on such a boat - IMHO, it will be massive&#8230; And, you will need a survey that will take a very close look at those teak decks&#8230; Most Taiwanese builders, especially boats of that vintage, will feature decks that are mechanically fastened as opposed to epoxied or glued, they will have to be examined very closely&#8230;

And, those transom picture windows - sure, they can be nice while lying in a marina in Boston, or a nice anchorage in the Exumas&#8230; But, halfway to Bermuda, maybe not so much&#8230; As to your contention that they are "strong enough", I would simply counter with the argument that they probably have never yet been seriously "tested" (grin) As always, everything about a boat is a compromise, all depends on your ultimate intended use, of course&#8230;


----------



## AdamLein

I didn't know Bob Perry did that sort of consultation.


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
I like this site. Check out the Stevens Hylas 47, and others including Hudson Force 50.
Full List of Sailboats


----------



## Minnewaska

Good luck, Doug. While you seem willing to take on the maintenance, I would offer two thoughts. First, when I bought my first house, I actually liked mowing the lawn. If I never see another lawn mower for the rest of my life, that would be good. Second, unless you are certain that this is the last boat you will ever own, you will have to find a buyer that has the same willingness to do (more like pay for) that same maintenance, which could make her very hard to sell. Just food for thought.

**** A plea to picture posters..... Someone in this thread must have included a huge pic in their post. If you could go back and resize it or delete it, I'm sure many of us would appreciate it. It causes the window to resize and leaves the text so small, it can hardly be read. Same request if you replied to that post and included the orig pic. Many thanks *******


----------



## SVAuspicious

I agree with Jon that the sailing characteristics of the Mikelson described in the web site Doug linked to are optimistic at best. The implications of that are more fuel costs and more engine maintenance as frustration drives you to motor-sail. Your choice of course but you should be well informed when making it.

What risk there may be from the transom lights can be easily managed with storm boards fitted before passage.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> I can't help but be struck by the comparison between 2 boats at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and wonder if you might be overlooking a wide variety of great offerings that reside in between those 2 extremes&#8230;
> 
> Seems apparent you are looking at boats from the inside-out, like 99% of the people at the Annapolis Show will this weekend - going directly below, and never taking a stroll around the deck, or even glancing up at the rig (grin) You're looking for a liveaboard, that's understandable, of course&#8230; But so far, the 2 boats you've shown interest in, indicate to me you may not be completely sure of what you want&#8230;
> 
> Bob Perry offers a consulting service for clients who are facing the same decision as you&#8230; I would think that might be money VERY well spent, towards the sort of investment you are about to make&#8230; Be honest with Bob about your intended use of the boat, and his guidance will be invaluable&#8230;
> 
> Particularly, if you are seriously considering a Taiwanese boat&#8230; In my experience, the quality of boats out of Taiwan can be all over the map&#8230; Some of it quite good, and some of it appalling . Few people know the Taiwanese boatbuilding industry better than Bob, of course&#8230;
> 
> I cut my teeth in the delivery business running Taiwanese trawlers, and have a considerable number of miles on the Island Trader 51, same hull as the Mikelson, both aft and center cockpits&#8230; Very few of those miles were under sail, I'd categorize those boats as more of a motorsailer, than a passagemaking sailboat, and not even remotely in the category of an offshore thoroughbred like an Amel&#8230; I look at that Mikelson, and see a cockpit that will be exhausting offshore. The freeboard on those boats is already quite exaggerated ( the price you pay for those "wide-open decks"), that boat will have a very high rolling moment, and you will really feel it in such a cockpit&#8230;
> 
> I don't know why they bothered with the inside helm, at least on the Island Traders, you couldn't see squat from down there&#8230; And, you'd definitely want to check out the steering - the Island Traders had a hydraulic system that - no matter how many times it was bled/pressurized - had an incredibly sloppy feel
> 
> I have to wonder at your casual dismissal of the maintenance schedule on such a boat - IMHO, it will be massive&#8230; And, you will need a survey that will take a very close look at those teak decks&#8230; Most Taiwanese builders, especially boats of that vintage, will feature decks that are mechanically fastened as opposed to epoxied or glued, they will have to be examined very closely&#8230;
> 
> And, those transom picture windows - sure, they can be nice while lying in a marina in Boston, or a nice anchorage in the Exumas&#8230; But, halfway to Bermuda, maybe not so much&#8230; As to your contention that they are "strong enough", I would simply counter with the argument that they probably have never yet been seriously "tested" (grin) As always, everything about a boat is a compromise, all depends on your ultimate intended use, of course&#8230;


I should start by thanking the many contributors to this phase of this thread, wherein we are "shopping" for a new Triumph.

Then I should mention that I have been sailing since I was 4... I am 55 now, mostly in New England waters. I went through the standard evolution of sizes / types until my first liveaboard, i.e., a Gulfstar 50 ketch.

Now, I can not argue that I did a 180 from an Amel to the Mikelson / Hudson / Force 50s / Formosas.... but, when I started this shopping, I was still shell shocked from the years of Gulfstar repairs / maintenance which some would say (including me) led to our violent abandonment of her this July.

So, temporarily, I was looking for primarily a high quality / low maintenance vessel. Once aboard her, (or at least the one I could afford), I was reminded that NO boat is without her "list" of maintenance to be done, and realized, given that, I might as well focus more on what we would truly be comfortable in for the vast majority of our time onboard, which is at a dock.

We may not like to admit it, but liveaboards spend much more time in port than cruising. However, for those rare crossings, i.e., beyond the weekend jaunt, she must also be functional within some degree of reasonableness.

Considering the extensive cruising miles which any of the owners of these boats can point to, as in the owners of Skol, which have been accomplished without abondonment, sinking, deaths, etc., I have to say, these must be viable sailing vessels, i.e., they may not be the BEST deep sea cruisers in ALL conditions, but in reasonable conditions, they are better than many, and even in poor conditions they are sufficiently well designed that you live through it.

So, it is a balancing act. Liveaboard vs. blue water cruising.

By the way, the rigg of the Skol was what I saw FIRST, (well, right after the over all beauty of the vessel), and having practically new boom furling with a practically new fully battened main, plus a full compliment of other good condition sails, and all new standing rigging, I feel that I had the correct order of viewing and judging in place.

The engine on Skol is dissapointing, considering it is only an 80 HP engine, though being a Ford Lehman, should be dependable, but on this displacement hull, a 135 hp engine sure would be an improvement.

And finally, about the stern windows.... why do people fixate on the niceties as negatives, like the granite counters? Does this REALLY HAVE to be a Spartan life to satisfy you? The prior owners have logged THOUSANDS of miles in this vessel. The windows ARE THERE. This IS proof that they withstand the ocean.

Life onboard does not have to be as Spartan as some would think. In fact, life is too short to limit oneself based upon rationalizations of why they shouldn't have the goodies, the niceties, even the "fluff"!

Amazingly enough, you can have granite counters, and aft windows, and large TVs too, and still sail across the Atlantic, or to Marthas Vineyard for the weekend. And I for one would rather have these niceties than not.


----------



## DougSabbag

Oh and a few responses to some of the particulars.

I did a survey while inspecting the Skol, as I would on any I was "viewing". 

I fully agree that the teak decks are pretty but they are leaking. So, the ones on Skol would have to either be removed, with the assocated deck sealing / fiberglassing / gel coating, or replaced and installed correctly to todays' methods of doing so.

But as for the interior helm... well, I would love to have had such an option in some storms I have sailed through, wherein I could "go below" and still be "at the helm".
The Captain Courageous sailor, being pelted by the elements while hanging on for dear life, is very commendable, but if that can be improved upon, again, WHY NOT?

I can't blame you for assuming I only look at the granite counters, as that might well be the majorities' path, but, I am the sort of Captain who not only rebuilt his own motor, I balanced it to within less than 1 gram amongst the piston assemblies. I replaced all the plumbing, most of the electrical, the entire sole, the headliner, restored the deck by fiber glassing every single spot where anything went through or into it, then re gel coated it all. I replaced the wood in the deck, and still had more to do.... 

I also replaced the heads, designed and installed a glass shower stall, installed a second bank of house batteries, installed a washer dryer, and a water maker, stepped the main mast and rewired it, then painted it with Imron, installed the B&G nav system myself, removed, rebuilt and reinstalled the windlass, improved the design of the davits, etc., etc., etc., almost 100% myself.

So, you can well believe that I DO look at the deck, the rigg, the mechanics, and ALL the details of the vessel. I pull / open any and all hatches, cushions, lockers, drawers, look and test the thru hulls, run a coin across the sail threads, look at the wiring and how well it is secured, likewise the plumbing, and the LP gas lines, (which I always replace the metal ones with the pliable ones), I look at the cabin walls for signs of water damage, (in the usual areas under port lights, etc.), and of course look at the bilge, throughout the vessel, along with the stepping of the masts, etc., etc., etc.,

So please accept the fact that I have earned my stripes as being an experienced "Captain" at least because I have rebuilt, restored, or replaced every damn thing from stem to stern, myself.

In doing so I have been electrocuted, broken 2 ribs one time and 1 another time, torn a rotator cuff in my right shoulder, acquired a hernia, torn my medial meniscus in my right knee, plus the hundreds of smaller injuries which did not require a hospital or surgery to replace or repair.

Not trying to say I know it all, but give me the credit for having more than just a little experience working on boats.

I should say the only thing I have not done myself is welding. That task I always farm out.


----------



## DougSabbag

Anyone ever heard of the Ferretti Altura 53s?

Ferretti Altura 53 year 1982

One is even on Ebay for $50K ! Looks quite beautiful, with twin Mercedes diesels!


----------



## AdamLein

Can't find it on sailboatdata.com.

I think they have a bidet.


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> Anyone ever heard of the Ferretti Altura 53s?
> 
> Ferretti Altura 53 year 1982
> 
> One is even on Ebay for $50K ! Looks quite beautiful, with twin Mercedes diesels!


She looks nice, hull shape looks good. Be interesting to see how she sails. Looks to be a bargin, sink $40K into her and she might be nice- if the engines are in good condition.


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
During your rescue, did you use Marine SSB to communicate with the coast guard? If so, do you recall the frequecy used (was it emergency freq 2182). If not SSB, what were you using.
Regards


----------



## AdamLein

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> During your rescue, did you use Marine SSB to communicate with the coast guard? If so, do you recall the frequecy used (was it emergency freq 2182). If not SSB, what were you using.
> Regards


I recall hearing about a satellite phone.


----------



## mstern

AdamLein said:


> I didn't know Bob Perry did that sort of consultation.


He used to run an ad for it in the back pages of Sail or Cruising World (can't remember which or if its both). The ads ran every month I think, but I don't remember the last time I saw one. The service is also listed on his website.

AboarD Boats & Yachts Market - CONSULTATION SERVICE

I am guessing its a nice money maker for him, and it looks like a good value for serious buyers.


----------



## mstern

DougSabbag said:


> We're looking for the 3 cabin design, for sale.
> 
> But, if we can't find any as nice as Skol, we will consider re-doing her with the interior re-design.


Doug: you are obviously an experienced sailor with a good idea of what you want and need. I am curious: why the three cabin design if its just you and the Mrs.?


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> During your rescue, did you use Marine SSB to communicate with the coast guard? If so, do you recall the frequecy used (was it emergency freq 2182). If not SSB, what were you using.
> Regards


Casey, we used a satellite phone. Dialed a Boston number.


----------



## DougSabbag

mstern said:


> Doug: you are obviously an experienced sailor with a good idea of what you want and need. I am curious: why the three cabin design if its just you and the Mrs.?


We do chartering: Triumph Charters -- Sail with Us!


----------



## CarlosS

*Rescued*

Great they were rescued unharmed.

Its never too late to start again


----------



## DougSabbag

CarlosS said:


> Great they were rescued unharmed.
> 
> Its never too late to start again


Pardon me if I don't quite understand your concept here..... What do you mean by this comment?


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> And finally, about the stern windows.... why do people fixate on the niceties as negatives, like the granite counters? Does this REALLY HAVE to be a Spartan life to satisfy you? The prior owners have logged THOUSANDS of miles in this vessel. The windows ARE THERE. This IS proof that they withstand the ocean.
> 
> Life onboard does not have to be as Spartan as some would think. In fact, life is too short to limit oneself based upon rationalizations of why they shouldn't have the goodies, the niceties, even the "fluff"!
> 
> Amazingly enough, you can have granite counters, and aft windows, and large TVs too, and still sail across the Atlantic, or to Marthas Vineyard for the weekend. And I for one would rather have these niceties than not.


The fact those windows are still there "proves" nothing, other than the fact that they have not YET been compromised... Your chainplates on the Gulfstar "proved" they were up to the task of sailing offshore, after all - until, suddenly, they weren't...

You're free to believe what you want to believe, but picture windows in a boat's transom are most definitely NOT a desirable characteristic in an offshore yacht... Now, having such a "nicety" in a liveaboard boat may be one of those trade-offs one might be willing to accept, that's up to you to decide, of course... But, it's certainly the sort of decision that needs to be informed by an awareness of the potential risk for bluewater sailing, that's all I'm saying...

I look at that boat, with all that freeboard and windage forward with that exaggerated clipper bow, and I see a boat that might have a bit of difficulty heaving-to, or lying to a sea-anchor without doing a lot of sailing about... So, with such a boat, running or lying to a drogue might be the preferred heavy weather tactic. However, with such openings in the transom, such an approach is decidedly less appealing, and might limit your options in dealing with heavy weather offshore...

Perhaps I'm just a bit more concerned with this sort of vulnerability designed into a boat, having had a couple of transom portlights on a Taiwanese boat punched in by a breaking sea while entering St. Lucie Inlet many moons ago... It was a very sobering experience, I certainly would not care to duplicate it hundreds of miles offshore, in a full-blown gale or storm...

Certainly, these two legends pictured below, would scoff at the notion of putting windows in a transom, or anywhere below deck level... That kid on the right certainly never, _EVER_ would have drawn such a feature into one of his designs...

Then again, they're hopelessly Old School, what the hell would they know about Modern Offshore Sailing? Look at those pathetic foulies they're wearing, after all... (grin)


----------



## smackdaddy

Dude needs a comb.


----------



## neverknow

Some ppl loose their common sense. 

Those big windows look nice, but not really all that safe and secure.

Maybe making removable shutters for off shore is a answer? Like they do in the islands when a hurricane is on the way.


----------



## CarlosS

*stat again*



DougSabbag said:


> Pardon me if I don't quite understand your concept here..... What do you mean by this comment?


Start sailing again


----------



## Tuntsa

*Crossing the Atlantic*



Captainmeme said:


> Color me overly cautious but what are they doing in the middle of the Atlantic during hurricane season? Glad they are ok.


Most folks crossing the Atlantic from west to east will leave the US/Caribbean after the official start of the hurricane season in May. With a normal passage time and a little time in port on an Azores Island, almost all boats sailing that direction will find themselves mid-atlantic during hurricane season. It's normal.

Check out my blog at quinn.nimblenavigator.com for an example


----------



## JonEisberg

neverknow said:


> Some ppl loose their common sense.
> 
> Those big windows look nice, but not really all that safe and secure.
> 
> Maybe making removable shutters for off shore is a answer? Like they do in the islands when a hurricane is on the way.


s/v Auspicious alluded to the use of storm covers earlier, that would certainly be the minimum precaution to be taken with such a configuration&#8230; There is a LOT of window area that would have to be covered on such a boat, and if the construction is similar to the Island Trader 51s that I have run, there is nothing special about the glass used in those deckhouse windows and portlights, they're just a standard grade plate glass&#8230; Nothing remotely akin to the curved, close to bulletproof glass that a builder like Morris or Oyster is using in their large deck salon windows&#8230;

Still, properly securing those transom windows would appear to be problematic. They follow the shape of the transom, so there is a significant amount of curvature involved. I'd want a cover to be something like 1/2" Lexan at a minimum, but there's no way you're gonna get that stuff to bend to match such a curvature - so the constuction of some sort of outside mounting "frame" would probably be required&#8230;

But I'd still be nervous about such an arrangement, it would re	quire a lot of faith in the security of their mounting&#8230; Dealing with storm covers on a deckhouse that might have come adrift or need to be re-secured is one thing, but those transom windows are a whole different ballgame, as there would be no way to access those storm covers at sea, or without launching the tender&#8230;


----------



## neverknow

JonEisberg said:


> Still, properly securing those transom windows would appear to be problematic. They follow the shape of the transom, so there is a significant amount of curvature involved. I'd want a cover to be something like 1/2" Lexan at a minimum, but there's no way you're gonna get that stuff to bend to match such a curvature - so the constuction of some sort of outside mounting "frame" would probably be required&#8230;
> 
> But I'd still be nervous about such an arrangement, it would re	quire a lot of faith in the security of their mounting&#8230; Dealing with storm covers on a deckhouse that might have come adrift or need to be re-secured is one thing, but those transom windows are a whole different ballgame, as there would be no way to access those storm covers at sea, or without launching the tender&#8230;


Yes that would be true. After looking at the pic again the windows are also angled down to the water line so in a big following sea the water pressure would be pushing up on those windows. Depending on the boat and wave angle the pressure could be very high as much as the weight of the boat it's self all across the transom. In other words those windows might be a glass bottom every now and than???


----------



## tempest

There's what looks to be a 2 inch reveal on the inside. You could probably custom build a couple of gasketed panels that were fitted and secured ( strongly) from the interior. If the glass breaks, fit a new piece when you get to port. 

The boat's been around for 23 years, the previous owners appear to have cared for her, they claim some blue water passages, ( caribe 1500 ) but mostly coastal. It has to be a very unique, limited market for these in 2011 and beyond. 

It's Not my idea of an ocean crossing vessel and with a 2 cabin layout, it's limited as a charter. It's not without it's appeal though. If you happen to love to do brightwork..


----------



## CaptFoolhardy

JonEisberg said:


> But I'd still be nervous about such an arrangement, it would re	quire a lot of faith in the security of their mounting&#8230; Dealing with storm covers on a deckhouse that might have come adrift or need to be re-secured is one thing, but those transom windows are a whole different ballgame, as there would be no way to access those storm covers at sea, or without launching the tender&#8230;


What about replacing the glass in windows with Lexan? You would have to make sure you sealed them properly but it would probably be a lot more secure than any sort of temporarily mounted cover.


----------



## SVAuspicious

smackdaddy said:


> Dude needs a comb.


Modern sailors wear hats.



JonEisberg said:


> s/v Auspicious alluded to the use of storm covers earlier, that would certainly be the minimum precaution to be taken with such a configuration&#8230;
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Still, properly securing those transom windows would appear to be problematic. They follow the shape of the transom, so there is a significant amount of curvature involved.


Agreed (including the bits I snipped). In Doug's place (and I'm not), I would fabricate an appropriate metal backing plate with six bolts through the transom. Fabricated storm shutters could be installed with wing-nuts and safety wire, nylocks, or paired lock-nuts.

As Jon properly pointed out, mounting such shutters is not a project to embark upon at sea. They would have to be installed from a dinghy as a normal course of preparing for passage offshore.

Metal choice would be dependent on a combination of existing material selection, price, availability, and fabrication capability. For such a utilitarian function I'd lean toward galvanized steel of perhaps 3/16", all other things being equal.


----------



## Tuntsa

I've seen, on a Vagabond 47,which has a similar transom design, 2 316ss grills mounted on studs, secured with thumbscrews. The grill material was this:








and was rimmed by thicker ss bar for support. The specs of this sample indicate a 40% open area which would greatly reduce the total force on the glass underneath while still admitting light. 
He would fasten them on before a crossing and just leave them. He never had a problem but who's to say?


----------



## DougSabbag

All these suggestions on a boat which has more miles on her than a lot of you combined (not to mention her sister ships, likewise crossing without stern window blow outs), just makes me smile. 
As far as relating the broken chainplates of the Gulfstar to the transom windows of a Mikelson as a "weak link" being disregarded by me, my error was calling for assistance, not leaving port.
There are times when the worry warts need to accept the reality that these have no history of being blown in by the waves. I've Googled every way I can think of looking for examples / cases of stern / transom port lights being knocked in by waves, and can't find one. Now I am surely not going to believe that this has never happened, but considering the number of these port lights I have seen on "finer" vessels throughout my life, if there truly was a design flaw in having these at all, then there should be a history of failures easily found.
Perhaps it is the amount of freeboard, or the fact that boats usually go into the waves rather than backing into them, or both, which keeps this failure from occurring. 
And, are the many boat designers who have these in their blue prints all smoking crack?
Is there any chance that they knew something, or designed appropriately, wherein the history of no failures has become the reality, by design?

On the valid point that this vessel only has the 2 cabin configuration which is a problem for chartering, you are absolutely correct, and that is why we are still shopping.....

But, if it weren't for the chartering requirements, we sure would be proceeding on Skol, full speed ahead, and looking forward to many years of looking out of those transom fixed port lights.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> But, if it weren't for the chartering requirements, we sure would be proceeding on Skol, full speed ahead, and looking forward to many years of looking out of those transom fixed port lights.


With this look on your face I'm sure...










Here's a good example of a solid transom smack by a following sea (in the Southern Ocean). Look at 4:25 or so...






Lying to a JSD, I'm sure it would have been a bit nastier.

So, there are forces involved. But, I also see your point that Skol is still afloat after a long time out in the sea.

It's all about the odds, eh?


----------



## GeorgeB

Good grief Smack… I guess the moral of your video clip is “don’t hang out higher than 50*˚ south in the Southern Ocean”? Besides, that little stern slap at the end of the video? I’ve been pooped worse than that off the coast of Northern California. The stern getting lifted and slammed early on in the clip is much more violent IMHO. I think the “boat beauty contest” has run it’s course. If you don’t personally like gallery ports and stone/tile counter tops then you are free to not buy that boat. If you hang out in the cruising community for any length of time you will see both. Stick to your Clorox bottles, but stop haranguing a cruiser for his personal esthetic. Now, if you think gallery ports are bad, I’m delivering a Leopard 47 from the Canaries to the Carib in… wait for it… DECEMBER! OMG! That thing has a sliding door! So if any of you keyboard captains want to make a fast buck and take out a life insurance policy on my sorry a**, PM me for the particulars.


----------



## SVAuspicious

smackdaddy said:


> Here's a good example of a solid transom smack by a following sea (in the Southern Ocean).


Most sailors, including circumnavigators, will never see the Southern Ocean. The biggest deal isn't that one will see different weather of course, but that it goes on for so bloody long in the high latitudes.

Doug - I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I think the transom windows are a nice feature. I also think shutters would be a very good idea for passages. You'll make your own choices. I hope in some small way to help inform those choices.


----------



## tdw

Seems to me that too often we look at issues like large ports in terms of yesterday's technology. 

Ok, so I don't know this boat and its not really my speed but if Jon is correct why not simply replace the glass that is there now with something you beaut and 2011 ? 

Wouldn't you then end up with the glass probably being stronger than the surrounding structure.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> All these suggestions on a boat which has more miles on her than a lot of you combined (not to mention her sister ships, likewise crossing without stern window blow outs), just makes me smile.


OK, let me clarify a few things...

First, I was responding to your contention that the fact that the windows remain undamaged as "proof" that they are up to anything the ocean can throw at them... We'll simply have to agree to disagree on that, though I would bet Rod and Olin Stephens would favor my side of that argument (grin) So, I'm comfortable with that...

Sorry, but I'm just not buying that this particular boat has seen "2 decades of ocean cruising". Among the couple of dozen photos on that site, there is not one that shows the boat under sail in anything more than flat seas, and perhaps 10 knots of breeze, in any location more than 2 days travel from the Rio Dulce... That Guatemalan Velcro of the Rio is powerful stuff, I'd bet half the boats that venture up there only escape under a new owner - that corner of the Caribbean, after all, it's all uphill out of there... Seems that such a boat would sell much more easily in Lauderdale/South Florida, the fact that it's still sitting in Guatemala could be an indication of the boat's weatherly capability, just sayin'...

Look, the transom windows are not a deal-breaker, by any means... They can be dealt with, in a number of ways, depending on your intended use of the boat... But, cutting such holes, with sharp corners, in the transom of a boat is definitely NOT without serious consequences regarding the integrity of the hull, that's all I'm saying... And, to lump such a characteristic in with other "niceties" such as granite counters, or plasma TVs really misses the point, IMHO... Other than the additional weight placed above the waterline, stuff like granite countertops have little to do with the seaworthiness of a boat, have at it... big picture windows below deck level, however, will demand your attention if you still intend to cross an ocean, that's my only point here...


----------



## DougSabbag

Well, thank you all for suggesting methods to strengthen what is perceived to be a weakness of the Skol. I can't argue that shy of titanium, whatever is there could be improved, and there are numerous ways to do that.

She also has high free board, leaking teak decks, and the 2 cabin design vs the 3 cabin one.
And, I DID ask you guys for your input rather than your blessing. 
So, again, thank you!

Nevertheless, we're still shopping for one of the Mikelson / Formosa / Hudson / Force 50 boats, which hopefully will have the boom furlers, fairly new rigg, non-teak decks, be as new as possible, (within our budget), and ideally be as gorgeous as Skol. Tough search, we know.

But, while looking for that, we're a tad side tracked by this beauty:

TWIN ENGINED DIESEL KETCH FERRETTI ALTURA53 FOR SALE AT LESS THAN HALF VALUE - eBay (item 270827883727 end time Oct-10-11 07:40:07 PDT)

She is a 1980 FERRETTI ALTURA 53, ketch rigged, which a friend of mine just "won" in an Ebay auction. We will see if she "checks out" considering she is in Turkey, so another friend who is in Greece is on their way to check this all out for us.

I don't see any stern windows, but there are teak decks, yet with much lower freeboard.
The twin Mercedes engines strike warmth within me, though I can only imagine someone here would rather have Yanmar or Westerbeke or Perkins or Ford or .......?

But, in this rare case, the price for the very high quality / modern, recently updated / replaced / rebuilt systems and features, IF TRUE, are very enticing to us.

So, thanks again for identifying why you wouldn't want Skol, though I would still love to be sailing her today instead of what I have, i.e., NOTHING..... and would be deeply proud of such a fine vessel, anywhere, anytime.

When I was standing on her flat sweeping deck, I was more than just a little, itching to unfurl her canvas and feel her heeling over as she cuts through the ocean..... with or without her imperfections.


----------



## DougSabbag

Oh, one more comment / question on the negatives of Skol. 

I noticed that the majority of negatives about her, surround crossing the Atlantic in her. Well, at the most, we would plan on doing that once, perhaps, in each direction. 

So, do you buy a boat for crossings, when 99.9% of the time she will not be doing such deep sea voyages, or do you buy a boat for that 99.9% of the time you will have her?

I am sure that most of you are crossing oceans all the time.... or at least a few times a year, but Evelyn and I would, as we have throughout our lives, mostly cruise along the coast lines. I'm not sure if you would consider crossing the Gulf Stream from S. Florida to the Bahamas a "crossing", but as long as you time that to a southern wind, it should be an uneventful single day of "exposure" to more than just coastal conditions.

From there, for the most part, it is again, more basically coastal cruising.... 

Last summer we cruised from Ft. Lauderdale to Boothbay Harbor Me., and never went beyond the Gulf Stream. We had a GREAT time! Loved it. Stopped everywhere, ate tons of crab in Chincoteague Island.... cruised by the Statue of Liberty and then all the way to Marthas Vinyard. 

That is what we like to do. And, I am absolutely sure that we would have enjoyed what we have done, for years, on Skol, even more than on the Triumph.... 

That is our "big picture" which we have in mind as we go shopping for our liveaboard / cruiser. Not a vessel set up perfectly for Atlantic crossings, as most of you do so frequently that your vessels have to be geared for that.

Anyone ever sail a Ferretti ??


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> But, while looking for that, we're a tad side tracked by this beauty:
> 
> TWIN ENGINED DIESEL KETCH FERRETTI ALTURA53 FOR SALE AT LESS THAN HALF VALUE - eBay (item 270827883727 end time Oct-10-11 07:40:07 PDT)
> 
> She is a 1980 FERRETTI ALTURA 53, ketch rigged, which a friend of mine just "won" in an Ebay auction. We will see if she "checks out" considering she is in Turkey, so another friend who is in Greece is on their way to check this all out for us.
> 
> I don't see any stern windows, but there are teak decks, yet with much lower freeboard.
> 
> The twin Mercedes engines strike warmth within me, though I can only imagine someone here would rather have Yanmar or Westerbeke or Perkins or Ford or .......?


Well, someone's gotta ask, may as well be me...

Why on earth would you want _twin engines_ in a 53' sailboat?

With _fixed props_, no less? Something tells me that boat didn't get sailed very much...

Seriously, spend the bucks for Bob Perry's consultation service, he'll set you straight... (grin)


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> .....Why on earth would you want _twin engines_ in a 53' sailboat?.....


No bow thruster.....


----------



## Minnewaska

DougSabbag said:


> ........So, do you buy a boat for crossings, when 99.9% of the time she will not be doing such deep sea voyages, or do you buy a boat for that 99.9% of the time you will have her?.......


Hands down, you buy the boat you will need 99.9% of the time. For the other 0.01%, you simply accommodate the weakness.

In my case, we will add a Monitor windvane and emergency rudder to accommodate our naked spade rudder, if we ever use her to cross the pond.

On Skol, it would be possible to reinforce those transom windows for the crossing. I would definitely do it, however.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Oh, one more comment / question on the negatives of Skol.
> 
> I noticed that the majority of negatives about her, surround crossing the Atlantic in her. Well, at the most, we would plan on doing that once, perhaps, in each direction.
> 
> So, do you buy a boat for crossings, when 99.9% of the time she will not be doing such deep sea voyages, or do you buy a boat for that 99.9% of the time you will have her?


Obviously, you'll be happier over the long haul with a boat that best suits your intended use for 99% of the time. However, if you're gonna cross an ocean, you want to do it on a boat suited for such a passage, anything less can be asking for trouble... Your question seems to be akin to asking, "so why can't I do the Paris-Dakar Rally in the car I use for driving everyday?" (grin)

Look, there's little doubt a boat like SKOL would be capable of crossing the Atlantic... I'm only suggesting that such a boat has some inherent qualities that could make it less than an ideal choice for bluewater passagemaking...

My experience with the Island Traders, those boats roll, bigtime... I doubt you could find anywhere a reliable figure for the Limit of Positive Stability for such a boat, and it appears to me that SKOL has had a considerable amount of weight added above the deck level, stuff like those deckboxes on the aft deck, the Leisure-Furl boom can quickly add up to a lot of additional rolling moment... Before committing to an ocean crossing, I'd want a guy like Bob Perry to run the available numbers, and attempt to come up with some _realistic_ stability index, it could be a pretty sobering number... or, maybe not... but, I would not want to rely on the opinions of a bunch of Sailnetters to make that determination for me... (grin)

I'm not suggesting that the boat will turn turtle, by any means, but it certainly could indicate that such a boat could be uncomfortable and tiring over time... Just one of those "little things" that adds to the crew's exhaustion/morale, and can make all the difference in a critical situation... There are other ways to cross an ocean - ship the boat to the Med via Dockwise, or sail on someone else's boat that might be better suited to such a passage, if you really want the experience...

More than anything, however, it's those big windows that would concern me for passagemaking. They may be very nice for the way you're gonna use the boat 99% of the time, but they still constitute an inherent liability for true offshore sailing...

A couple of books have been written as a result of the loss of boats and lives directly attributable to large windows being breached at sea... The loss of the 58' Alden Boothbay Challenger TRASHMAN off Hatteras back in the 80's, and the more recent abandonment of the 45' Hardin ALMEISAN enroute to Bermuda in 2005... Haven't read OVERBOARD yet, but ALBATROSS is definitely a pretty compelling story... A whole litany of questionable decisions went into the loss of TRASHMAN, but the bottom line is that the deckhouse windows were what sunk that boat... (the pic is of another Boothbay Challenger)










Amazon.com: Albatross (9780395655733): Deborah Scaling Kiley: Books

Amazon.com: Overboard!: A True Blue-water Odyssey of Disaster and Survival (9781439145746): Michael J. Tougias: Books


----------



## LandLocked66c

I bought the book you recommended Jon. 200 tips for passage making, or something like that... I was blown away with how much water can come through a blown out cockpit speaker with a 5" opening! There's alot of great stuff in that book!


----------



## JonEisberg

LandLocked66c said:


> I bought the book you recommended Jon. 200 tips for passage making, or something like that... I was blown away with how much water can come through a blown out cockpit speaker with a 5" opening! There's alot of great stuff in that book!


Glad you're enjoying it... If you think a 5" opening might be bad, imagine what can happen when about 10 square feet of your deckhouse goes missing, as it did on ALMEISAN... Their fateful decision to abandon the boat was made pretty much immediately after that starboard window was stove in:








They were in a very vulnerable position, lying ahull when that occurred... They were doing so, because the unfathomable decision had been made to leave a drag device behind for that passage, because "the boat had never had trouble handling the seas" before... Perhaps it's just me, but I've never noticed any particular inclination on the part of the Gulf Stream to "care" much, one way or the other, how you might happen to use your boat the remaining 99.9% of the time...

My mantra for sailing offshore can best be summed up by "Well, _you never know_..." If that brands me as another one of those armchair "worry warts" who's never going much of anywhere, well, so be it... (grin)


----------



## DougSabbag

OK, I will consider covering the transom windows if crossing the Atlantic. But, along with that, I will consider carrying a spare oil cooler, and will consider having the chainplates tested with the chemical dye and, or, Xrayed, and might as well have the entire hull Xrayed, and the mast(s), and all the rigging, and remove and replace all the electrical wiring, and remove and replace all the thru hulls, and have the rigging dynamically tuned, along with the static tuning, and have a satellite phone, an SSB, and a lot more insurance.... But most definetly, in order to be prepared for what actually destroyed the Triumph, I must replace all the fiberglass decking and hull with titanium steel, reinforced with titanium steel girders, because it wasn't the ocean, or the wind, or the weather, it was a 900 foot oil tanker whose anchor housing crushed the weak fiberglass into the little splinters that inspired us to jump overboard.... 

Just saying....

As far as a dock box on the deck of a boat with over 52,000 pounds of diplacement having any appreciable impact, I don't need "Bob" to tell me that is mathematically invalid. Perhaps on a boat with a fraction of that diplacement a dock box and or a furling boom (which actually LOWERS the center of gravity), might have some impact, but not on Skol.

So you might see that considering the actual requirements to "death proof" your vessel, we might as well just stay on land. In reality, we will do our best, given our resources, time, and abilities, then we will again, do our best to cross the ocean. 

And finally, I will not call the USCG until the water is up to my neck.


----------



## DougSabbag

I was remiss in not mentioning that the boom furler only lowers the center of gravity when compared to in mast furlers. 

Over all, it may be noted that thousands of boats do the crossing of the Atlantic ocean every year. Of those, I do not know how many have transom windows, or how many have not checked their chainplates with the special dyes, or how many have not recently removed and replaced ALL of their electrical wiring and thru hulls; but I do know that the vast majority make it.

If you want to death proof your vessels, perhaps statistically, you should instead focus on your automobiles. How many times do brakes, engines, tires, windshield wipers, transmissions, electrical components, etc., FAIL and then cause deaths?

Consider that the next time you start your engines..... then get back to me about Skols' transom port lights.

But in the mean time, do some statistical analysis, and then pray to God. Because really, nothing can death proof your world, from your home to your car, to your boat.

So, as the Arabs say: It is all in Gods' hands....

Fair winds.....


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> OK, I will consider covering the transom windows if crossing the Atlantic. But, along with that, I will consider carrying a spare oil cooler, and will consider having the chainplates tested with the chemical dye and, or, Xrayed, and might as well have the entire hull Xrayed, and the mast(s), and all the rigging, and remove and replace all the electrical wiring, and remove and replace all the thru hulls, and have the rigging dynamically tuned, along with the static tuning, and have a satellite phone, an SSB, and a lot more insurance.... But most definetly, in order to be prepared for what actually destroyed the Triumph, I must replace all the fiberglass decking and hull with titanium steel, reinforced with titanium steel girders, because it wasn't the ocean, or the wind, or the weather, it was a 900 foot oil tanker whose anchor housing crushed the weak fiberglass into the little splinters that inspired us to jump overboard....


I'm sure you've forgotten _something_. I just can't quite put my finger on it.


----------



## DougSabbag

Oh, and let's not leave out the statistics as you light up a cigarette, or have some extra butter on your baked potatoe, or eschew the brocolli / vegetables, and go right for another McDonalds burger.....

If you buy a production sailboat, in the 6 figures, which has "proven herself" on the ocean for years / decades, (whether you want to consider the Caribbean a worthy challenge or not), chances are, if she is in good condition, and you have a clue about what you are doing, then you will most likely enjoy your cruising days and nights.

Ish Allah....


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> I'm sure you've forgotten _something_. I just can't quite put my finger on it.


A black box! We need to be able to ridicule him even if lost at see... :laugher


----------



## casey1999

LandLocked66c said:


> I bought the book you recommended Jon. 200 tips for passage making, or something like that... I was blown away with how much water can come through a blown out cockpit speaker with a 5" opening! There's alot of great stuff in that book!


I bought the book also and am now reading it. A lot of useful information in it.


----------



## Minnewaska

This really doesn't need to be reinvented, nor exaggerated.

The ISAF has published offshore racing regulations which cover the vessel and the Safety at Sea (prerequisite for Newport to Bermuda race) program defines requirements as well. You would be best served to follow them and not write them off to a Big Mac analogy.

Since I specifically recall that ports that open inward are prohibited, I highly suspect those large windows would fail too. However, as mentioned, they can be secured. Makes one wonder how you know they weren't secured for those thousands of offshore miles.


----------



## LandLocked66c

casey1999 said:


> I bought the book also and am now reading it. A lot of useful information in it.


I bought the other old one he recommended. Liking it as well! The chapter about stern windows is riveting! 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393033112/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=


----------



## casey1999

How about these transom windows (I'll bet not tempered or lexan)? This boat looks to have stability problems also. Kinda wonder how these Spanish Galleons mangaged so many sea miles.


----------



## hellosailor

"why not simply replace the glass that is there now with "
Uh, cause moving parts tend to move? Or to be left open? And Lexan is damned expensive?

You certainly could build a Lexan hull and only need ports for ventilation, the problem would be paying for it. Well, that and the polish, I suppose. 

Casey-
"Kinda wonder how these Spanish Galleons mangaged so many sea miles. " No wonder there, ever seen a map showing how many of them DIDN'T make it? Lucky for the treasure hunters, huh?


----------



## peterchech

I read somewhere that 1 out of 7 of those galleons didn't return. The super high rear deck was a defense from other ships (from which to shoot stuff onto the decks of enemy vessels), not really a design flaw but a design compromise.

What about all those catamarans with huge, glass enclosed bridgedecks? I haven't heard of their windows being imploded, wonder why...


----------



## casey1999

hellosailor said:


> "why not simply replace the glass that is there now with "
> Uh, cause moving parts tend to move? Or to be left open? And Lexan is damned expensive?
> 
> You certainly could build a Lexan hull and only need ports for ventilation, the problem would be paying for it. Well, that and the polish, I suppose.
> 
> Casey-
> "Kinda wonder how these Spanish Galleons mangaged so many sea miles. " No wonder there, ever seen a map showing how many of them DIDN'T make it? Lucky for the treasure hunters, huh?


There were no doubt some galleons lost. But keep in mind the Spanish were sailing from Spain to Philippines for somthing like 200 years. The galleons were also apparently very seaworthy. Many of the ships lost were lost due to hurricanes pushing ships onto reefs. Considering no GPS, communication or weather data seems they did very well.
Galleon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_treasure_fleet


----------



## hellosailor

"all those catamarans with huge, glass enclosed bridgedecks? I haven't heard of their windows being imploded, wonder why... "
Because they get flipped over and everyone dies, well before the glass would be pushed in?
No really, that's a design feature not a compromise. 

Who knows, there aren't a lot of folks out there documenting what fails in what conditions. Note from "Fastnet, Force Ten" that fast boats could survive when slow ones didn't, and in some designs the entire cabin top was stove in, the _ports _weren't the problem.

A catamaran with fixed glass is very different from opening ports on a monohull. Regardless of how they recover from capsizes. Or not. Or outrun them. Or not.


----------



## DougSabbag

I love Caseys' posting!!!!!! As far as HelloSailors' retort, well, the windows on the boats in these pictures are STILL THERE. And those boats are still afloat. 

But, to reply to this:
Well, someone's gotta ask, may as well be me... (no you really didn't HAVE to ask).

Why on earth would you want twin engines in a 53' sailboat? (Have you ever tried backing up your 50 + footer?) or (what if one engine fails!?!?! With this boat you have a BACK UP!!!! Yoo Hooo!!!)

With fixed props, no less? Something tells me that boat didn't get sailed very much...
(this seems to be the common / default response to obvious realities.. i.e., question their use. Only SOME boats have non-fixed props, buddy; not everyone has the extra THOUSANDS of $ to pay for what you seem to feel is a requirement.) 

Seriously, spend the bucks for Bob Perry's consultation service, he'll set you straight... (grin) ( I AM grinning... how much is "Bob" paying you for doing his marketing? AND, excuse me but I am already too straight, I should smoke something stronger like you.)

Pardon that last one... my fingers just couldn't stop on this keyboard....

This Bob Perry would say this and Bob Perry would say that stuff just has to end. 

Bob Perry is neither paying my bills, nor doing my work, so Bob Perry et. al., really need to death proof their own lives, at their own expense, if they can. 

Good luck with that.

Where was Bob Perry when Columbus sailed the ocean blue? How did Columbus manage without Bob?! 

And, what about my much earlier comment about all the efforts and money and the best engineers in the world who work for NASA who nevertheless did not keep the Columbia Space Shuttle from blowing up? Or the Titanic from sinking? Or all the other catastrophes which have occurred regardless of the best efforts of men?

Granted, there are some very clear things which should be considered the bare essentials; but each of us has to make that determination for themselves, given our own limitiations and resources. Sitting at a keyboard and scrutinizing every single possible weakness of someone elses' boat, while crossing the Atlantic, (a rare occurrance at best), is mostly a great exercise for an anal compulsive personality. For they will revel in the many, almost infinite number of areas to improve in order to satisfy themselves.

But, would all of that really guarantee no "problems"? Absolutely NOT.

Even a bran spanking new vessel has problems. And there is not any boat design on the face of this earth which is perfect. They all have drawbacks, limitiations, concessions, etc., which all come down to one point. If you are alive, you could die; and nothing can guarantee the opposite. If you get in a boat or a car or a plane or just walk down the street, you could die. 

The next time Bob Perry gets into a plane, I can only assume he will have a parachute with him? No? Well then, even Mr. Perry takes risks while obvious improvements exist.

Life is a gamble... enjoy the ride the best you can. I like to have a view from my bed which my wife and I can look out at the world and see. 
And, thankfully, none of you will be in bed with us lamenting how a wave could kill us at any moment... my God, what a buzz kill you would be!!!


----------



## LandLocked66c

Watch out for that WAVE!!!


----------



## peterchech

Just from my own reading of the history books (I love reading nonfiction about the age of discovery) lots and lots of these boats went down when they hit reefs, or were pushed onto lee shores and their anchors couldn't hold. Navigating in the 17th century was quite a feat, and a little bad luck (uncharted shoals, cloud cover precluding an accurate site for days, navigational mistakes, unfriendly natives, etc.) was all it took. So despite their limited range of stability, I think ship design was the least of the reasons so many never came back.

Then again, there are people who have rowed across the atlantic, and Klepper sailed a skin on frame kayak across in the days before epirb. So, I guess it's all about your willingness to accept risk that's all.


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
You have some good points. If we all sat around pondering how somthing could go wrong, we would never do anything. At some point you just need to do it.

From: Spanish treasure fleet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The treasure fleets, however, must be counted as among the most successful naval operations in history.[23][24] Moreover, from a commercial point of view, some key components of today's world economic system were made possible by the success of the Spanish treasure fleets.[25]"

23,24,25Walton


----------



## casey1999

peterchech said:


> Just from my own reading of the history books (I love reading nonfiction about the age of discovery) lots and lots of these boats went down when they hit reefs, or were pushed onto lee shores and their anchors couldn't hold. Navigating in the 17th century was quite a feat, and a little bad luck (uncharted shoals, cloud cover precluding an accurate site for days, navigational mistakes, unfriendly natives, etc.) was all it took. So despite their limited range of stability, I think ship design was the least of the reasons so many never came back.
> 
> Then again, there are people who have rowed across the atlantic, and Klepper sailed a skin on frame kayak across in the days before epirb. So, I guess it's all about your willingness to accept risk that's all.


I am not sure if lots and lots went down considering the spanish were sailing for 200 years. If so many went down, Spain would not have continued sending the boats out- they were very expensive to build. I have seen where we have tried to copy a carvel and cannot (there were no drawings as the construction was a secret to protect the design that gave them speed). The carvels were very fast and even today, we do not know why. Look at how many boats have gone down in the last 100 years- I think even with all our technology, the Spanish had a pretty good record.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> You have some good points. If we all sat around pondering how somthing could go wrong, we would never do anything. At some point you just need to do it.


Ah hah! A SAILOR! Avast yee matees, we have a real sailor on deck!

So, come aboard, enjoy some Jack Daniels on the rocks, and we'll even look out the windows at the following sea, enjoy dinner on granite counters, and wash our clothes in a washer & dryer.... then, we can raise the sails and wander about on the flat swept deck, and even explore the view from the long bow sprit. Then we can utilize the tools stored on that deck / dock box, and after that either take a bath, or a shower, since the Skol has both of those features.

And don't let the large cabins fool you into feeling that you are comfortable, because all that freeboard will fling your frail bodies across the cabins, (which broke a rib of mine onboard the Triumph / though she did not have high freeboard), so you better hit the deck and hold on for dear life, because at any second a rogue wave will assuradly kill us all, through the side windows or the stern ones, or even through the deck, which is sadly only fiberglass, not steel.....

But, what the Hell, lets go sailing anyway. Better men than me, in better vessels, have died; but most have succeeded; so let's just take the gamble and raise our glasses and our canvas, because life is too short to lament what could go wrong so much that we can't see what we want to, or feel comfortable in large cabins, or even, God forbid, have TWO Mercedes diesel engines....

Thank you Casey. You are a rare bird indeed... at least as rare as I seem to be around here.


----------



## Minnewaska

Doug, I haven't heard anyone say it isn't your choice to take on whatever risks you like. 

However, comparing modern safety guidance to the longevity of the Spanish Galleon fleet or even the success of one single vessel over thousands of miles is rationalization, not deduction.

You odds notably improve if you accept modern guidance. Your call whether you opt in.

Good luck.


----------



## DougSabbag

Minnewaska said:


> Doug, I haven't heard anyone say it isn't your choice to take on whatever risks you like.
> 
> However, comparing modern safety guidance to the longevity of the Spanish Galleon fleet or even the success of one single vessel over thousands of miles is rationalization, not deduction.
> 
> You odds notably improve if you accept modern guidance. Your call whether you opt in.
> 
> Good luck.


OK, so how long has it been since you have dye tested your chainplates, or replaced your electrical wiring, or tested / replaced / rebuilt your thru hulls, or checked the dynamic tuning of your rigg; and do you have inward opening port lights, (most of them are), do you have any fixed large windows, do you have a boom, or in mast furling, or do you still hank them up? When did you last change your oil cooler? How much freeboard does your vessel have?
Do you have a halon fire extinguisher in your engine room? 
Do you have an EPIRB, a satellite phone, a 4, 6, or 8 person inflating life pod? Do you have those individual life suits????? huh, do you?

I am not saying that these things are bad, or that we shouldn't all have all of these and so much more. What I am commenting on is the loss of perspective here. The same people who don't even have a radar are pointing at the windows in the stern of a boat they would give their left nut to own, if they only could ever afford one, as a reason not to have her.

Like driving around in a beat to hell Toyota while pointing out the poor gas mileage of a Bentley.

The Bentley is a better, safer car, though people have died in them too.
People have died in everything. Lighten up about the stern windows.

Just saying......


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> I love Caseys' posting!!!!!! As far as HelloSailors' retort, well, the windows on the boats in these pictures are STILL THERE. And those boats are still afloat.
> 
> But, to reply to this:
> Well, someone's gotta ask, may as well be me... (no you really didn't HAVE to ask).
> 
> Why on earth would you want twin engines in a 53' sailboat? (Have you ever tried backing up your 50 + footer?) or (what if one engine fails!?!?! With this boat you have a BACK UP!!!! Yoo Hooo!!!)
> 
> With fixed props, no less? Something tells me that boat didn't get sailed very much...
> (this seems to be the common / default response to obvious realities.. i.e., question their use. Only SOME boats have non-fixed props, buddy; not everyone has the extra THOUSANDS of $ to pay for what you seem to feel is a requirement.)
> 
> Seriously, spend the bucks for Bob Perry's consultation service, he'll set you straight... (grin) ( I AM grinning... how much is "Bob" paying you for doing his marketing? AND, excuse me but I am already too straight, I should smoke something stronger like you.)
> 
> Pardon that last one... my fingers just couldn't stop on this keyboard....
> 
> This Bob Perry would say this and Bob Perry would say that stuff just has to end.
> 
> Bob Perry is neither paying my bills, nor doing my work, so Bob Perry et. al., really need to death proof their own lives, at their own expense, if they can.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Where was Bob Perry when Columbus sailed the ocean blue? How did Columbus manage without Bob?!
> 
> And, what about my much earlier comment about all the efforts and money and the best engineers in the world who work for NASA who nevertheless did not keep the Columbia Space Shuttle from blowing up? Or the Titanic from sinking? Or all the other catastrophes which have occurred regardless of the best efforts of men?
> 
> Granted, there are some very clear things which should be considered the bare essentials; but each of us has to make that determination for themselves, given our own limitiations and resources. Sitting at a keyboard and scrutinizing every single possible weakness of someone elses' boat, while crossing the Atlantic, (a rare occurrance at best), is mostly a great exercise for an anal compulsive personality. For they will revel in the many, almost infinite number of areas to improve in order to satisfy themselves.
> 
> But, would all of that really guarantee no "problems"? Absolutely NOT.
> 
> Even a bran spanking new vessel has problems. And there is not any boat design on the face of this earth which is perfect. They all have drawbacks, limitiations, concessions, etc., which all come down to one point. If you are alive, you could die; and nothing can guarantee the opposite. If you get in a boat or a car or a plane or just walk down the street, you could die.
> 
> The next time Bob Perry gets into a plane, I can only assume he will have a parachute with him? No? Well then, even Mr. Perry takes risks while obvious improvements exist.
> 
> Life is a gamble... enjoy the ride the best you can. I like to have a view from my bed which my wife and I can look out at the world and see.
> And, thankfully, none of you will be in bed with us lamenting how a wave could kill us at any moment... my God, what a buzz kill you would be!!!


Though I admire your spunk, and tend to agree with your general thrust...lighten up on your Bob Perry angle. He's a friend of many on many forums. And he's a very cool dude. You could definitely learn a thing or two from him...just as we all could.

Now...back to your buzz kill....


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> OK, so how long has it been since you have (1) dye tested your chainplates, or (2) replaced your electrical wiring, or (3) tested / replaced / rebuilt your thru hulls, or checked the (4) dynamic tuning of your rigg; and (5) do you have inward opening port lights, (most of them are), (6) do you have any fixed large windows, (7) do you have a boom, or in mast furling, or do you still hank them up? (8) When did you last change your oil cooler? (9) How much freeboard does your vessel have?
> (10) Do you have a halon fire extinguisher in your engine room?
> (11) Do you have an EPIRB, (12) a satellite phone, (13) a 4, 6, or 8 person inflating life pod? (14) Do you have those individual life suits?????


1. Never - five year old boat.
2. Never - five year old boat, but I have cleaned and reseated a number of connections. All connections are at one of three buses on the boat and of course at the fed unit.
3. Tested twice a year, rebuilt as needed at next haul-out (every other years for bottom paint, two weeks max).
4. I'm not familiar with dynamic tuning as vocabulary. I tune to spec at the dock and then go sailing and make minor adjustments based on performance. Adjustable backstay gets used when sailing.
5. Yes. All have latches every 6 to 8 inches.
6. No. Not appropriate to my boat, but would not have been a problem.
7. Furling headsail, hank-on staysail, conventional main on a track.
8. Never. Your experience does have me thinking. I will discuss hydrotesting all heat exchangers with Mack Boring the next time I talk to them.
9. 4ish feet - 5 at the bow roller.
10. No. I have a fire extinguisher but not halon - halon has life safety implications I don't wish to deal with.
11. Yes
12. No - I have more confidence in my SSB.
13. Yes - a 6 person Avon
14. No.

I don't have a Bentley either. *grin* My F250SD feels pretty safe.


----------



## GeorgeB

Can I play along too? My boat is a “production” 34 footer built in 2000. Chain plates inspected earlier this year (spent most of the summer rebuilding a cracked stem fitting). Rig recently inspected, static tuned, and is awaiting dynamic. Sails and running rigging all new within the last couple of years. Electrical wiring is all up to current AYBA standards and inspected. I have seven inward opening ports (Lewmar). All other windows/ hatches satisfy IASF Cat 2. No hanks, use foil headsails (main has slugs – I carry extra slugs in the spares kit). No oil cooler, regularly aspirated diesel, but I do carry a set of spare parts (Incl one injector). Do not have a Halon fire suppression system in the engine “box” (rely on “normal” marine rated fire extinguishers). I have an EPIRB, DSC radio & 4 person life raft but no sat phone or SSB (yet!). Do not have gumby suits. I also carry a full set of safety gear as per modified ISAF Cat 1 (as per my local OYRA requirements). I have radar and AIS but no gallery windows (“sugar scoop” stern).

Don’t have a Bently, drive a BMW.

So how did I do?


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> OK, let me clarify a few things...
> 
> First, I was responding to your contention that the fact that the windows remain undamaged as "proof" that they are up to anything the ocean can throw at them... We'll simply have to agree to disagree on that, though I would bet Rod and Olin Stephens would favor my side of that argument (grin) So, I'm comfortable with that...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm just not buying that this particular boat has seen "2 decades of ocean cruising". Among the couple of dozen photos on that site, there is not one that shows the boat under sail in anything more than flat seas, and perhaps 10 knots of breeze, in any location more than 2 days travel from the Rio Dulce... That Guatemalan Velcro of the Rio is powerful stuff, I'd bet half the boats that venture up there only escape under a new owner - that corner of the Caribbean, after all, it's all uphill out of there... Seems that such a boat would sell much more easily in
> Lauderdale/South Florida, the fact that it's still sitting in Guatemala could be an indication of the boat's weatherly capability, just sayin'...
> 
> Look, the transom windows are not a deal-breaker, by any means... They can be dealt with, in a number of ways, depending on your intended use of the boat... But, cutting such holes, with sharp corners, in the transom of a boat is definitely NOT without serious consequences regarding the integrity of the hull, that's all I'm saying... And, to lump such a characteristic in with other "niceties" such as granite counters, or plasma TVs really misses the point, IMHO... Other than the additional weight placed above the waterline, stuff like granite countertops have little to do with the seaworthiness of a boat, have at it... big picture windows below deck level, however, will demand your attention if you still intend to cross an ocean, that's my only point here...


Just curious, this is a Bob Perry design I believe. What is your opinion of the fixed ports below the deck level as far as blue water cruising is concerned?
::: BOATFINDER*:::
http://www.boat-finder.com/pdf.php?pdf_id=2103


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> But, to reply to this:
> Well, someone's gotta ask, may as well be me... (no you really didn't HAVE to ask).
> 
> Why on earth would you want twin engines in a 53' sailboat? (*Have you ever tried backing up your 50 + footer?*) or (what if one engine fails!?!?! With this boat you have a BACK UP!!!! Yoo Hooo!!!)


As difficult as it may be to imagine one with over 30 years in the delivery trade having ever had occasion to back down a 50-footer, well&#8230; yes, I actually have&#8230;

That Ferretti certainly doesn't appear to present any particular difficulties in that regard&#8230; That Mikelson, on the other hand, - with its full keel, barn door rudder, and prop in an aperature - now _there_ is a beast that might benefit from twin screws, not to mention a bow _and _ stern thruster, for maneuvering in close quarters&#8230;



DougSabbag said:


> With fixed props, no less? Something tells me that boat didn't get sailed very much...
> (this seems to be the common / default response to obvious realities.. i.e., question their use. Only SOME boats have non-fixed props, buddy; not everyone has the extra THOUSANDS of $ to pay for what you seem to feel is a requirement.)


Apparently, the concept of _hydrodynamic drag_ is foreign to you&#8230;



DougSabbag said:


> Seriously, spend the bucks for Bob Perry's consultation service, he'll set you straight... (grin) ( I AM grinning... how much is "Bob" paying you for doing his marketing? AND, excuse me but I am already too straight, I should smoke something stronger like you.)
> 
> Pardon that last one... my fingers just couldn't stop on this keyboard....
> 
> This Bob Perry would say this and Bob Perry would say that stuff just has to end.
> 
> Bob Perry is neither paying my bills, nor doing my work, so Bob Perry et. al., really need to death proof their own lives, at their own expense, if they can.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Where was Bob Perry when Columbus sailed the ocean blue? How did Columbus manage without Bob?!


Sorry for suggesting that, obviously a consultation with Bob would be completely lost on you&#8230;

No matter that a very strong case could be made that Bob Perry is the most influential designer of cruising sailboats of his generation. His Valiant 40 is one of the most legendary designs of the last 40 years, completely re-defined the notion of a performance offshore cruising boat at the time&#8230; If I had to place a bet as to what single boat has more circumnavigations to its credit, I'd probably put my money on his Tayana 37&#8230; Bob has always shown an amazingly generous predilection for sharing his knowledge and expertise with people like us, on forums such as this, and Sailing Anarchy, and has the rare gift of explaining yacht design in terms that even a neophyte sailor can understand&#8230; Finally, you're smitten by a Taiwanese boat, and few people on earth know the Taiwanese boatbuilding industry like Bob Perry does&#8230;

And yet, you would dismiss all that, _because Christopher Columbus managed to sail the ocean blue without input from Bob Perry??? _

Gotta admit, I got nuthin' to counter _that_ sort of nonsense&#8230;



DougSabbag said:


> But most definetly, in order to be prepared for what actually destroyed the Triumph, I must replace all the fiberglass decking and hull with titanium steel, reinforced with titanium steel girders, because _it wasn't the ocean, or the wind, or the weather, it was a 900 foot oil tanker_ whose anchor housing crushed the weak fiberglass into the little splinters that inspired us to jump overboard....
> 
> Just saying....


You really need to get over blaming the master of the KIM JACOB for "destroying" TRIUMPH, as if it was the conclusion of some malevolent intent on his part...

YOU, and you alone, made the decision to abandon her to the sea... The fact that she was subsequently "destroyed" during the rescue - other than the obvious extreme risk it created for you and your wife - really is incidental, in the larger context... Your actions consigned her to a lingering death, the encounter with the KIM JACOB simply expedited the sentence you had pronounced...

It "it wasn't the ocean, the wind, or the weather" that created the chain of events and failures that led to your decision to abandon, then what was it?

Just sayin'...


----------



## neverknow

Has anyone thought to thank DougSabbag for allowing us to read the details on what happened in the mid Atlantic?

I know some did early on but the last 100 post have not been so nice.

I wonder how many sailors will be looking at the chain plates a little closer and checking out the oil coolers. Many might send their wives ahead on a flight and find crew instead. 

It's easy for all of us to sit and pick apart someone from the safety of the internet. Can we all just leave this guy alone now??


----------



## casey1999

neverknow said:


> Has anyone thought to thank DougSabbag for allowing us to read the details on what happened in the mid Atlantic?
> 
> I know some did early on but the last 100 post have not been so nice.
> 
> I wonder how many sailors will be looking at the chain plates a little closer and checking out the oil coolers. Many might send their wives ahead on a flight and find crew instead.
> 
> It's easy for all of us to sit and pick apart someone from the safety of the internet. Can we all just leave this guy alone now??


I'm with you. If I lose my boat, I will keep it to myself. And all my wives will be flying ahead of me (on different planes!).


----------



## neverknow

casey1999 said:


> I'm with you. If I lose my boat, I will keep it to myself. And all my wives will be flying ahead of me (on different planes!).


How many are we talking?


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Just curious, this is a Bob Perry design I believe. What is your opinion of the fixed ports below the deck level as far as blue water cruising is concerned?
> ::: BOATFINDER*:::
> http://www.boat-finder.com/pdf.php?pdf_id=2103


Well, if I had been Bob's client on that design, I would have opted for going without the ports... Or, at least painting the hull black... (grin)

And, definitely, forget about the stern arch...

Look, as others have said, there have been recent advances in the use of modern materials and composites that are probably light years ahead of where we were years ago... That boat is an aluminum hull, probably a bit "stiffer" and less vulnerable to flexing than an equivalent glass hull, and I'm sure one could sail that boat for a lifetime, and never have a problem with those ports...

Having said that, I still don't like the idea... Probably just the wimp in me, but when I go below a boat I'm sailing offshore, seeing the water gurgling past the submerged portlights to leeward never gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling... And, most importantly in the context of this thread, my prior experience with the glass used in the Taiwanese boat on which I saw transom portlights smashed, there's no way 'd want that in a boat I was gonna sail offshore...

I really don't like the current trend towards this stuff, and really have to wonder about the integrity of it in a boat like the Hanse...










But, that's probably just me...

And, maybe these guys, if they were still around... (grin)


----------



## AdamLein

JonEisberg said:


>


Forgive my ignorance, but who are these guys?

edit: n/m, pored through wikipedia and figured it out.


----------



## GeorgeB

Jon, don’t you think that those two ol’ dudes would have kept up with the industry as new components were developed or old ones improved? Granted there is some three strand in the backround but I would have thought that they would have at least moved to double braid if not vectran, spectra, or at least Kevlar if they were designing in the “modern” times. In regards to fixed ports, I have had the opportunity to replace one (someone else’s’ boat) and I can tell you that there is enough overlap (and a frame on the back side) that they will not pop out under any amount of hull flexing. Trust me, you need a fracture. Those portlights are allowed under ISAF Cat 1, which for those of us never venturing into the Southern Ocean is plenty.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the design that Perry liked the best of his was the work he did on the Nordic 40/44? Or was that just marketing hype?


----------



## casey1999

AdamLein said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but who are these guys?
> 
> edit: n/m, pored through wikipedia and figured it out.


These guys are my heros. I have an S&S 34.

Sparkman and Stephens 34 Review : Bluewaterboats.org


----------



## mitiempo

Rod Stephens on the left and Olin Stephens on the right.


----------



## casey1999

neverknow said:


> How many are we talking?


Enough to share.


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> Well, if I had been Bob's client on that design, I would have opted for going without the ports... Or, at least painting the hull black... (grin)
> 
> And, definitely, forget about the stern arch...
> 
> Look, as others have said, there have been recent advances in the use of modern materials and composites that are probably light years ahead of where we were years ago... That boat is an aluminum hull, probably a bit "stiffer" and less vulnerable to flexing than an equivalent glass hull, and I'm sure one could sail that boat for a lifetime, and never have a problem with those ports...
> 
> Having said that, I still don't like the idea... Probably just the wimp in me, but when I go below a boat I'm sailing offshore, seeing the water gurgling past the submerged portlights to leeward never gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling... And, most importantly in the context of this thread, my prior experience with the glass used in the Taiwanese boat on which I saw transom portlights smashed, there's no way 'd want that in a boat I was gonna sail offshore...
> 
> I really don't like the current trend towards this stuff, and really have to wonder about the integrity of it in a boat like the Hanse...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, that's probably just me...
> 
> And, maybe these guys, if they were still around... (grin)


I'm with you. I do not like to see below the water's surface when I am on a boat. I would also be concerned about brushing up against a near fully submerged container (or other debris- and there is a lot out there) that would take the port out.


----------



## GeorgeB

You guys are going to have to trust me on this one… The collision that takes out one of those portlights is going to do some pretty considerable damage to the hull (think fracture). Heeled over, those ports are never more than a foot below the surface. The semi submerged container you hit will have already taken out half the boat before it gets to the port. Don’t have them if you don’t like them but remember they are allowed under ISAF Cat 1 racing.


----------



## casey1999

GeorgeB said:


> You guys are going to have to trust me on this one&#8230; The collision that takes out one of those portlights is going to do some pretty considerable damage to the hull (think fracture). Heeled over, those ports are never more than a foot below the surface. The semi submerged container you hit will have already taken out half the boat before it gets to the port. Don't have them if you don't like them but remember they are allowed under ISAF Cat 1 racing.


Say you are well heeled over and you just touch the container- it will hit you at maximum beam- which is where one of those ports is located. Is that port as strong as the hull? I'll bet not. So it is a very small risk, but a risk at that and an unecessary risk IMO.

Also, during a demasting the mast might be in the water banging up against the hull of the boat- is the port as strong as the hull?


----------



## tommays

Beware of anything modern  even the week old stuff


----------



## smackdaddy

casey1999 said:


> Say you are well heeled over and you just touch the container- it will hit you at maximum beam- which is where one of those ports is located. Is that port as strong as the hull? I'll bet not. So it is a very small risk, but a risk at that and an unecessary risk IMO.
> 
> Also, during a demasting the mast might be in the water banging up against the hull of the boat- is the port as strong as the hull?


Casey, dude, you worry too much.

George, I trust you on that.

Jon, I like a lot of what you say, and have HUGE respect for 30 years of deliveries, but in many ways I think you're too tied to the past when it comes to pimpy, modern rides.

Tom, those are some scary pics.

Olin, get a freakin' comb for crying out loud.


----------



## JonEisberg

GeorgeB said:


> Jon, don't you think that those two ol' dudes would have kept up with the industry as new components were developed or old ones improved? Granted there is some three strand in the backround but I would have thought that they would have at least moved to double braid if not vectran, spectra, or at least Kevlar if they were designing in the "modern" times. In regards to fixed ports, I have had the opportunity to replace one (someone else's' boat) and I can tell you that there is enough overlap (and a frame on the back side) that they will not pop out under any amount of hull flexing. Trust me, you need a fracture. Those portlights are allowed under ISAF Cat 1, which for those of us never venturing into the Southern Ocean is plenty.


I'm sure you're right, no doubt they would have adapted to a certain degree with the times... Olin more so than Rod, perhaps - I have a hard time picturing him ever being comfortable with many of today's picture windows placed below deck level...

In an effort to retrieve some sort of perspective to this tangent, however, let me re-post my original comment that started this all:



JonEisberg said:


> However, if you're still planning to cross an ocean, that boat features a number of undesirable characteristics for sailing offshore... I would say those picture windows in the transom probably tops the list...


I'm pretty confident that even today, the brothers Stephens, looking at that photo, would be inclined to agree...



DougSabbag said:


> I am not saying that these things are bad, or that we shouldn't all have all of these and so much more. What I am commenting on is the loss of perspective here. * The same people who don't even have a radar are pointing at the windows in the stern of a boat they would give their left nut to own, if they only could ever afford one, as a reason not to have her.*
> 
> Like driving around in a beat to hell Toyota while pointing out the poor gas mileage of a Bentley.


Whew, at first glance, I thought he might have been talking about me...

But, I do happen to have radar, so I guess not... (grin)

Anyway, my puny beater Toyota still has a few miles left in her, I think...










So, if I understand this analogy correctly, Bentleys are built in Taiwan?

Who knew?


----------



## LandLocked66c

What kind of junkey craft is that JonE? What's with the girly teal boot stripe?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I have a hard time picturing him ever being comfortable with many of today's picture windows placed below deck level...
> 
> I'm pretty confident that even today, the brothers Stephens, looking at that photo, would be inclined to agree...


So are you saying today's designers are idiots? Henry Ford would have had a hard time seeing the utility of a sunroof...or a V8....or even a BMW. But he's dead.

I guess I'm one that has some faith in modern design, materials and engineering. To George's point, old rules and norms are based on old design, materials and engineering.


----------



## AdamLein

smackdaddy said:


> I guess I'm one that has some faith in modern design, materials and engineering.


I think the argument is that it's easiest to have faith in cutting-edge designs, materials, and engineering after they have been used reliably for fifty years or so


----------



## JonEisberg

LandLocked66c said:


> What kind of junkey craft is that JonE? What's with the girly teal boot stripe?


Actually, that color is "Sea Foam"... Goes well with my Hot Pink jibsheets, and Ambiguously Gay spinnaker... Never, _ever_ let a girl play with North's online spinnaker design app, and talk you into adding a hot pink panel to your chute - no matter how cute she may be... (grin)










She's an old Allied Chance 30-30, Hull #1 as a matter of fact... Brit Chance is perhaps best known for his legendary failure MARINER, which inspired Ted Turner's famous comment "Geez, Brit, WTF were you thinking? Even a piece of sh_t is tapered at both ends!"

This is one that Chance got right, however - my boat, originally named BOOMERANG, had an enviable race record after her launch, won a lot of races around LIS and Southern New England... She has been highly modified since I bought her, I've added a lot of weight and sunk her on her original lines considerably, but she's still a very sweet sailing boat, with a lot of interior volume considering her pinched ends, and very comfortable in a seaway... Not to mention, very heavily built, the builder who turned out the first ever GRP boat to ever complete a circumnavigation tended to do that...

Of course, being designed to the early IOR rule, she's completely unsuitable for sailing offshore, and it's just a matter of time before I die out there.... (grin)


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> So are you saying today's designers are idiots? Henry Ford would have had a hard time seeing the utility of a sunroof...or a V8....or even a BMW. But he's dead.
> 
> I guess I'm one that has some faith in modern design, materials and engineering. To George's point, old rules and norms are based on old design, materials and engineering.


The sunroof on my 88 BMW 325 leaks- taped it up with 100 mph tape- all good now.


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> Casey, dude, you worry too much.
> 
> George, I trust you on that.
> 
> Jon, I like a lot of what you say, and have HUGE respect for 30 years of deliveries, but in many ways I think you're too tied to the past when it comes to pimpy, modern rides.
> 
> Tom, those are some scary pics.
> 
> Olin, get a freakin' comb for crying out loud.


Some are telling Doug to worry more and you are telling me to worry less- can't win. Anyway, not worried, don't have windows below the deck and the ones above the deck are fixed lexan.


----------



## LandLocked66c

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, that color is "Sea Foam"... Goes well with my Hot Pink jibsheets, and Ambiguously Gay spinnaker... Never, _ever_ let a girl play with North's online spinnaker design app, and talk you into adding a hot pink panel to your chute - no matter how cute she may be... (grin)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's an old Allied Chance 30-30, Hull #1 as a matter of fact... Brit Chance is perhaps best known for his legendary failure MARINER, which inspired Ted Turner's famous comment "Geez, Brit, WTF were you thinking? Even a piece of sh_t is tapered at both ends!"
> 
> This is one that Chance got right, however - my boat, originally named BOOMERANG, had an enviable race record after her launch, won a lot of races around LIS and Southern New England... She has been highly modified since I bought her, I've added a lot of weight and sunk her on her original lines considerably, but she's still a very sweet sailing boat, with a lot of interior volume considering her pinched ends, and very comfortable in a seaway... Not to mention, very heavily built, the builder who turned out the first ever GRP boat to ever complete a circumnavigation tended to do that...
> 
> Of course, being designed to the early IOR rule, she's completely unsuitable for sailing offshore, and it's just a matter of time before I die out there.... (grin)


Advice taken!!! Holy Crap, I thought a white topside is blinding... 

I'll have to google more about the designer, interesting stuff!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> *So are you saying today's designers are idiots?* Henry Ford would have had a hard time seeing the utility of a sunroof...or a V8....or even a BMW. But he's dead.


No, I'm not saying that... I don't know how I can make this any clearer, but I will try once again... I think that if Rod Stephens were still alive today, and looked at _the particular photo and example of SKOL's transom windows that I posted_, he would agree with me that they do not represent a _desirable characteristic_ in a boat destined to cross an ocean...



smackdaddy said:


> I guess I'm one that has some faith in modern design, materials and engineering. To George's point, old rules and norms are based on old design, materials and engineering.


I, too, possess _some_ faith in modern design, materials, and engineering... As usual, however, it is always somewhat diminished after a couple of days at an event like the Annapolis Sailboat Show... (grin)

One of my current pet peeves is the increasingly commonplace usage of U-bolts instead of chainplates for the deck attachment points for backstays... Seems like a very poor practice to me, and a clear example of builders cheaping out, and favoring ease of installation... A backstay is a fairly important component of the rig, and I think the "old" method of a proper chainplate where the load is placed primarily in shear to the hull, is far superior to the "new" engineering that results in the load wanting to pry a U-bolt out of the deck, or lift the deck itself... I know, it's probably just me, I just can't bring myself to embrace this sort of "modern" program... (grin)

But, what's really distressing, is that so many of today's builders _can't even manage to properly align the U-bolt with the direction of the load imparted by the backstay..._ Here's an example from a current production boat that sells for over $300K:










I've seen engineering on some of the Hanses that is far worse... they orient their U-bolts athwartships, so that the load will have a significant sideways/forward component... un-freakin'-believable...

So, call me skeptical, but when I see builders so consistently get something so basic, simple, and elemental so dreadfully _wrong_, it doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence that they're necessarily getting the engineering and construction of those picture windows they're slapping into their topsides exactly _right_...


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> I've seen engineering on some of the Hanses that is far worse... they orient their U-bolts athwartships, so that the load will have a significant sideways/forward component... un-freakin'-believable...
> 
> _right_...


Those u bolts are crazy, I do not think my 7 year old would do somthing like that.

Jon, do you use running back stays for the inner forestay? Nice boat, I see some basic models (one on yacht world) for under $10k- look to be a bargin.

4 SAIL


----------



## smackdaddy

Maybe the U-bolts are crazy. I suppose the test will be if they consistently fail or not over the next 20 years or so.

Let's say for arguments' sake that they don't. Will they still be a bad idea?

Isn't that the crux of this debate?


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> Maybe the U-bolts are crazy. I suppose the test will be if they consistently fail or not over the next 20 years or so.
> 
> Let's say for arguments' sake that they don't. Will they still be a bad idea?
> 
> Isn't that the crux of this debate?


Would you be willing to spend $300k for a new boat and use it as a test?
Bet that U bolt is made in china. And what about the quality of the weld on the u bolt?


----------



## LandLocked66c

Wow, that's pretty narrow!


----------



## GeorgeB

Jon, that is one pretty boat, great lines – she “shows” much larger than her 30’ length would indicate. Bravo Zulu! Was the inner forestay original with the boat or did you add it on? I’d like to see how it is terminated through the V berth space. I’d love to see a photo if you got one.

OK, a scenario where a shipping container takes out only a hull port light. That’s going to be a tough one if we must follow the laws of physics. So, at least on my boat, the hull port is up along the shear stripe and 99% of the time the leeward port is above water or at best, right along the “splash zone”. So, in order to hit amidships, that shipping container would have to be floating plumb a little bit above the surface. Then, you would have to drive your boat alongside a corner of the container and at the exact moment a wave lurches your boat, impaling the portlight on the corner of the shipping container. You bet, that will take out the port. A nano second sooner or later, the container would penetrate your boat. Odds of that happening is amazing ling small. You have an infinitely greater possibility of losing your rig due to misaligned spreaders than this happening. Smack has a much greater chance of hitting an abandoned oil platform. 

So, a friend of mine took out a hull port when his 13 ton boat collided with a one ton nav buoy while travelling at 8 knots. (hey, it was storming and there was a wicked current setting the boat on the buoy). The main point of impact fracturing the hull was just forward of port which also took out the outside frame and shearing off part of the inner one. Is the surrounding glass stronger than the port? Probably, but the little 6x12 port is a heck of a lot stronger than the lexan lens on your forepeak hatch. I hear many more of those giving way than a hull port. If you are really concerned about watertight integrity, you should be glassing over the much more dangerous forepeak hatch. The chances are greater that you would hit a swamped shipping container with a portion of hull forward of the mast – are you guys glassing in a watertight collision bulkhead amidships? It’s required under ISAF Cat 0. Unlike you guys, the chances of me wondering higher than 50* South is pretty slim.


----------



## bobperry

U bolts for backstay chainplates?
Why didn't I think of that?

There was once a Cascade 42 at my dock in Seattle that had all it's shrouds run to brackets on the alu toe rail. It looked really funky to me but it seemed to work.

Go back and look at how the "chainplates" were done on the old grp Rhodes Bountys. Of course their decks were solid 3/4" grp or close to it.


----------



## peterchech

JonEisberg said:


>


Hilarious. There's a large classic yacht around here with the word "fabulous" running up and down its huge Genoa. I wonder if there's a similar story behind that lol...


----------



## smackdaddy

LandLocked66c said:


> Wow, that's pretty narrow!


I just feel sorry for the rock squirrel hung up in the helmsman's pfd. Poor little fella.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack has a much greater chance of hitting an abandoned oil platform.


Dude! DON'T SAY THAT!!!!

We're going to be in those fields tomorrow night/morning bustin' a nut at 8 knots plus!


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> One of my current pet peeves is the increasingly commonplace usage of U-bolts instead of chainplates for the deck attachment points for backstays... Seems like a very poor practice to me, and a clear example of builders cheaping out, and favoring ease of installation... A backstay is a fairly important component of the rig, and I think the "old" method of a proper chainplate where the load is placed primarily in shear to the hull, is far superior to the "new" engineering that results in the load wanting to pry a U-bolt out of the deck, or lift the deck itself... I know, it's probably just me, I just can't bring myself to embrace this sort of "modern" program... (grin)
> 
> But, what's really distressing, is that so many of today's builders _can't even manage to properly align the U-bolt with the direction of the load imparted by the backstay..._ Here's an example from a current production boat that sells for over $300K:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen engineering on some of the Hanses that is far worse... they orient their U-bolts athwartships, so that the load will have a significant sideways/forward component... un-freakin'-believable...
> 
> So, call me skeptical, but when I see builders so consistently get something so basic, simple, and elemental so dreadfully _wrong_, it doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence that they're necessarily getting the engineering and construction of those picture windows they're slapping into their topsides exactly _right_...


With modern masts with spreaders pulled aft the back-stays make a lot less force . Many boats, including the Hunters don't even have them (and I never heard about problems with their masts). Even performance cruisers that can rig huge downwind sails can pass without them (Pogo 12.50). I never heard of any modern boat that had broken a back stay or its connection to the hull.

The shrouds make a lot more force than the the back-stays and those on a modern boat have chain plates. Some boats even have a steel or carbon frame all around the hull with fixing points for the chain-plates and keel attachment. That way all the force made on those points is distributed by the hull.

Regarding the picture you will never know if that is well made or not. It all depends on the reinforcement of the boat in that area.

Each modern mass production boat is made by the hundreds so we will know soon if you are right or not.

With hundreds of boats sailing surely one will have a problem on the back stay, if it is as badly designed as you say. If we heard about any accident on the back-stay with that model, you will be right, otherwise it probably means that is not going to happen and that the boat is well designed.

Meanwhile, as the accidents with modern boats are an insignificant number in proportion with their quantity, most of us will trust boat designers and boat builders. With the actual hard competition they would have gone bankrupt long ago if they made unsuitable or bad boats.

By the way, what is the boat and model?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## DougSabbag

WOW, has this ever gone sideways! 

I think I will just continue shopping for the replacement of the Triumph without asking you folks for any input. Obviously, you are all at least as strong minded as I am, so all we're doing is having pisssing contests galore. "30 years of deliveries" ... "Bob is the best".... etc.... 

What we're all walking around is what I DID bring up earlier that nobody wants to acknowledge: EVERY boat is a system of compromises. There is NO perfect boat.

So, one man's dream boat will be easily torn to shreds by the other men here, and vica versa ad infinitum. And, no matter how much effort / resources you may apply, when you leave the dock, you do not have a death proof boat under you; what you have is less chances in one area and more in another that you didn't address. And there are always some areas you didn't address, especially considering that nothing is static. By that I mean what was good yesterday may not be good today. There are thermal expansion / contraction factors, chafing, and all the other dynamic influences at work both day and night, at rest or not. You can not possibly be covered for all of them, including either the introduction of a 900 foot tanker, or a partially submerged container... or a killer whale who doesn't like you for whatever reason he might feel that day. 

Footnote, I think we are also aware that while there are advances and advantages to new designs / new boats, there are also areas where they have dropped the ball, as in: "they don't make them like they used to".

As far as one more time accepting the fact that I brought that tanker to my world by an erroneous call for assistance, you are absolutely correct. Big mistake. Don't do it.

For my pennance I would like to present a thought for you gentlemen to contemplate:

Please try to imagine that you are 1000 miles out to sea, in over 5 mile deep water, with waves from 8 - 12 feet and winds in the 18 - 25 knot range. You find your self overboard. You do not have a very good PFD on. You are wearing LL Bean Flannel lined blue jeans, and a heavy North Face jacket. 

Your closest other human beings are on a 900 foot oil tanker, which if it comes too close to you will run you over, and grind you up in it's propeller. And, it has become painfully obvious that nobody is coming to get you.....

You keep having ocean water pumped into you from the waves, which takes away your bouyancy, and then you start sinking. No matter how hard you fight, you can not regain the surface unless by some instinctual urge, you vomit out the sea water. So, you do regain the surface, just barely, only to realize: NOBODY is coming to get you.

Within a couple more minutes you sink again. And again you vomit, and fight back to the surface, only to again realize, NOBODY is coming to get you! 

So, about now, what do you think is your future looking like? You fight, you sink, you vomit, you rise, but what is the plan? What will stop this? This IS when you REALLY REALLY want somebody to save your ass. But, the life boats aren't moving. And it is really obvious that nobody is going to come and get you.

No plan, A, or B, or C.... just fighting for every second of air, while in the back of your mind you know, nobody is coming to get you. AND you also know, you can't do this forever.

If this hasn't sent a shiver up your spine, then you aren't completely picturing yourself in that position. You are sinking, under the surface, looking up, but you can't reach the air, and even then you know: Nobody is coming to get you.

How I ever made it to a bouy, I really do not know. Somehow, I have blacked that out. OR, perhaps more frighteningly real might be that I was already losing it from the hypothermia....

I am not replaying this to regain the high ground here, I am replaying it to you in order to share that even after this complete terror and almost guaranteed loss of my life, when I knew I was on my own without a hope or any plan, and nobody was going to step in and save me, I can't wait to go sailing again, and will enjoy the moments and the life as it is presented, with or without stern windows, with or without dye tested chainplates, because I am alive. And I will not diminish the pleasure of that condition for one single second out of worrying about the small stuff. Because you know what, nobody is coming to get you, nobody... so you might as well enjoy the ride the best you can.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> You keep having ocean water pumped into you from the waves, which takes away your bouyancy, and then you start sinking.


I'm not sure why we are being asked to again contemplate this particularly awful part of your experience. But it has got me thinking every time it's mentioned (which has been frequent, if not as frequent as belowdecks ports and Bob Perry), about the nature of the human stomach and buoyancy.

The human stomach is not often empty but when it is, its volume is about 45 mL. Assuming the air remains trapped in your stomach when you're submerged, that gives you about 46 _grams_ of buoyancy. As soon as that air is replaced by something dense (seawater, food, whatever), the most buoyancy you can ever lose is those original 46 grams. Pump as much seawater into your stomach as you like, and it will not make you sink a fraction of an inch any more than pissing in the sea makes you float higher.

It's easy to see why this is the case. Imagine an enormous balloon, submerged, and filled with water. It can be a mile wide for all I care. The weight of this balloon will of course be tremendous, like maybe a million tons of water. However, the balloon (assume the fabric is neutrally buoyant) will obviously not sink, because its weight is balanced by the weight of the surrounding water.

If you were to tie a rope to this balloon and hold on to the rope, the balloon will not pull you down because the balloon is not sinking. Well, your stomach is just a smaller version of this balloon. Transferring seawater into it does not decrease your buoyancy beyond what is lost when the air is evacuated (46 grams or so), and that little amount is much less than your positive buoyancy anyway (easily a kilogram).

There are, of course, serious problems with ingestion of seawater, but they occur only after many hours of nothing but seawater in your system, or even days. I read a book about a bunch of inexperienced guys who went fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and their boat capsized. Over the next couple of days, some of them went crazy from the toxic effects of seawater ingestion, due to electrolyte imbalance. Not a pretty way to go.

On the other hand, since your lungs are filled with air as often as you can arrange it, about six liters of it, you stand to lose substantial buoyancy by aspirating seawater, up to 6 kilograms if you were floating on your back, which is about 130 times the buoyancy lost when your stomach fills up with water. If you were floating upright, your submerged lungs would have been compressed by hydrostatic pressure and some of those 6 kilos would already have been lost. Swimmers and divers are of course very familiar with these facts. People who normally float will sink if they take a deep breath out, and people who normally sink will often float if they take a deep breath in.

Furthermore, the coughing reflex kicks in when foreign matter like seawater enters the airways and lungs, and from personal experience I can say that this reflex will still work when underwater.

All of that leads me to believe that, while you may have ingested some seawater, the changes in your buoyancy are much more likely due to repeated aspiration and expulsion of seawater from your lungs, and the expulsion was by coughing, not vomiting.


----------



## hellosailor

Adam, I think you missed one possible factor there. Take a deep deep breath, fill your lungs as far as they can go. our ribs expand out, your diaphragm goes down...Ooops, if there's an extra liter or two of stomache contents, the diaphragm can't go down as far, so the lungs can't open as much, and then your potential maximum bouyancy would be lowered. Pretty much by the volume now occupied by stomache and unavailable to lungs.

At least, that would seem possible.


----------



## DougSabbag

You would think it would be from coughing, but I had to force this action to occur, and it semed to be coming from deep within me. It was a forced expulsion, sort of like a burp from my lungs, though not a cough.

Why write this again? In order to share the terror.... in order to put the little scientists and technicians back on the shelf and try to bring the sailors to the front. 

We who would set sail without the rules of such and such a racing group in our hearts, leaving room for the love and the life of just sailing.

To take away the trigonometry, the calculus, the measuring devices and the xrays.... to put the design debates on hold, to remove the resumes and the credentials... to eschew all of the small stuff that matters not.

To bring back the wind and the waves and the little boats with their captains at the helm, not with rule books in their hands but with the sunlight shimmering off of the water into their eyes.

To sailors who know how to read the waves for the depth, and read the clouds for the weather, who don't hide amongst their little books and certificates, but set sail from their hearts and their flesh and blood entwined with their lines and sails and all the other parts of their partner, their boat.

Don't forget why we're sailors; don't forget why we set sail; and most definetly do not hold your pictures and your design credentials up to me to tell me why I do not want such and such. 

Instead, open your hearts, release your minds, breath in, and caste off. Set sail as a sailor, not as a technician, for the latter will never be satisfied, while the former will always be the Captain, for better or worse; for life.


----------



## AdamLein

hellosailor said:


> Adam, I think you missed one possible factor there. Take a deep deep breath, fill your lungs as far as they can go. our ribs expand out, your diaphragm goes down...Ooops, if there's an extra liter or two of stomache contents, the diaphragm can't go down as far, so the lungs can't open as much, and then your potential maximum bouyancy would be lowered. Pretty much by the volume now occupied by stomache and unavailable to lungs.


That does indeed seem plausible, though I'm not so clear on how much the full stomach could prevent lunch expansion. Assuming one liter of stomach volume means one liter less lung volume, though this could mean up to three liters of lost lung volume, which is half the rest volume. If you're in an upright position, with the lungs already compressed, then this would be even more than half of the lungs' buoyancy lost.

This clearly calls for some experimentation. Measure lung volume, eat a liter of soup, measure lung volume again. Repeat in the pool. Tasty and enlightening.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> You would think it would be from coughing, but I had to force this action to occur, and it semed to be coming from deep within me. It was a forced expulsion, sort of like a burp from my lungs, though not a cough.
> 
> Why write this again? In order to share the terror.... in order to put the little scientists and technicians back on the shelf and try to bring the sailors to the front.
> 
> We who would set sail without the rules of such and such a racing group in our hearts, leaving room for the love and the life of just sailing.
> 
> To take away the trigonometry, the calculus, the measuring devices and the xrays.... to put the design debates on hold, to remove the resumes and the credentials... to eschew all of the small stuff that matters not.
> 
> To bring back the wind and the waves and the little boats with their captains at the helm, not with rule books in their hands but with the sunlight shimmering off of the water into their eyes.
> 
> To sailors who know how to read the waves for the depth, and read the clouds for the weather, who don't hide amongst their little books and certificates, but set sail from their hearts and their flesh and blood entwined with their lines and sails and all the other parts of their partner, their boat.
> 
> Don't forget why we're sailors; don't forget why we set sail; and most definetly do not hold your pictures and your design credentials up to me to tell me why I do not want such and such.
> 
> Instead, open your hearts, release your minds, breath in, and caste off. Set sail as a sailor, not as a technician, for the latter will never be satisfied, while the former will always be the Captain, for better or worse; for life.


I think I'm gonna cry.

Hey, wait! I'm not little!!!

Later fells. I'm out of here - off to the Harvest Moon Regatta race. See? I actually do sail.


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> What we're all walking around is what I DID bring up earlier that nobody wants to acknowledge: EVERY boat is a system of compromises. There is NO perfect boat.


I hope nothing I have said in this thread indicated any disagreement with this statement. I can say with confidence that the few schools of naval architecture and marine engineering in this country and those I know in Europe _TEACH_ that concept. Those who have come to yacht design from other venues (like Bob Perry) learn that lesson practically or they fail.

I also hope you didn't take my thoughts on storm shutters for the transom windows of Skol as an indictment. I like the windows as a design feature. All things are made of compromise as you recognize so perhaps shutters for passagemaking is not a bad compromise for the light those windows offer.

It's worth noting that many commercial ships ply the oceans with metal plates that may be clamped over port lights and other openings, including those aft.


----------



## peterchech

Well doug I had never heard your story before so I'm glad you repeated it. I have def had some scary thoughts of what it is like falling overboard though, I imagine just a total lack of hope...

better install those jacklines this weekend lol thanks for the motivation


----------



## GeorgeB

Nothing like a near death experience to focus and rededicate yourself. As I tried to articulate much earlier in this discussion we all are all the sum of our own experiences, our hidden fears and aspirations. I have had my own cathartic moments where, had things gone differently, my wife could have been made a widow. Pretty sobering when you look at the race results from the previous day and find that two of your competitors were lost at sea. I do not want to go that way and that is why I want to learn from the crews of boats like Daisy, Heatwave, Pterodactyl, and now Triumph. There is no one single perfect boat design like there is no one approach to safety at sea. Ocean sailing has been and always will be rife with a certain amount of danger. I guess, in a way, that is what attracts us to this endeavor.

Has thirty years in Aerospace turned me one of those little techno guys? God, I hope not as I always fancied myself a sailorman.


----------



## casey1999

GeorgeB said:


> Jon, that is one pretty boat, great lines - she "shows" much larger than her 30' length would indicate. Bravo Zulu! Was the inner forestay original with the boat or did you add it on? I'd like to see how it is terminated through the V berth space. I'd love to see a photo if you got one.
> 
> OK, a scenario where a shipping container takes out only a hull port light. That's going to be a tough one if we must follow the laws of physics. So, at least on my boat, the hull port is up along the shear stripe and 99% of the time the leeward port is above water or at best, right along the "splash zone". So, in order to hit amidships, that shipping container would have to be floating plumb a little bit above the surface. Then, you would have to drive your boat alongside a corner of the container and at the exact moment a wave lurches your boat, impaling the portlight on the corner of the shipping container. You bet, that will take out the port. A nano second sooner or later, the container would penetrate your boat. Odds of that happening is amazing ling small. You have an infinitely greater possibility of losing your rig due to misaligned spreaders than this happening. Smack has a much greater chance of hitting an abandoned oil platform.
> 
> So, a friend of mine took out a hull port when his 13 ton boat collided with a one ton nav buoy while travelling at 8 knots. (hey, it was storming and there was a wicked current setting the boat on the buoy). The main point of impact fracturing the hull was just forward of port which also took out the outside frame and shearing off part of the inner one. Is the surrounding glass stronger than the port? Probably, but the little 6x12 port is a heck of a lot stronger than the lexan lens on your forepeak hatch. I hear many more of those giving way than a hull port. If you are really concerned about watertight integrity, you should be glassing over the much more dangerous forepeak hatch. The chances are greater that you would hit a swamped shipping container with a portion of hull forward of the mast - are you guys glassing in a watertight collision bulkhead amidships? It's required under ISAF Cat 0. Unlike you guys, the chances of me wondering higher than 50* South is pretty slim.


My forepeak hatch is all fiberglass. Also refered to as a submarine hatch on S&S 34's. On this boat many foam fill the anchor well as well as the forward part of the boat, as Jessica watson did prior to her circumnavigation. The lexan can esily be replaced with say 1/4 if necessary. Anyway not too worried, this is what the previous owner of my boat wrote: "Under kite the boat is brilliant - she sails like a skiff - love the tiller feel - but is very strong - we were clobbered in 60 ft waves and 70 knots in an East Coast low off Lord Howe Island for 2 days and she behaved impeccably under bare poles with the Aries self steering gear".


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Jon, do you use running back stays for the inner forestay? Nice boat, I see some basic models (one on yacht world) for under $10k- look to be a bargin.
> 
> 4 SAIL


Yes, I do&#8230; they stow just aft of the chainplates, and clip to the toerail when in use&#8230;

The standard Chance 30-30 is rife with compromises for offshore, one of the things I like least is the combination of a deck-stepped spar, and inline shrouds with single lowers. So, to avoid the mast pumping excessively or becoming inverted, the rig relies heavily on the babystay&#8230; So, the addition of the inner forestay was largely an effort to further stabilize the rig, as much as the desire for a "slutter" rig&#8230; It's been a great upgrade to the boat, of course&#8230;

The boat is fairly rare, Allied only built around 50 or so&#8230; A lot of them seem to have found their way to the Great Lakes, I've only seen 2 or 3 others here on the East Coast, and very few people ever recognize mine for what it is&#8230;

The interiors on these boats were _extremely _ Plain Jane, lots of Formica faux-teak paneling, and so on, and a very conventional arrangement&#8230; I completely gutted mine, and started fresh, so in that regard, mine is a custom-built boat, by an amateur&#8230; (grin)

The keel is another big liability on these boats, the extreme aft rake could create a destructive leverage moment in a severe grounding&#8230; I replaced mine years ago with a more shoal version, the same squashed-bulb "Beavertail" that Mars Metals made for Hunter and Tartan, and it's made a world of difference in the boat&#8230; Foil design is one of those things that have been vastly improved since the 70's, by today's standards her original keel was probably woefully inefficient&#8230; Plus, I really need a relatively shoal draft for where I live, and some of my favorite grounds&#8230;



GeorgeB said:


> Jon, that is one pretty boat, great lines - she "shows" much larger than her 30' length would indicate. Bravo Zulu! Was the inner forestay original with the boat or did you add it on? I'd like to see how it is terminated through the V berth space. I'd love to see a photo if you got one.


There's a Wichard folding padeye on deck, backed to its companion underneath&#8230; That half-bulkhead for the rope locker forms the mounting surface for the sort of triatic arrangement you can see, with a turnbuckle on the port side for tensioning&#8230; There's a laminated cross beam under the deck inside the locker, and vertical beams inside, tabbed to the hull and bulkhead, to which those padeyes are through-bolted&#8230; Probably would have been better to take a tie rod straight through to the hull, but I'm pretty tall, and even those few inches of space for my feet are precious to me&#8230; Anyway, so far, so good, it's all held up pretty well&#8230;


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> I think I will just continue shopping for the replacement of the Triumph without asking you folks for any input. Obviously, you are all at least as strong minded as I am, so all we're doing is having pisssing contests galore. "30 years of deliveries" ... "Bob is the best".... etc....
> 
> What we're all walking around is* what I DID bring up earlier that nobody wants to acknowledge: EVERY boat is a system of compromises.* There is NO perfect boat.


Actually, some others _have_ acknowledged that...

Pretty much right from the first mention of those windows, as a matter of fact:



JonEisberg said:


> And, those transom picture windows - sure, they can be nice while lying in a marina in Boston, or a nice anchorage in the Exumas&#8230; But, halfway to Bermuda, maybe not so much&#8230; As to your contention that they are "strong enough", I would simply counter with the argument that they probably have never yet been seriously "tested" (grin) *As always, everything about a boat is a compromise, all depends on your ultimate intended use, of course&#8230;*


----------



## DougSabbag

Well, my friend John is on his way to Turkey to check out the TWIN ENGINED DIESEL KETCH FERRETTI ALTURA 53 which he "won" for $49500 on Ebay:

TWIN ENGINED DIESEL KETCH FERRETTI ALTURA53 FOR SALE AT LESS THAN HALF VALUE | eBay

All the other KETCH FERRETTI ALTURA53s we can see for sale on-line are asking around $200K, or more! So, this is apparently quite a bargain.

John is going to check her out, and then complete the purchase. Then add the new batteries, furler, and whatever sails she needs. So, Evelyn and I will be able to buy her from him, and take possession in Europe; thereby saving the crossing from happening at all!

She has that sleek modern Italian styling / design, has 4 cabins, an auxillary helm inside, 2 mercedes diesel engines, and a very modern upscale looking interior.

I am very curious how she sails, and am looking forward to finding out amongst the Greek Islands!

This sure will be a giant leap up from the Gulfstar....


----------



## DougSabbag

Addendum... sadly she doesn't have any port lights in the hull. I would have so enjoyed hearing all the technicians lamenting and wailing about those. 

From what we can see, (on other web sites there are more pictures), the counter tops are not granite or marble or slate either. They look like they are either stainless steel or perhaps copper. 

The deck is teak, so we'll have to check that for leaks. 

I haven't seen any good pictures of the rigg details, so there is much to learn about that set up.

But, overall, this Ferretti Bros., boatbuilder sounds like a top quality group, so I can only assume this example will likewise reflect that quality.


----------



## DougSabbag

Have any of you delivery Captains ever sailed a Ferretti 53?


----------



## Maine Sail

casey1999 said:


> Would you be willing to spend $300k for a new boat and use it as a test?
> Bet that U bolt is made in china. And what about the quality of the weld on the u bolt?


I'd suspect they're made in China too and of unknown metallurgy or at least not the spec the builder wanted..

This U bolt was made by Navtec, a reputable company, and it still FAILED....


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> Addendum... sadly she doesn't have any port lights in the hull. I would have so enjoyed hearing all the technicians lamenting and wailing about those.
> 
> From what we can see, (on other web sites there are more pictures), the counter tops are not granite or marble or slate either. They look like they are either stainless steel or perhaps copper.
> 
> The deck is teak, so we'll have to check that for leaks.
> 
> I haven't seen any good pictures of the rigg details, so there is much to learn about that set up.
> 
> But, overall, this Ferretti Bros., boatbuilder sounds like a top quality group, so I can only assume this example will likewise reflect that quality.


Doug,
Good luck with the boat, she looks like a thoroughbred, the Italian's have good looking designs.


----------



## Visitor1111

DougSabbag said:


> But most definetly, in order to be prepared for what actually destroyed the Triumph, I must replace all the fiberglass decking and hull with titanium steel, reinforced with titanium steel girders, because it wasn't the ocean, or the wind, or the weather, it was a 900 foot oil tanker whose anchor housing crushed the weak fiberglass into the little splinters that inspired us to jump overboard....


Dude... Take someone to help you with this story...or check your self time to time. Must be that I don't follow you here but tell me if I am wrong or your boat was still transmiting 4 days after being abandoned?????? So much about damage from tanker.....

One more thing to ask. What prevented you to done proper lifejacket instead of sky-west?????????

And why you are so arrogant if some of us think different than you do...????

We are not doctors here ...... seamen only!!!!

You think that you are fit for sailing any more?????

Apply for some position as instructor with local CG......or like designer with one of leading boat builders!!!!

You appreciate nothing than yourself and just wondering how long will your wife handle you?????

Above is just how you address to others here....is it nice dude??...don't think so!!!!

Cheers!!!!!


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Have any of you delivery Captains ever sailed a Ferretti 53?


Haven't sailed one, but they can be a sweet ride under power...










At 95 GPH @ 28 knots, however, the fuel tab at the end of each day was a bit rich for my blood - glad I was paying for it with someone else's credit card...

The Italian yachts I've run have all been of very high quality, they do especially beautiful work with wood, and upholstery... Some of the systems - particularly electrical - can seem a bit "funky" to us Americans, but of course that can be true of most any European boat, particularly Italian and French... No big deal, but I would guess that if you bring her back to the States, it might require a considerable amount of re-working the electrical system to make it more fully compliant with typical American 110V shorepower...

Good luck with the deal, hope there's no glaringly obvious explanation or "Sounds too good to be true" component as to why she sold for such a low price, and that you simply lucked into a great deal...


----------



## wavedancer38

Wow - can't believe this post has not been killed yet. Should have been killed like back on page 20!


----------



## PCP

Maine Sail said:


> I'd suspect they're made in China too and of unknown metallurgy or at least not the spec the builder wanted..
> 
> This U bolt was made by Navtec, a reputable company, and it still FAILED....


I trust those were back-stay plates? Were those on a modern boat, the ones I was talking about with masts with the spreaders pulled aft, the ones where the back-stays make a lot less force, or in an old boat with orthogonal spreaders, the ones where the back-stays make a lot of force? What was the boat manufacturer and the model?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> With modern masts with spreaders pulled aft the back-stays make a lot less force . Many boats, including the Hunters don't even have them (and I never heard about problems with their masts). Even performance cruisers that can rig huge downwind sails can pass without them (Pogo 12.50). I never heard of any modern boat that had broken a back stay or its connection to the hull.
> 
> *Regarding the picture you will never know if that is well made or not. It all depends on the reinforcement of the boat in that area.*


As always, Paolo, your points are right on the money, and well taken&#8230; I seriously doubt Beneteau is gonna have a raft of rig failures due to mis-aligned backstay U-bolts being torqued out of the deck. For the type of use the overwhelming percentage of these boats will see, the worst case scenario will likely be a modest amount of crazing of the surrounding gelcoat, a compromise of the watertight seal, and potential water intrusion and slight weakening of the structure of the laminate&#8230; I'm sure it will still be "good enough" for the average useful life of these boats, whatever that may be&#8230;

However, the portion of your post that I've bolded gets to the point I'm trying to make, and the root of my skepticism about so much of what I see on today's production boats&#8230; Namely, the lack of attention to detail - in the example I pictured, simply aligning the U-bolt properly in accordance with the load it will see, rather than just getting it "close enough"&#8230; If I was gonna pay a few hundred thousand dollars for a boat, I'd want them to take the trouble to get stuff like that right&#8230; It wouldn't have cost the builder any more to have altered the alignment of that bolt by 10-15 degrees, after all&#8230; So, when I see stuff like that, it really makes me wonder about the design and construction of some of the boat's more critical, yet less visible, components&#8230;

Here are some more pics of the backstay attachments on 3 of the Bavarias:




























Bear in mind, these 3 boats were all med-moored, stern to the docks&#8230; If you're waiting on the dock to board one of those boats, you could easily reach out and touch any of these half-assed arrangements, they're staring you right in the face&#8230; Again, if a builder can't be bothered to exhibit their boats in a proper/seamanlike trim at such a venue, what does that say about their overall attention to detail or quality control?

That's really what I'm questioning here, but obviously the majority of the buying public doesn't much care&#8230; All it takes is a quick demo of the joystick docking system, after all, and the crowd erupts in _applause_&#8230; (grin)


----------



## Maine Sail

PCP said:


> I trust those were back-stay plates? Were those on a modern boat, the ones I was talking about with masts with the spreaders pulled aft, the ones where the back-stays make a lot less force, or in an old boat with orthogonal spreaders, the ones where the back-stays make a lot of force? What was the boat manufacturer and the model?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Nearly every Ericson has those Navtec u bolts holding the rig up. Below deck they thread to reinforcement rods attached to the hull. While very few of them have failed I've never been all that comfortable with the "meat" holding up the rig especially considering that I race on one. The meat on my chain plates are considerably more robust and the boats carry a similar sized sail plan. Either mine are grossly over sized or those are undersized..?

Having been on a boat where we lost the rig on a delivery, after it had just been surveyed, leaves me with lots of caution when it comes to my rig.

My standing rigging is replaced at 10 years and the chain plates are removed, tested and inspected at 5-7 years & replaced at any sign of trouble. 









When you lose a rig you tend to get religion...


----------



## PCP

Maine Sail said:


> ...
> 
> My standing rigging is replaced at 10 years and the chain plates are removed, tested and inspected at 5-7 years & replaced at any sign of trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you lose a rig you tend to get religion...




Yes, and even so only with x-rays you can see if the the pieces are really OK.

I am always amazed when someone buys a 15 year's old boat that was a very seaworthy when new and assume that it is now as seaworthy as when it was new and ready to cross oceans.

Before being a sailor I was an airplane pilot, I flew on old airplanes and I knew how the mandatory inspections were made on the airplanes, according to a tight schedule regarding the number of hours: X rays for all structural pieces and no matter what, after a certain number of hours, the pieces were disposed and substituted.

It seems to me that being in the air is not more dangerous than to be out on the ocean, but if boats were subjected to mandatory inspections and mandatory live time duration for pieces, I guess that 75% of boats would be put out of service till upgrades were implemented.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chrisncate

Visitor1111 said:


> Dude... Take someone to help you with this story...or check your self time to time. Must be that I don't follow you here but tell me if I am wrong or your boat was still transmiting 4 days after being abandoned?????? So much about damage from tanker.....
> 
> One more thing to ask. What prevented you to done proper lifejacket instead of sky-west?????????
> 
> And why you are so arrogant if some of us think different than you do...????
> 
> We are not doctors here ...... seamen only!!!!
> 
> You think that you are fit for sailing any more?????
> 
> Apply for some position as instructor with local CG......or like designer with one of leading boat builders!!!!
> 
> You appreciate nothing than yourself and just wondering how long will your wife handle you?????
> 
> Above is just how you address to others here....is it nice dude??...don't think so!!!!
> 
> Cheers!!!!!


I was told to shut up with questions like these because of what he went through, his whole ordeal. For some reason, his experience in abandoning ship for no good reason earns him a free rudeness pass here in this forum, as well as a free T shirt from SmackDaddy.

I find the whole thing perplexing and quite entertaining.


----------



## LandLocked66c

chrisncate said:


> I was told to shut up with questions like these because of what he went through, his whole ordeal. For some reason, his experience in abandoning ship for no good reason earns him a free rudeness pass here in this forum, as well as a free T shirt from SmackDaddy.
> 
> I find the whole thing perplexing and quite entertaining.


The most entertaining part of this thread was JonE's Pink and Teal sailing machine!  The man truly is ok with his masculinity... Not a subscriber to BFS or attaining t-shirts and koozies, he's out there doing it and doing it right!


----------



## Minnewaska

Yes, I think there is a certain sympathy for any sailor that has the guts to attempt an ocean crossing, makes mistakes, readily admits them in public and loses his boat and nearly all of his personal possessions. It is not that I agree with the demeanor, but I understand it and consider it fairly normal at this point of such a significant loss. So, for all else that have been flat-out rude, what is the overwhelming life tragedy that made you like that?


----------



## chrisncate

Minnewaska said:


> So, for all else that have been flat-out rude, what is the overwhelming life tragedy that made you like that?


Well, my stupid butler we had when I was nine flat out refused to iron my sock garters with the extra high amount of starch that I like. I like my socks stiff as hell, and the idiot simply refused to do what I asked. So what if I was a minor, my folks were paying him, right? Same last name in the sig on his stupid paycheck...

It scarred me deeply and made me the a-hole I am today.

The therapy helps, but I still have sock _and_ forum issues.


----------



## Minnewaska

I rest my case.


----------



## mstern

chrisncate said:


> I was told to shut up with questions like these because of what he went through, his whole ordeal. For some reason, his experience in abandoning ship for no good reason earns him a free rudeness pass here in this forum, as well as a free T shirt from SmackDaddy.
> 
> I find the whole thing perplexing and quite entertaining.


I too was a little surprised that no one jumped ugly with ol' Vis1111, but I put it down to the fact that he is so Johnny-come-lately as to be irrelevant. That and the fact that english is clearly not his strong suit. Or perhaps the "Don't Feed the Trolls" signs are finally having an impact.

Perhaps your butler could have a word with him?


----------



## DougSabbag

mstern said:


> I too was a little surprised that no one jumped ugly with ol' Vis1111, but I put it down to the fact that he is so Johnny-come-lately as to be irrelevant. That and the fact that english is clearly not his strong suit. Or perhaps the "Don't Feed the Trolls" signs are finally having an impact.
> 
> Perhaps your butler could have a word with him?


That is basically how I felt about Vis1111's comments too.

Except that I would challenge them to present their "certificates of perfection" in life / sailing etc., as a requirement to be able to point fingers at me. So, in liew of that, I suggest letting them just flap in the wind..... it doesn't take too long for a sail to self destruct if you just let it go.


----------



## JonEisberg

LandLocked66c said:


> The most entertaining part of this thread was JonE's Pink and Teal sailing machine!  The man truly is ok with his masculinity... Not a subscriber to BFS or attaining t-shirts and koozies, he's out there doing it and doing it right!


Dude, please - pastels are very subtle, and there's a world of difference between "Teal" and "Aquamarine", or "Sea Foam"... The latter match the Bahamian water, as you can clearly see... (grin)

Yeah, my next chute will definitely be a more tame, like Solid Red...

Anyway, my mom always liked my choice of colors, guess I took after her in that regard, so that's good enough for me... Not to mention, the great Bob Grieser, who took the pic, loved it... And, I think he's pretty sure in his masculinity, as well... (grin)


----------



## tempest

JonEisberg said:


> Dude, please - pastels are very subtle, and there's a world of difference between "Teal" and "Aquamarine", or "Sea Foam"... The latter match the Bahamian water, as you can clearly see... (grin)
> 
> Yeah, my next chute will definitely be a more tame, like Solid Red...
> 
> Anyway, my mom always liked my choice of colors, guess I took after her in that regard, so that's good enough for me... (grin)


A beautiful sight! I don't think sailing gets any better than that!


----------



## LandLocked66c

JonEisberg said:


> Dude, please - pastels are very subtle, and there's a world of difference between "Teal" and "Aquamarine", or "Sea Foam"... The latter match the Bahamian water, as you can clearly see... (grin)
> 
> Yeah, my next chute will definitely be a more tame, like Solid Red...
> 
> Anyway, my mom always liked my choice of colors, guess I took after her in that regard, so that's good enough for me... Not to mention, the great Bob Grieser, who took the pic, loved it... And, I think he's pretty sure in his masculinity, as well... (grin)


Fly it proudly sir! I say fly it proudly...


----------



## chrisncate

DougSabbag said:


> it doesn't take too long for a sail to self destruct if you just let it go.


What, about 4 days or so? 

Kidding, but on a real note - you could be a little nicer to some of the people here who are way better than me who have tried to help you out with some pretty good advice/thoughts. A little self deprecation and humor might help too...


----------



## LandLocked66c

I no longer take this thread for _granite_... Just sayin


----------



## emoney

chrisncate said:


> What, about 4 days or so?
> 
> Kidding, but on a real note - you could be a little nicer to some of the people here who are way better than me who have tried to help you out with some pretty good advice/thoughts. A little self deprecation and humor might help too...


You really are a big jokester, aren't you chris?


----------



## LandLocked66c

emoney said:


> You really are a big jokester, aren't you chris?


I snickered a little, what?


----------



## CapnBilll

DougSabbag said:


> Thank you. As I admitted at the USCG debriefing in Boston a couple weeks ago, the vast majority of the calamity we suffered could have been avoided had I not succumbed to the fear of the "crew" and stuck to my plan to deal with the relatively manageable issues we were faced with.
> As the "Captain" I was at fault. And nearly paid with our lives, while, sadly subjecting our good ship Triumph to a most aggregious end.
> We were tired, after the 2 weeks of 4 hour shifts at the helm, and my wife put it to me to either care about her, or the boat, and I chose wrong.
> I should have remained the Captain, and done what was REALLY in our best interests as oppossed to throwing in the towel - prematurely.
> This is some very hard earned wisdom, I hope might help someone else.


This is GOLD right here. This alone was worth the reading of this thread. I have read several sinking stories that went right along with this theme. The Satori captain said the exact same thing.

I also have had to deal with crew issues in a far less serious situation that finally relizing that they were mentally unable to help, ordered them to, "shut up and go below,and stay out of my way", until I had gotten the ship out of danger.

The safety of the crew relies on the safety of the ship, the safety of the ship is and always should be Captains priority number one.

Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## CapnBilll

DougSabbag said:


> Don't leave your ship because of fear, leave her because she is REALLY sinking without any recourse / hope. Because the "rescue" might easily cost you your life.


In all fairness, you could not have possibly foreseen the ineptness of the rescuers.

In most cases the disabled ships crew are brought aboard the freighter without incident. In several other cases, (even one where the small sailboat was hit by a freighter in the first place), the arrival of rescue meant an imediate end to the drama. Lines or webbing is dropped the crew climbs aboard and settles in to a hot meal. You would have had to have been psychic to have imagined any other outcome.

In any case the decision to abandon ship nearly always means loss of the vessel. Without the ability to foresee the future the only blame I see here is in the crew of the freighter; all of their mistakes appear to be from trying to rush the rescue to meet a timetable..


----------



## Minnewaska

This story has been extremely valuable, IMHO. Obviously, Doug is ticked and we all have some varying understanding of why.

However, this has raised the consciousness of many. If you call for rescue, you will lose your boat, that is the quid pro quo. Your life for the boat is the offer and there are no guarantees. I'm not sure there is much difference in your rescuer destroying your vessel, or just abandoning her 1000 miles offshore. 

I'm not sure I recall reading the time lapse between the mayday and arrival of the rescue vessel. If you've stabilized the life threatening emergency before rescue arrives, you can call it off.


----------



## JonEisberg

CapnBilll said:


> In all fairness, you could not have possibly foreseen the ineptness of the rescuers.
> ...
> 
> In any case the decision to abandon ship nearly always means loss of the vessel. Without the ability to foresee the future the only blame I see here is in the crew of the freighter; all of their mistakes appear to be from trying to rush the rescue to meet a timetable..


Sorry, but that strikes me as being an extremely unfair indictment of the master and crew of the KIM JACOB...

Few of us here can likely appreciate the difficulty of attempting to maneuver a 900' single screw vessel alongside a small sailboat adrift in the open ocean. Doug was lying to a sea anchor on a 500' rode, if you think that would have been visible from the bridge of the KIM JACOB, you're dreaming... Apparently communication by VHF was impaired or difficult, so the snagging of the anchor rode does not necessarily imply incompetence on the part of the ship's crew... In any event, once the rode was snagged, all it would have taken was about 5 seconds of work with a knife on the foredeck, and the "destruction" of the TRIUMPH would have been likely avoided... (based upon my understanding of the events as related, of course)

Bottom line was, TRIUMPH had an unsinkable tender in the form of a Boston Whaler hanging from her stern davits, which could have been employed - _it would seem to me_ - in effecting a safer transfer, with a more pro-active effort on the part of those being rescued...

Of course, none of us were there, Doug is the only one who lived this experience... But I see very little about this story that warrants branding the rescuers as being "inept" in their actions that day, or solely "responsible" for what went wrong out there... Not to mention, I don't recall any indication that an element of "hastiness" on the part of the KIM JACOB played a part in what transpired, I'd be curious to see what particular example one might offer as evidence in that regard...


----------



## DougSabbag

chrisncate said:


> What, about 4 days or so?
> 
> Kidding, but on a real note - you could be a little nicer to some of the people here who are way better than me who have tried to help you out with some pretty good advice/thoughts. A little self deprecation and humor might help too...


And you think that rubbing it in that I lost / abandoned my vessel which I lived and worked on for over a decade with my blood and sweat and money, is being "a little nicer" ? Is that how you exhibit YOUR "self deprecation and humor"???

As I have already stated to you quite clearly: FO.


----------



## CapnBilll

JonEisberg said:


> s/v Auspicious alluded to the use of storm covers I'd want a cover to be something like 1/2" Lexan at a minimum, but there's no way you're gonna get that stuff to bend to match such a curvature - so the constuction of some sort of outside mounting "frame" would probably be required&#8230;


Actually Lexan is a thermoplastic. I can bend or mold it to any shape you desire, (seriously, I once worked for a plastics comapny). If I had windows like that on my boat, a lexan protective layer bedded into the frame would be as strong as the surrounding hull. 1" Lexan works for a deep sea submersable, or an F-16 fighter cockpit. I wouldn't worry about a breaking wave.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but that strikes me as being an extremely unfair indictment of the master and crew of the KIM JACOB...
> 
> Few of us here can likely appreciate the difficulty of attempting to maneuver a 900' single screw vessel alongside a small sailboat adrift in the open ocean. Doug was lying to a sea anchor on a 500' rode, if you think that would have been visible from the bridge of the KIM JACOB, you're dreaming... Apparently communication by VHF was impaired or difficult, so the snagging of the anchor rode does not necessarily imply incompetence on the part of the ship's crew... In any event, once the rode was snagged, all it would have taken was about 5 seconds of work with a knife on the foredeck, and the "destruction" of the TRIUMPH would have been likely avoided... (based upon my understanding of the events as related, of course)
> 
> Bottom line was, TRIUMPH had an unsinkable tender in the form of a Boston Whaler hanging from her stern davits, which could have been employed - _it would seem to me_ - in effecting a safer transfer, with a more pro-active effort on the part of those being rescued...
> 
> Of course, none of us were there, Doug is the only one who lived this experience... But I see very little about this story that warrants branding the rescuers as being "inept" in their actions that day, or solely "responsible" for what went wrong out there... Not to mention, I don't recall any indication that an element of "hastiness" on the part of the KIM JACOB played a part in what transpired, I'd be curious to see what particular example one might offer as evidence in that regard...


OK, I will type again, because these issues / questions are growing; given the time that has transpired, some statements / facts have been forgotten and some have been replaced by suppositions:

When the tanker intersected the anchor rode, and then destroyed the Triumph, this was the second time she had been attempting to capture the sea anchor in order to pull us to them; theoretically, to their stern.

The first time was attempted with grappling hooks. But, the Kim Jacob went a bit outside of the reach of the grappling hooks.

The second time, there were no more grappling hooks being employed. So it was the Kim Jacob who decided to accomplish acquiring our line by intersecting it. Therefore, the intersection was planned, and done "successfully" though with surprising results.....

Why would you suggest communications by VHF were not functional? They were working just fine. And their crew had many of the hand held ones on deck. We also had crystal clear communication via a satellite telephone.

By the time it was apparent that the intersection of the sea anchor rode (which was their obvious plan), had very bad implications, it was way too late to cut the line off of the bow. Because the bow was being smashed by the waves pushing us up into their anchor housing, which continued toward our aft, until that bow line was severed by all the debris and destruction.

Both the Captain of the Kim Jacob and I would have greatly appreciated someone telling us that what they were doing was going to have the implications it had. I only had a "bad feeling about how this was going to turn out", as I told my wife as they were approaching on their second run at us. But, I did not know how bad, and in fact didn't know at all what was about to happen. I assumed they knew what they were doing.

OBVIOUSLY, if I had forseen what happened, I would have cut our sea anchor rode well before this became our line to destruction. Along with, had I forseen what else would happen I would:

1. Not have called anyone.
2. Not have jumped overboard.
3. Not let go of the Triumph after I fought my way back to her.

As far as utilizing the Boston Whaler, again, I did not know (and apparently the Captain of the tanker didn't either) how badly their (whatever their plan was), plan to extract us would go. So, I did not utilize that which sure would have been better than sinking and swimming for 3 hours in the wrong PFD...

As a footnote to the Boston Whaler, after they destroyed the Triumph, but before I jumped overboard, I did think of using the Whaler; however, the drain plug had been in the galley of the Triumph, which was now inaccessable due to the crushing of the deck, gangeway, etc.

So, it flashed in my brain, that if I deployed it, it would sink without the drain plug.

Now, all the Monday morning QBs can NOW say, well, couldn't you plug that with something.... ??? OR, could suggest a wide array of other suggestions, etc., But, what I am relating is what happened; NOT what could have happened.

As far as JonEisbergs concept of what the "Bottom Line" was, or is, I have an entirely different bottom line. And that is that after all of these screw ups, errors, destruction, bad plans, no plans, etc., led to me floundering in the ocean for hours, each time I managed to come back up to the surface, it was only to be faced with this bottom line: NOBODY IS COMING TO GET YOU.


----------



## CapnBilll

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but that strikes me as being an extremely unfair indictment of the master and crew of the KIM JACOB...
> 
> Not to mention, I don't recall any indication that an element of "hastiness" on the part of the KIM JACOB played a part in what transpired, I'd be curious to see what particular example one might offer as evidence in that regard...


I stand by my statement.

By the Kim Jacob's captain's own admission his crew had little training in MOB.

Example 1. Fail to come to complete stop to assess situation and comunicate on safest plan of rescue. 2. 1 try to snag sea anchor line before going to disasterous plan B. 3. Why didn't they deploy scramble nets as is commonly used in high freeboard rescues. 4. Fail to anticipate greater resistance of sea anchor compaired to sleek sailboat, (like using a hook to catch someone falling, tied to a 2 ton weight with a length of rope). If unable to safely approach sinking vessel, work out a plan for safe approach keeping distressed vessel in wave slick.

Working out and implementing a full rescue plan could take hours of laying ahull and manuvering in close quarters. Or even waiting for conditions to improve.

People have been recued in worse conditions with far less drama and fuss by freighter crews with little more training than this ship.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Why would you suggest communications by VHF were not functional? They were working just fine. And their crew had many of the hand held ones on deck. We also had crystal clear communication via a satellite telephone.


My apologies, I thought I had recalled some reference made to the difficulty of communication above the sound of the wind, or something... I'm obviously mistaken, or confusing it with another incident, perhaps...



DougSabbag said:


> By the time it was apparent that the intersection of the sea anchor rode (which was their obvious plan), had very bad implications, it was way too late to cut the line off of the bow. Because the bow was being smashed by the waves pushing us up into their anchor housing, which continued toward our aft, until that bow line was severed by all the debris and destruction.


At the speed which the KJ would have been moving, and the length of the rode, I'm still picturing your being drawn up towards the bow in relatively slow motion... But, you were there, and I wasn't, of course...



DougSabbag said:


> As a footnote to the Boston Whaler, after they destroyed the Triumph, but before I jumped overboard, I did think of using the Whaler; however, the drain plug had been in the galley of the Triumph, which was now inaccessable due to the crushing of the deck, gangeway, etc.
> 
> So, it flashed in my brain, that if I deployed it, it would sink without the drain plug.


Methinks perhaps you might have underestimated the ability of your Boston Whaler to remain afloat without a drain plug... I always thought this was the primary reason most people chose them, actually...


----------



## b40Ibis

Did the boat ever show up anywhere? or eventually sank?


----------



## JonEisberg

CapnBilll said:


> Actually Lexan is a thermoplastic. I can bend or mold it to any shape you desire, (seriously, I once worked for a plastics comapny). If I had windows like that on my boat, a lexan protective layer bedded into the frame would be as strong as the surrounding hull. 1" Lexan works for a deep sea submersable, or an F-16 fighter cockpit. I wouldn't worry about a breaking wave.


Yes, certainly you're correct, Lexan can be bent to suit such a purpose... I was thinking more along the lines of a DIY project one might do in fitting storm shutters...

As you say, the most proper solution would be some sort of permanent replacement with a material like Lexan... However, and I'm sure this is just me, I STILL don't like it (grin) - as even though the Lexan itself might be as strong or stronger than the material of the transom itself, the cutting of holes - especially those that are not round or elliptical/oval in shape - could still introduce a point of weakness in the hull that would otherwise not be there...

Again, my original comment went to my impressions of the manner in which such things were done on the original Island Traders, the quality of those installations in the same hull certainly not inspire confidence...


----------



## JonEisberg

CapnBilll said:


> I stand by my statement.
> 
> By the Kim Jacob's captain's own admission his crew had little training in MOB.
> 
> Example 1. Fail to come to complete stop to assess situation and comunicate on safest plan of rescue. 2. 1 try to snag sea anchor line before going to disasterous plan B. 3. Why didn't they deploy scramble nets as is commonly used in high freeboard rescues. 4. Fail to anticipate greater resistance of sea anchor compaired to sleek sailboat, (like using a hook to catch someone falling, tied to a 2 ton weight with a length of rope). If unable to safely approach sinking vessel, work out a plan for safe approach keeping distressed vessel in wave slick.
> 
> Working out and implementing a full rescue plan could take hours of laying ahull and manuvering in close quarters. Or even waiting for conditions to improve.
> 
> People have been recued in worse conditions with far less drama and fuss by freighter crews with little more training than this ship.


Well, those are pretty good points, you make a strong case for your point of view... We'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm still not prepared to lay the blame entirely on the KJ, is all...

TRIUMPH still had the rig in the boat, and functional steering... While it was compromised with a starboard chainplate failure, seems it still would have been possible for the KJ to lie ahull, and for TRIUMPH to have made an approach into her lee on port tack, perhaps under jib and jigger alone, no? Just seems to me more could have been done to help effect their own rescue, an awful lot of the responsibility seems to have been placed on the crew of the KJ in this instance...


----------



## Minnewaska

The reinforcement of the transom windows does not have to be done from the outside. If one is convinced that the odds of breaking them is low enough to begin with (I would still reinforce them), you can secure them from the inside. A wave may break the glass, but the purpose of the reinforcement becomes hull integrity, not port light protection.


----------



## AdamLein

Just finished reading a pretty good book, btw, called _Overboard!_ by Michael Tougias, documenting the loss of the Hardin 45 _Almeisan_ in the Gulf Stream en route to Bermuda on Mothers' Day weekend in 2005. The story bears striking similarities to the story of the _Triumph_, though the events leading up to the rescue were somewhat different.

In all cases it seems like lives and vessels are put at risk when a large ship attempts to rescue sailors.


----------



## DougSabbag

"TRIUMPH still had the rig in the boat, and functional steering... While it was compromised with a starboard chainplate failure, seems it still would have been possible for the KJ to lie ahull, and for TRIUMPH to have made an approach into her lee on port tack, perhaps under jib and jigger alone, no? Just seems to me more could have been done to help effect their own rescue, an awful lot of the responsibility seems to have been placed on the crew of the KJ in this instance... "

What you are suggesting is nice, but I did not know how best to accomplish a transfer from the Triumph to the Kim Jacob, so I deferred to the master of the Kim Jacob.

Yes, I just sat there with my sea anchor deployed and my radio on, open to any suggestions. The Captain of the Kim Jacob maintained on the radio that he knew exactly what to do. He told us to relax and that it might take a while, but they would transfer us smoothly. 

I swear that he did say that, and that inspired my wife and I to acquire some more of our things into some bags thinking that we would be able to bring these too.

However, as it turned out, the Triumph ended up destroyed all around us, and we jumped for our lives. Yes, prematurely, but at the time it seemed like the thing to do.

The next time a 50 foot ketch is destroyed with me onboard, maybe I will maintain a cooler head and call you up to see what you suggest. And, before the Captain of the Kim Jacob destroys a boat he is approaching to transfer the occupants from, I hope he calls you too.

But, on July 27th 2011, neither of us had your number, and I deferred to him, and he did what he did, to his and our regret.

Only by fighting for my life as long as I could, after everything had gone wrong, and some last second piece of luck, i.e., how did I get that life bouy?, am I here to talk about it.

But what I will never forget is the feeling that no matter how hard I was fighting, just to get to the surface to catch another breath of air, nobody was on their way to get me, and I did not have a plan B, or C, or D.... All I could do was fight to get another breath, knowing I couldn't do that for very much longer..... but with nobody coming to get me, there wasn't any hope at all for me to live. I was going down, and it was only a matter of a small amount of time before I wasn't coming back up. 

Can you imagine the terror of that situation? I still do not know how I got to that bouy.

As far as pointing fingers, at anybody, as the man who was going down, I will never forget that they wouldn't deploy a rescue life boat to get me. In broad daylight, those men stood on their deck and took pictures of me floundering around for over 3 hours.

After I deferred to their knowledge of their boat and how best to get us, they stood there watching me sink.

So, how warm and fuzzy should I feel for those men who took pictures of me going down and amazingly coming back up... while I continually screamed for help?! It took days for my voice to return after the screaming and the water damage.

No matter what rationalizations those men might have for not deploying a rescue life boat and picking me up, I can only respond that I would have done it to get them. Any of them.
I would never just stand there taking pictures of a person drowning, for HOURS, while I had 2 RESCUE LIFE BOATS on deck all ready to go.

And, if God forbid you ever find yourself in that position, I suspect you would really want the human beings nearest you to deploy their f__king rescue life boat too.

"Just saying"


----------



## MedSailor

Well I've just finished reading the entire thread. Wow.... Makes War and Peace look like Reader's Digest.

Doug. THANK YOU for coming and sharing your experiences here with total, naked honesty. What you've been able to share here through your experience and your willingness to share your mistakes is invaluable information for all of us (who are willing to listen and learn).

Your experiences will ultimately change the way I sail. I've talked with my wife about what happened to you, Evelyn and Triumph and we are now discussing: taking on extra crew for our planned crossing, revisiting the "step up to the lifeboat", boat decisions with wife/family as crew, and last of all I sure as sh!t AM going to replace the chainplates on my Formosa 41 that I know are bad.

I'm glad that you made it out alive, and that you had the foresight to grab some of the cash and have some insurance. I'm impressed at how quickly you two are getting "back on the horse".

I wish you luck in finding YOUR next perfect boat. They are all perfect when we buy them, and I don't find your vacillations between boat designs odd at all. ANY DECISION TO BUY A BOAT IS FIRMLY GROUNDED IN INSANITY. With that said, buy the one you fall in love with and grossly meets your specs. (this formula has worked for me so far in boats and in love) 

Since you are in the market for a Formosa 51 I will give you a link to one that I know personally. I've been aboard Angelique quite a few times and I know that she is a VERY well maintained and appointed vessel that is owned by a nice couple that used to live a few slips down from us when we were in Seattle. Now she's on the "wrong" coast, but then again this is the better coast to cruise IMHO. The inside passage to Alsaska is great and the pacific/mexico/south pacific/Australia/New Zeland route is pretty popular I hear.

Link to Angelique:
Yachts For Sale | NW Yachtnet

On the issue of windows..... Really? People need to take a Xanax. Even Lin and Larry Pardey, some of the worlds most conservative sailing authors have downward facing opening glass portlights on their BOW!!!! They had metal covers fabricated and put them in place before going to sea. Our next door neighbors, who circumnavigated the globe, have selected a pilothouse Moody 46 for their planned circumnavigation of south america. The boat is all windows and they aren't worried one bit.

Again THANK YOU for sharing everything in such a brutally honest way. I have learned a great deal from your story.

MedSailor


----------



## DougSabbag

Eisberg said: "I thought I had recalled some reference made to the difficulty of communication above the sound of the wind, or something..."

As far as this issue, what you are referring to is the poor communications once I was IN THE WATER.

And Mr. Eisberg, you may take any and all of your other "methinks" concepts and file them away with all the other wonderful ideas which are being thought through at the keyboard by people all warm and toasty, without the adrenaline pumping through your veins inspiring you to not think as clearly as you can now.... 

There is a very valid reason that people TRAIN FOR YEARS to be prepared for those moments. That is so that you don't have to depend on making all the right decisions while "under fire". Check with the US Army if you don't think this makes sense, i.e, that YOU would react perfectly, make all the right decisions while under fire, or in harms way, or while your world is being destroyed, violently all around you.

We had ZERO training for what to do to transfer from our boat to a 900 foot tanker.

We were told by the Kim Jacob Captain, via our clear satellite telephone, not to worry, that he knew what to do. And so we packed accordingly.... but surprise surprise, he either did NOT know what to do, or what he "knew to do" was how to kill us.

He told me that as our boat was being smashed all along our deck, and our mast was being thrown at us, he dropped to his knees in sorrow that we were being killed. I grabbed Evelyn and spun her around and yelled: RUN! 

So, Mr. Eisberg, if you are at all interested in accuracy you really need to factor in some adrenaline pumping into your brain, as you find yourself either running for your life down the deck, or get squished like a bug. 

So, with that factor in mind, and the reality that groups like the Army and others spend years training to know what to do by conditioning for it, perhaps you can see how pointless and even insulting the "methinks" comments are to hear?

I hope you are never in a series of life and death violence in your life so that we can review your actions later. But if you do live through such a situation, I am 100% sure you will not enjoy or respond well to hearing people provide their "methinks" comments, with the associated unspoken: That couldn't have happened to me because I am better, smarter, or whatever, being implied. 

Have a nice weekend.


----------



## DougSabbag

MedSailor: THANK YOU! I sincerely appreciate what you, and some others, have said.

I don't expect applause, but at least respect that we had only the best of intentions, and yet everything went wrong, and I am here by the absolute smallest of probabilities.

So, I appreciate the "I am glad you made it out alive" and "thank you for sharing your mistakes", WITHOUT suggesting how I could have avoided them.

Thank you for reading this and appropriately reacting. As I said when I started writing about this, I can only hope someone learns something from this so that they might avoid some, or maybe all of the mistakes I made.


----------



## DougSabbag

Addendum to MedSailor: WOW, Angelique IS a beautiful vessel!!!! Depending on what happens with the boat my friend is following up on, Angelique will be next & higher on the list than Skol was, even though Angelique is another 2 stateroom design. This one looks even better than Skol. And I like some of the equipment better too!

Thank you for that link!


----------



## DougSabbag

It has occurred to me to explain something to those who are full of the "methinks" concepts and feel a need to share them:

In the first place, my wife has her Doctorate in Engineering. Then, I am a computer consultant. So, it might be accepted that neither of us are mentally challenged.

With that on the table, you might also consider that having had the experiences which have been clearly described here, followed by my clear listing of the highlights of the mistakes which I made, it should be apparent that I do not need to hear YOUR further suggestions or comments about what I should have done.

You can only barely imagine how much I KNOW that things could have been done differently, better, "smarter", and thereby we would have avoided this whole catastrophe.

If you can accept that, then it should be clear that there is ZERO reason except to "blow your own horn" to share your "methinks" concepts on this thread, especially not to ME.

When / if you have one of those flashes of brilliance, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, and do not try to share your brilliance with me on what I should have done.

There will not be any points or awards given out to anyone for having shared their ideas on how the mistakes I made could have been avoided.

I HAVE ALREADY LISTED THE ERRORS AND THE MISTAKES IN THIS THREAD. 

Sure, you might come up with another error or two, (not already listed), and you might come up with other ways to resolve them before they became life threatening, BUT I DO NOT NEED TO HEAR ABOUT THIS FROM ANYONE, because, I ALREADY KNOW THEM, better than YOU. 

** threatening language given the heave ho , and Doug, you'll not repeat those threats on this forum. OK ? Good, I'm glad we an understanding. Regards tdw }


if you still feel any need to share your brilliance with the man who has paid a very high price to ALREADY know what he did wrong.

So, as some have had the decency and maturity to do, if you want to say anything to me about this catastrophe, PLEASE just say something along the lines of: Glad you made it alive, and I am so sorry for your losses, good luck recreating and rebuilding your lives, and thank you for sharing your experience for our benefit. 

AND KEEP YOUR LITTLE MOUTHS SHUT ABOUT WHAT I COULD HAVE / SHOULD HAVE DONE.

Got it? Any questions on this? Good. I am glad we have an understanding.

To those who have not pissed me off on this thread, and have acted appropriately, and even some who have defended me, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I sincerely value your experience and your knowledge and your maturity in not trying to flash it at me at this time.

Believe me, I know what I did wrong, and REGRET IT A LOT.

Sincerely,
Doug Sabbag


----------



## AdamLein

Wow, Angelique is a gorgeous vessel. I am a sucker for the clipper bow. Too bad about the underbody, though...one of my personal requirements for the next boat is that she's got to have decent upwind capability. Angelique has almost no depth in her keel. On the other hand, she gets full marks on my amenities list (washer/dryer, heat, shower with tub). If only I could manage to spend at least half of my sailing time going downwind!


----------



## DougSabbag

b40Ibis said:


> Did the boat ever show up anywhere? or eventually sank?


Nobody has informed us of finding the Triumph. So, I do not know what or where she is, if not at the bottom of the ocean.

If anyone did call me after finding her I would happily pay them for what remains.

She contained a lot of irreplacable mementos, all of my wifes' jewelry, and many other things which two people acquired over their lives; not to mention a LOT of very valuable equipment which could quite possibly still be useful on our next boat.

Considering that she was abandoned on the southern edge of the Gulf Stream, by now she should have showed up in Europe, somewhere....

Therefore, it might be surmised that she either sank from taking on water considering that her deck was entirely smashed into the cabins, i.e., rain, waves etc., could have filled her up; or without her main mast and the radar deflector I had deployed there, perhaps she was run over by another tanker / freighter.

If you happen to hear of a smashed up ketch named the Triumph being found, please let me know. I will pay good money to get what is left.


----------



## Minnewaska

DougSabbag said:


> .....If you really feel a need to share your ideas, concepts, "methinks" brilliance, then consider this: .... (moderated abuse removed from quote) .......


Doug, this crosses the line. No one has threatened you. You can not control people's opinions, particularly this way. Please consider that you may need help to deal with the trauma, which is perfectly normal. Would you have threatened violence prior to this experience?

This behavior may get you banned from here, which would be a shame.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Great! Now this thread needs moved to the Fight Club...

What's the world come to? A computer geek brandishing his fists! :laugher

Doug, i've tried to stay light hearted in this thread... I really don't have the experience to offer anything. So I will say thanks for putting yourself out there for the rest of us to learn from. Regardless of opinions, there is much to learn from.


----------



## Minnewaska

LandLocked66c said:


> Great! Now this thread needs moved to the Fight Club...
> 
> What's the world come to? A computer geek brandishing his fists! :laugher
> 
> Doug, i've tried to stay light hearted in this thread... I really don't have the experience to offer anything. So I will say thanks for putting yourself out there for the rest of us to learn from. Regardless of opinions, there is much to learn from.


Got a chuckle from that one. My buddies and I would have loved to see a platoon of computer geeks coming at us.

It would be a real shame to see this thread moved or closed. Despite the conflict, the content is real life ocean sailing and its perils. The trauma is real life ocean sailing. The disagreement on prep and operations is real life ocean sailing. It just can't degrade to physical threats.


----------



## MedSailor

Doug,

If I may, I'd like to ask a couple questions to help learn more from your experience. It is not my intention to focus on any of the mistakes that were outlined in the chain of errors. What I'm going to try to ask about is something broader and more applicable to the future, not about specific circumstances, such as "next time I'll do this or that if it happens again."

Focusing on the trees instead of the forest (like me saying if I replace my oil cooler this won't happen to me) would be missing the point. I worked with an ER doc who had a well-found steel boat with an engine driven bilge pump that still sank after hitting "something" 3 days from Hawaii. See also: Doug's NASA argument. 

I know many of us "think" that if we were in the same spot we would act differently. But if I were fatigued, gripped by panic, worried about divorce (or whatever factors were at play were acting on me) I might "grab the worst possible PFD" also. This is the part of the equation I am interested in discussing because decision making in extreme circumstances is not the same as when things are calm. Plenty of time in emergency and acute medicine have taught me this.


Here's what I would like to ask:

1) Can you identify any factors, preventable or not, that created the environment in which a critical cascade of failures and mistakes could be made? 

2) Of the factors identified from 1) what can be done different in the future (or by us) to avoid making a series of mistakes or avoid these failures. 

3) Doug, what are YOU going to do differently for your next crossing?

From my own reading I can see that Fatigue is likely a major factor for #1. Another that struck me from the story is how different the captain/wife relationship is from Captain/crew. For 2) I will be talking with my wife about the captain/wife relationship and I am seriously considering taking on crew for our first crossing to avoid the fatigue issue. 

Basically I am asking if there were factors that contributed to your disaster or factors that affected how you acted/reacted that would likely apply again to any major event. Again, my intent is not to second guess any decision but rather to ask how we can set ourselves up better next time to cope with another extreme event at sea. 

Medsailor

PS: To the posters of Sailnet. Those of you who are antagonizing or name calling (computer geek? Really? Are you in junior high?) CAN IT! Doug's willingness to share his experience with us and answer our questions makes him one of the most valuable contributors to come to sailnet in years. He's DOING US A FAVOR, can't you see that? 

Anyone who has been through a near-death experience AND has lost almost everything should be given some leeway don't you think? Anyone who has just undergone such a traumatic event should not be expected to be on their best behavior at all times, and yet Doug has done well to have retained composure dispute our abuse and continued to come back for our benefit.


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> As a footnote to the Boston Whaler, after they destroyed the Triumph, but before I jumped overboard, I did think of using the Whaler; however, the drain plug had been in the galley of the Triumph, which was now inaccessable due to the crushing of the deck, gangeway, etc.


Doug, I remember this comment going by earlier and didn't react to it. Now I have. I have added a small padeye to the transom of my RIB and attached the drain plug to it. In addition to the spare plug I already carry, the plug for my dinghy will not go astray from the dinghy itself. Thanks for the commentary that led to the idea.


----------



## Minnewaska

SVAuspicious said:


> Doug, I remember this comment going by earlier and didn't react to it. Now I have. I have added a small padeye to the transom of my RIB and attached the drain plug to it. In addition to the spare plug I already carry, the plug for my dinghy will not go astray from the dinghy itself. Thanks for the commentary that led to the idea.


Ditto here. I also leave enough line to be able to loop the plug over the davits when hoisted. This way, at a glance, I always know the plug is out. That's critical when either underway or when home for the week.


----------



## DougSabbag

MedSailor said:


> Doug,
> 
> If I may, I'd like to ask a couple questions to help learn more from your experience. It is not my intention to focus on any of the mistakes that were outlined in the chain of errors. What I'm going to try to ask about is something broader and more applicable to the future, not about specific circumstances, such as "next time I'll do this or that if it happens again."
> 
> Focusing on the trees instead of the forest (like me saying if I replace my oil cooler this won't happen to me) would be missing the point. I worked with an ER doc who had a well-found steel boat with an engine driven bilge pump that still sank after hitting "something" 3 days from Hawaii. See also: Doug's NASA argument.
> 
> I know many of us "think" that if we were in the same spot we would act differently. But if I were fatigued, gripped by panic, worried about divorce (or whatever factors were at play were acting on me) I might "grab the worst possible PFD" also. This is the part of the equation I am interested in discussing because decision making in extreme circumstances is not the same as when things are calm. Plenty of time in emergency and acute medicine have taught me this.
> 
> Here's what I would like to ask:
> 
> 1) Can you identify any factors, preventable or not, that created the environment in which a critical cascade of failures and mistakes could be made?
> 
> 2) Of the factors identified from 1) what can be done different in the future (or by us) to avoid making a series of mistakes or avoid these failures.
> 
> 3) Doug, what are YOU going to do differently for your next crossing?
> 
> From my own reading I can see that Fatigue is likely a major factor for #1. Another that struck me from the story is how different the captain/wife relationship is from Captain/crew. For 2) I will be talking with my wife about the captain/wife relationship and I am seriously considering taking on crew for our first crossing to avoid the fatigue issue.
> 
> Basically I am asking if there were factors that contributed to your disaster or factors that affected how you acted/reacted that would likely apply again to any major event. Again, my intent is not to second guess any decision but rather to ask how we can set ourselves up better next time to cope with another extreme event at sea.
> 
> Medsailor
> 
> PS: To the posters of Sailnet. Those of you who are antagonizing or name calling (computer geek? Really? Are you in junior high?) CAN IT! Doug's willingness to share his experience with us and answer our questions makes him one of the most valuable contributors to come to sailnet in years. He's DOING US A FAVOR, can't you see that?
> 
> Anyone who has been through a near-death experience AND has lost almost everything should be given some leeway don't you think? Anyone who has just undergone such a traumatic event should not be expected to be on their best behavior at all times, and yet Doug has done well to have retained composure dispute our abuse and continued to come back for our benefit.


Now this kind of stuff is wonderful. Not telling me what I could have done, but asking questions in a constructive / learning manner. THANK YOU.

About the PFD selection. Well, considering the Captain of the KJ had calmly told us that we would be removed in a smooth manner, though it might take some time, I only grabbed a PFD which would "work in a pinch", but wasn't too obtrusive since we were now going through the boat acquiring our "mementos" etc., i.e., "moving out". So, I was *erroneously* assuming all was in the hands of professionals and actually felt as though any PFD at all was almost over kill.... I really thought I was being appropriately safety conscious, almost to a conservative level! WOW, was that ever WRONG.

Questions:
1. The most over arching answer to #1, from my point of view was a combination of fatigue, (from our 4 hour shift schedule), and it could be included that we were already worn out before we even left the dock, and the age of the boat. Though we had spent years preparing her, refitting, rebuilding everything, and had only accelerated the feverish intensity right up until we left, (working until 2:00 am for weeks), nevertheless, things kept breaking / failing. OK, we could have replaced even more before we left, but to answer your question, from my view, the age of the boat wore us out, and finally *we* broke / failed.

2. Buy a newer boat. We are not spring chickens. I am 55, Evelyn is 50. The years and even final days of our relationship with the Triumph, were an endless stream of repairs, etc., without enough "smooth running time" to keep the tolerance levels healthy. Though I really enjoyed the never ending varnishing and actually all the projects / repairs, this has an impact on the human being. Insidious since it is masked in the "pleasure"(?) as perceived by the crazy sailors.... there really is a cost on both the physical and mental endurance / tolerance values which shouldn't be dismissed.

3. Well, initially we are shopping for a better boat. She could be almost as old, (though we ARE stearing away from the 1970s), but if she was originally a higher quality boat than a Gulfstar, we are already in a better place.
It is sad for me to state that because for many years I was a very strong proponent of the under rated value of Gulfstars. 
And, Evelyn will not be onboard. Instead I will have a friend whom I know well and has many years of tough sailng under his belt.

Thank you sir, for the well worded, respect of my delicate condition.


----------



## DougSabbag

You know intitially many people suggested counseling following our loss and my terror.

But, from my upbringing and limited experience with "counseling", (in a marriage going south), I am one of those people who laughs at such a concept. I am not suggesting that I am considering it, but, given the amount of over the top terror I experienced, I can see that there easily could be an impact on the psyche. 

I might well be a tad more irritable, and touchy, than previously. Following my Yankee constitution, I will continue to assume that time will heal this condition... well, that and a new boat! 

Therefore, I am sorry to have to say, please watch out for this Captain, he has not had a good year.


----------



## Minnewaska

Keep thinking about it, Doug. Counseling only works for those that want the help, which is rarely the case for each in marriage counseling. You've threatened fictitious internet characters that you couldn't know aren't 15 yrs old, maybe 92, maybe too frail to do anything but type on a keyboard. I've known more than one that hit bottom before reaching out for PTSD counseling and it made all the difference. Last I will mention it, not meant to be preachy.

In the meantime, best of luck with the new boat search. That is always a good thing. And thanks again for sharing your experience.


----------



## DougSabbag

Side bar on counseling.....

Well, in my limited counseling experience, the counselor keeps asking questions like: "how does that make you feel?"; throughout numerous sessions, each of which is expensive. 

At what point, (the 100th session?), does the counselor finally "fix the issue"? Finally say what I should do, or not do, or how to act, or ANYTHING.

I have always fixed the broken thing. I can grind and fiber glass and gel coat as quick as your head can turn; but paying someone to listen to me talk, without accomplishing anything, until some nebulous point in my savings account being drained process, is very hard to enter into voluntarily. 

Not to dismiss entirely the benefits and validity of mental health professionals, by no means, but unless I have gotten to the point of being dysfunctional, as opposed to being a functional nut case, I still think that time and a healthy focus on working, will do a world of good for me. 

Previously, I had a personal "problem" in the 1980s in California, where I was "partying" too much. Well, I followed the text book methods to extract myself from the environment, and the people associated with that lifestyle, and successfully resolved that personal problem. 

So, I know I can address my own mental challenges, successfully, from past experience, as long as I am still "functional". When "it" is stronger than me, I realize that, and then act accordingly by finding out what to do. And then I do that. 

Counselors need not apply to Triumph Ventures Inc. We are not hiring. 

End of side bar.


----------



## LandLocked66c

MedSailor said:


> PS: To the posters of Sailnet. Those of you who are antagonizing or name calling (computer geek? Really? Are you in junior high?) CAN IT! Doug's willingness to share his experience with us and answer our questions makes him one of the most valuable contributors to come to sailnet in years. He's DOING US A FAVOR, can't you see that?


Well, I noted in my post about being light hearted. Being that i'm a computer geek and work in the IT field I didn't feel like I was cutting too deep... I also used smiley emoticons to punctuate my humor/sarcasm... Jeesh, I feel like I need to pull out my FIST's!


----------



## MikeWhy

DougSabbag said:


> "how does that make you feel?"


FWIW, I've read therapy described thusly: "normal [as opposed to autistic, for example] therapy is based on people's ability to have insight into their own motivations."

Myself, I query the magic eight-ball for the difficult answers. Talking it out on chat boards is equally valid.

(Don't mind me. I helped my wife bottle 4 gallons of hard cider this evening, and disposed appropriately of the surplus that had no home.)


----------



## DougSabbag

I just read a story / article in "Cruising World" called: "What happens when the EPIRB goes off", and they accurately described the technical steps to the process, but they didn't include anything about the issues involved in the "rescue", at all.

I don't mean to diminish the writers' accomplishment, but, this story only provided the first half of the process. Considering it was the rescue portion of the process that became the most "exciting" it was dissapointing that this article didn't go into that phase.

I think I should submit a "story" to Cruising World.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> I just read a story / article in "Cruising World" called: "What happens when the EPIRB goes off", and they accurately described the technical steps to the process, but they didn't include anything about the issues involved in the "rescue", at all.
> 
> I don't mean to diminish the writers' accomplishment, but, this story only provided the first half of the process. Considering it was the rescue portion of the process that became the most "exciting" it was dissapointing that this article didn't go into that phase.


I've read similar articles and often it sounds, underneath the surface, like the motivation is to remind skippers to ensure that the contact info associated with the EPIRB and registered with the Coast Guard is up-to-date. The articles often stress the delays caused by out-of-date info. Another common thing you hear is that there are a lot of false alarms or improperly done "tests". Generally the motivation seems to be to give an idea of the timetable of an EPIRB response and how it is different from a Mayday response, which is essentially instantaneous: you call, ask for help, and the rescue begins; not so with the EPIRB.



> I think I should submit a "story" to Cruising World.


I think so too.


----------



## Just4You

So here is another side of the Triumph’s story from the eyes of officer being part of the bridge team on Kim during rescue of sailboat crew. Run on this post recently (couple of days ago) and decided on my own to post my story here for purpose of sharing true story with you without any benefits for me and please note that after this I will not be answering questions but will leave to Triumph’s Captain to do so. 

Early morning on 27th we received distress call stating that sailing boat is disabled and taking in the water in near proximity of our track. Master altered course toward distress position and contacted Boston RCC immediately. We reached Triumph some 5 hrs after the distress had been received. Meanwhile all our crew and equipment available was ready on main deck. Crew of the Triumph asked from us to pick them up. After info exchange we rounded Triumph which was laying on her sea anchor.

After rounding her Master requested from them to cut off their sea anchor line in order to approach to Triumph leaving it on lee side but they refused to do so worried that without it their drift rate will increase. Than Master ask them to shorten sea anchor line as much as possible but due to lack of their winch power were not able to do that. Finally it was agreed between Master and Triumhp’s Captain to make approach with sea anchor line as it is and once come closer he will cut it off.

We approach and were making no headway (Master used kicks just to maintain heading) once close to sailboat but Triump’s Captain failed to cut sea anchor line and due to contact with our vessel suffered damage main mast and fwd part of deck. Deck crew passed to them strong messenger line and lady secured her self jumping into water afterwards. Crew pulled her close to ship’s side and than two crew members were lowered down to the water level in transfer basket and picked up her on deck. Meanwhile second team passed another line (small diameter line called heaving line with big ball in the end used for throwing on longer distances with bigger diameter line connected on the end) but instead pulling her on board Triump’s Captain tried to secure it for his railing and line broke. Than we Master decided to abort and make new approach advising Captain of the Triumph his wife is on board and healthy and we need to make new approach requesting from him to forget on his belongings and prepare for transfer.

In second approach we made good lee again and fired our line throwing apparatuses (rocket propelled lines making strong noise) from main deck and the bridge. Due to very strong wind we missed two but other two ended over Triumph deck. Captain of the sailboat tried to pull one of those but it was trapped on sailboat deck and around broken mast which was hanging over sailboat side. As the sailboat start drifting-off Master decided to approach again as the sea was very rough with strong winds.

We approached again leaving sailboat on our lee side and managed to pass strong messenger to Captain of the sailboat who secured him self and jumped into water over the one of the lines fired to him in previous attempt which was floating and still being trapped to sailboat. Additionally he managed to grab lifebuoy which crew passed to him but than noticed that one of the bag he was carrying on his back had trapped for this small line and started pulling him with drifting boat. He let go our line and lifebuoy remaining connected to drifting sailboat. He drifted away and my Master ordered for extra lookout to be posted on fwd and aft main masts who later were advising him of the position of the man in the water. Captain of the Triumph managed to pull himself back to boat and hold for hanging sail.

We were maneuvering to approach again and when we were close noticed that he started to drift off the boat. Later was apparent that he is no longer connected to Triumph and than Master ordered additional lookout to be posted on the highest decks (we had about 5-6 crewmember on the top apart of us below) trying to keep insight man in the water. Due to high seas it was moments when we couldn’t locate him (loosing him between waves). Approach was hard due to strong current, waves and limited maneuverability of our vessel and Master managed to bring vessel leaving Captain of the Triumph very close on lee side amidship. Than he grabbed one of the lifebuoys with line which we developed from our deck prior final approach. Than again Bosun was lowered down to the water secured in our transfer basked and picked up Captain of the Triumph. 

When he was on deck in shock and suffering mild hyperemia officers and crew covered him with the blankets and take him in the hospital using stretchers. In the hospital prior placing him in hot bath we removed his cloth in order to check if he had suffer any visible injuries as he was in the shock and not able to give us proper answers on our questions.

For not deploying lifeboats as mate I don’t want to comment decision of my Master but for sure I personally would not enter and go down in those orange lifeboats even if he ordered me to do, which luckily he didn’t.

Above is only comment on all posted by captain of the sailboat and no other will be from my side. Wish him and his wife happy and healthy life.

For other here just story to think about and learn from it but using your own heads.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Thanks Just4!


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> With that on the table, you might also consider that having had the experiences which have been clearly described here, followed by my clear listing of the highlights of the mistakes which I made, it should be apparent that I do not need to hear YOUR further suggestions or comments about what I should have done.
> &#8230;
> 
> If you can accept that, then it should be clear that there is ZERO reason except to "blow your own horn" to share your "methinks" concepts on this thread, especially not to ME.
> 
> When / if you have one of those flashes of brilliance, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, and do not try to share your brilliance with me on what I should have done.
> 
> There will not be any points or awards given out to anyone for having shared their ideas on how the mistakes I made could have been avoided.
> 
> &#8230;
> 
> AND KEEP YOUR LITTLE MOUTHS SHUT ABOUT WHAT I COULD HAVE / SHOULD HAVE DONE.


My apologies for any of my comments which may have sounded harshly critical&#8230;

You deserve much credit for relating this experience with the candor that you have, there is much to be learned from that&#8230; I remain in awe of your survival of that incident, as I stated in one of my very first posts, I have serious doubts I would have been capable of surviving for that long in the water in those conditions&#8230; And, I'm very impressed by the fact both you and your wife are as eager and determined to get back on the horse as soon as possible, and wish you best of luck with that&#8230;

However, seems to me to often be a losing game in a venue such as this to attempt to dictate the terms or direction of the discussion that might ensue&#8230; While you've presented here a great opportunity for the rest of us to learn from your experience, attempting to stifle or redirect any subsequent discussion of what _might_, or _should_ have been done differently, hardly furthers the ability to learn from your experience, and allow others to possibly make more informed or considered judgments about how to proceed if they ever found themselves in a similar situation&#8230;



MedSailor said:


> On the issue of windows..... Really? People need to take a Xanax. Even Lin and Larry Pardey, some of the worlds most conservative sailing authors have downward facing opening glass portlights on their BOW!!!! They had metal covers fabricated and put them in place before going to sea. Our next door neighbors, who circumnavigated the globe, have selected a pilothouse Moody 46 for their planned circumnavigation of south america. The boat is all windows and they aren't worried one bit.
> 
> MedSailor


As I've tried to make clear, my original post was in response to the particular windows pictured on SKOL&#8230; In my opinion, such windows below deck level on a boat of that vintage bear precious little resemblance to the relatively tiny, circular portlight seen on TALEISEN, or the sort of windows seen on today's deck salons from quality builders such as Oyster, and Morris&#8230; And, somehow I'm doubting popping a Xanax or two would do much to mollify the opinions of the survivors of the tragic losses of ALMEISAN or TRASHMAN cited earlier, regarding the potential risk of large windows offshore&#8230;

Maine Sail mentioned earlier, in a discussion of rig security and chainplates, something to the effect of "After you've lost a mast, you tend to 'get religion'&#8230;" Well, after I had a pair of transom portlights blown in by a breaking sea impact while running a Florida inlet on a relatively calm, nearly windless day roughly 25 years ago, I "got a bit of religion" regarding windows below deck level that day&#8230;

Others' mileage may vary, as always&#8230; But that incident remains clearly etched in my memory, was a real eye-opening reminder of the awesomely destructive power of a few cubic yards of ocean water moving at speed, and I would remain very skittish about sailing a boat like SKOL across an ocean - at least without some _serious_ modification to such a configuration&#8230;


----------



## RobGallagher

Fascinating to here another side. Thanks for posting your story.


----------



## emoney

About the sea anchor; with a "rescue ship" on scene, would the possibility of an increase in drift rate outweigh the chance that the aforementioned could've occurred? I know you've discussed at length what you "should've/would've/could've" done, and maybe this has been mentioned, but I don't recall if cutting the sea anchor was an option and if it falls into the "should've" category?


----------



## deeman

Thanks for your story Just4You - your side fo the story was fascinating. 

Doug - I am very glad you and your wife and safe and looking to get back on the horse. Whether you realize it or not, your story will help ALL who have read this thread if and when the time comes for a rescue.

And Doug, keep it classy and don't be incited by meaningless posters it just lessens your character.


----------



## Visitor1111

Thanks Just4You. Now picture of the rescue looks quite clear to me.

Doug!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????????????


----------



## hellosailor

I don't recall "mast-vs-freighter" issues being discussed at Safety-At-Sea (although I haven't retaken that recently) but with 20-20 hindsight...I think almost every description of "big ship rescues sailboat inevitably in bad weather" the issue comes up.

The same way that I'd never raft up mast-to-mast against another boat in open water, because just a little rocking is going to ensure damage to the mast. I wonder if the USCG or anyone else in the rescue business has considered this issue, and made formal plans to avoid the dismasting during rescue alongside?

Issued guidelines for "don't do that, do this instead!" ?

Or does it come down to merchant captains who are only considering the extra complications of launching their own boat in transfer?


----------



## casey1999

As far as e-pirbs, a friend of mines went off by accident (and without his knowledge) and after three days he got a call on his sat phone asking if everything was ok. The response from and e-pirb could take days.

Also, this footage is some of the most dramatic I have ever seen. Even the coast guard, as well trained and equiped as they are, can have a hard time.
Perfect Storm Rescues: Infant Saved at Sea - YouTube

So prepare your boat, your crew and have some luck on top of that.


----------



## AdamLein

casey1999 said:


> Also, this footage is some of the most dramatic I have ever seen. Even the coast guard, as well trained and equiped as they are, can have a hard time.
> Perfect Storm Rescues: Infant Saved at Sea - YouTube


Pretty intense. I found this interview with the rescue swimmer in that case (the _Marine Flower II_): Rescue Swimmers Have Special Strengths



rescue swimmer said:


> You're going out to surround yourself with something that's trying to kill you. ... Remember where you're going, and then go have some fun.


----------



## DougSabbag

From Kim Jacob Officer statement here:

"For not deploying lifeboats as mate I don't want to comment decision of my Master but for sure I personally would not enter and go down in those orange lifeboats even if he ordered me to do, which luckily he didn't."

Well, I (Doug), was never talking about any *orange* lifeboats. I was referring to either of the TWO *RESCUE* LIFE BOATS which are *white*, and are (were) on their deck, ready to deploy.

These are quite different from the orange ones, since the white *RESCUE* life boats have a side opening hatch, obviously designed to fulfill the "rescue" portion of their designation. These have a designated capacity of 32 people, and their own motors. They are kept "at the ready", suspended by 2 cables while being affixed to a cradle, on deck.
These are (unlike the orange life boats), specifically designed to be used for RESCUE operations. I will always maintain that I qualified as a person needing to be rescued, from the ocean, and that using either of the TWO rescue lifeboats would have been the appropriate thing to do considering the obvious difficulties we were having in transferring a person from the ocean to the deck of the Kim Jacob.

Without utilizing either of those rescue lifeboats, the greatest probability was that I was destined to drown, especially considering that I did sink numerous times and only managed to regain the ocean surface through some extreme fighting spirit within myself. Nevertheless, as I have mentioned, as is corroborated by that posting, I was experiencing hypothermia, and so the ability to continue to wage that fight was quickly diminishing.

As far as was also stated by that posting, about how nobody wanted to come and get me in ANY of their smaller boats, whether the orange ones or the white RESCUE ones, well, that sure was painfully obvious from the point of view of the man in the water for over 3 hours.

And I will forever maintain that if the tables were ever turned, I WOULD COME TO GET YOU, whoever you are, rather than take pictures of your drowning.

We do have a few other minor differences from that posting / statement to what I experienced, however, these aren't worth debating at this point, are they....

Bottom line, my wife and I *do greatly appreciate *the timely response to the AMVER call to rescue us by the good ship Kim Jacob and her crew.

Thank you.


----------



## AdamLein

I don't see the white rescue boats in any of the photos on marinetraffic.com. I do see the cranes, but they have the orange lifeboats in them in the photos. I wonder if the rescue boats were added since 2009?

Also I'm impressed that the ship carries two boats entirely devoted to rescue... probably never used. Maybe the crew was never trained in their use?


----------



## DougSabbag

And to Jon Eisberg:

Regardless of YOUR belief that you should be able to share all of your "methinks" concepts that you want to with ME, I will not play that ludicrous game with you.

As I have mentioned, MANY times, I have already stated, (about as much as I ever want to), to this board, to the USCG, and most painfully to myself, what my errors were which led to the catastrophe of the Triumph on July 27th 2011.

You might want to explore YOUR own ideas of how YOU would have avoided that scene, with yourself, or anyone else you choose to; but can you please not do so with me?

Let's just assume that you do know how not to find yourself in my shoes, ever, well BRAVO!

OK? Any other "awards" or points which you might be going for will not be provided from me.

So, why don't you just email your great ideas to yourself, and, or your friends, relatives, neighbors, etc., but not to me. 

As far as this thread being a venue for you to share your ideas for the benefit of the world, do you really think you have anything all that new to share which hasn't been addressed at least once, if not numerous times, on this thread, already?

As an example: Your "methinks" concept that I should have used my Boston Whaler instead of jumping into the water. That is not a new idea. It was addressed, wherein I mentioned how I erroneously / prematurely entered the water, not once, but twice, if you include the second time I left the Triumph because I believed the crew of the Kim Jacob was telling me to let go and swim for the life bouy.

You are not going to come up with any great unknown / new ideas which the man who is writing this to you hasn't already thought of; or the USCG, or any of the MANY other people I have already discussed this with.

The biggest error was calling for assistance in the first place. And I have discussed the MANY dynamics of that decision with this board, and others, more than enough for everyone to "get it".

So, if you absolutely insist on posting your ideas - "methinks" concepts, here, do not be surprised or too distraught when I do not reply to any of them.

And, I really hope for both of our sake that we do not meet anywhere, ever.


----------



## emoney

DougSabbag said:


> And to Jon Eisberg:
> And, I really hope for both of our sake that we do not meet anywhere, ever.


:gunner (now is when we need a "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly Soundtrack" emoticon)


----------



## DougSabbag

AdamLein said:


> I don't see the white rescue boats in any of the photos on marinetraffic.com. I do see the cranes, but they have the orange lifeboats in them in the photos. I wonder if the rescue boats were added since 2009?
> 
> Also I'm impressed that the ship carries two boats entirely devoted to rescue... probably never used. Maybe the crew was never trained in their use?


I don't know when whatever pictures you are looking at of the KJ were taken, but I (and my wife) can confirm that these white rescue boats were onboard and even tested when we arrived in Canada by the crew of the KJ.

It was while they were deploying them off the coast of Canada, (Halifax), as a routine test, when I turned to the Captain and asked him why they had not deployed either of these to get me.

His honest eventual answer was that they are not the USCG, they are oil tankers. I said eventual, because his first answer was that they would not have been able to retrieve them after deployment due to the 8 - 10 foot seas.
Then I proposed, (as I have mentioned on this thread), that they could have just towed the boat behind them, the remaining 2 days to Canada, after hoisting me, and their crew members, up from the stern of their vessel, as he himself hoisted himself in and out of the water.

He smiled, looked down, and then said that they are not the USCG.....

I surely did not make up the existence of these white RESCUE life boats. They are real, and as far as I know they are stationed onboard the KJ for use to save lives.

Mine was one which qualified as needing to be saved.


----------



## LandLocked66c

DougSabbag said:


> And, I really hope for both of our sake that we do not meet anywhere, ever.


But if you did? I see a Kodak moment in the making... Hugs all round! :laugher


----------



## Just4You

DougSabbag said:


> From Kim Jacob Officer statement here:
> 
> Well, I (Doug), was never talking about any *orange* lifeboats. I was referring to either of the TWO *RESCUE* LIFE BOATS which are *white*, and are (were) on their deck, ready to deploy.
> 
> These are quite different from the orange ones, since the white *RESCUE* life boats have a side opening hatch, obviously designed to fulfill the "rescue" portion of their designation. These have a designated capacity of 32 people, and their own motors. They are kept "at the ready", suspended by 2 cables while being affixed to a cradle, on deck.
> These are (unlike the orange life boats), specifically designed to be used for RESCUE operations. I will always maintain that I qualified as a person needing to be rescued, from the ocean, and that using either of the TWO rescue lifeboats would have been the appropriate thing to do considering the obvious difficulties we were having in transferring a person from the ocean to the deck of the Kim Jacob.
> 
> As far as was also stated by that posting, about how nobody wanted to come and get me in ANY of their smaller boats, whether the orange ones or the white RESCUE ones, well, that sure was painfully obvious from the point of view of the man in the water for over 3 hours.
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> We do have a few other minor differences from that posting / statement to what I experienced, however, these aren't worth debating at this point, are they....


There is no white lifeboats on Kim. Only two fully enclosed orange ones. "Minor differences" make whole story bit different, but for sure will not discuss about. Others here did that already.

No thanks is needed as we just did what every honorable seamen will do.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> As far as e-pirbs, a friend of mines went off by accident (and without his knowledge) and after three days he got a call on his sat phone asking if everything was ok. The response from and e-pirb could take days.
> 
> Also, this footage is some of the most dramatic I have ever seen. Even the coast guard, as well trained and equiped as they are, can have a hard time.
> Perfect Storm Rescues: Infant Saved at Sea - YouTube
> 
> So prepare your boat, your crew and have some luck on top of that.


WOW. The link you included, also leads to a bunch of other videos of likewise horrific scenes of boats in harms way. These all make the day we destroyed the Triumph look like a walk in the park.

As far as our EPIRB response time; well, we used our satellite phone to call the CG, and they answer that call like any other telephone call, immediately.
So, as much as I fully support the EPIRB system, I further support the sat phone to go right along with the EPIRB. Just wish they weren't so expensive. :-(


----------



## DougSabbag

Just4You said:


> There is no white lifeboats on Kim. Only two fully enclosed orange ones. "Minor differences" make whole story bit different, but for sure will not discuss about. Others here did that already.
> 
> No thanks is needed as we just did what every honorable seamen will do.


Then whoever is writing this posting is not from the KJ, unless you are lying, though I couldn't imagine why you would.

We were there, we saw BOTH of them, and we watched while the KJ crew spent a few HOURS TESTING THEM with all kinds of "observers" who noted the process as it went down.

We saw the Captain become very involved in the deployment, during the test, wherein he facilitated the manual releasing of a cable which was "stuck", since the electric release mechanism did not work.

We saw the onboard electrician and his helper also get involved to try to address the failing electrical cable disconnect / release mechanism.

Before we saw this test, both Evelyn and myself noticed these 2 RESCUE life boats on the ships' layout / design which is mounted on the wall near the gangway / stairway to the Bridge. These were clearly marked on that layout, and caught MY EYE, as well you can imagine, while we were on our way to the Officers' Mess.

So, when the KJ crew performed their test deployment of one of these, that provided the perfect opportunity for me to ask the Captain why they had not used one to get me.


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> WOW. The link you included, also leads to a bunch of other videos of likewise horrific scenes of boats in harms way. These all make the day we destroyed the Triumph look like a walk in the park.
> 
> As far as our EPIRB response time; well, we used our satellite phone to call the CG, and they answer that call like any other telephone call, immediately.
> So, as much as I fully support the EPIRB system, I further support the sat phone to go right along with the EPIRB. Just wish they weren't so expensive. :-(


Yes, that is why I asked you in a previous post if you used Marine SSB (you said you did not). I do have Marine SSB, but understand its range and communication quality can be poor, so may not be dependable in an emergency. I also have a ham license and can use my Marine SSB on ham bands. I have much better luck using ham frequencies to communicate over long range- the main reason is so many people are listening (hams) on so many frequencies that I can choose one that has appropriate range. The ham on the other end could always relay to the coast guard.

I agree I think a sat phone is the best thing to have. Along with an e-pirb and a Marine SSB (if you can bear the cost). One thing, in a true emergency you could use ham bands to reach someone and not get penalized (not that you would care in that situation), if you could not reach someone (like coast guard) on a marine band. Problem with just an e-pirb, as you know, there is no communication, so you do not know status of the rescue.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Yes, that is why I asked you in a previous post if you used Marine SSB (you said you did not). I do have Marine SSB, but understand its range and communication quality can be poor, so may not be dependable in an emergency. I also have a ham license and can use my Marine SSB on ham bands. I have much better luck using ham frequencies to communicate over long range- the main reason is so many people are listening (hams) on so many frequencies that I can choose one that has appropriate range. The ham on the other end could always relay to the coast guard.
> 
> I agree I think a sat phone is the best thing to have. Along with an e-pirb and a Marine SSB (if you can bear the cost). One thing, in a true emergency you could use ham bands to reach someone and not get penalized (not that you would care in that situation), if you could not reach someone (like coast guard) on a marine band. Problem with just an e-pirb, as you know, there is no communication, so you do not know status of the rescue.


Casey,

We specifically rented the sat phone because we thought that if we ended up in our 4 person life pod, only a sat phone would be portable, and could thereby be brought with us into the life pod. An installed SSB can not be that portable, at least not the ones I am familiar with.

What sucked, was that when we lost the Triumph, we also lost that rented sat phone, (one of the things that I tried to bring with me but eventually caste off. I also tried to bring the EPIRB with me when I went overboard, since the Captain of the KJ was most insistent that I do so, in order to facilitate their administrative "closing" of our rescue).

We had to pay for the rental of the phone which includes the usage, which had gone off of the charts during the 26th & 27th of July, PLUS we had to pay for the whole phone as though we were purchasing one.

So, we paid almost $3,000.00 for that phone. :-(


----------



## Just4You

DougSabbag said:


> Then whoever is writing this posting is not from the KJ, unless you are lying, though I couldn't imagine why you would.
> 
> We were there, we saw BOTH of them, and we watched while the KJ crew spent a few HOURS TESTING THEM with all kinds of "observers" who noted the process as it went down.


White or orange????? Those are the pictures from that drill at Canada!!


----------



## DougSabbag

DougSabbag said:


> Then whoever is writing this posting is not from the KJ, unless you are lying, though I couldn't imagine why you would.
> 
> We were there, we saw BOTH of them, and we watched while the KJ crew spent a few HOURS TESTING THEM with all kinds of "observers" who noted the process as it went down.
> 
> We saw the Captain become very involved in the deployment, during the test, wherein he facilitated the manual releasing of a cable which was "stuck", since the electric release mechanism did not work.
> 
> We saw the onboard electrician and his helper also get involved to try to address the failing electrical cable disconnect / release mechanism.
> 
> Before we saw this test, both Evelyn and myself noticed these 2 RESCUE life boats on the ships' layout / design which is mounted on the wall near the gangway / stairway to the Bridge. These were clearly marked on that layout, and caught MY EYE, as well you can imagine, while we were on our way to the Officers' Mess.
> 
> So, when the KJ crew performed their test deployment of one of these, that provided the perfect opportunity for me to ask the Captain why they had not used one to get me.


So, JUST4YOU, who ARE YOU? And why are you trying to act as though you were on the KJ when we were picked up by her?

OR, if you are from the KJ, then why are you trying to dismiss the reality as my wife and I know it to be?

Are you afraid of a legal suit???? FYI, I have been approached by a marine attorney to represent our interests in a claim against the KJ, based upon a case of negligience leading to loss of property; but we declined to proceed with such an act.

However, had our conceptual claim included *loss of life*, my wife WOULD HAVE proceeded in that tort.....

So, in the future, (if you ARE with the KJ, or any other AMVER member vessel), and find yourselves "rescuing" people, you might consider not destroying their boat, through negligent acts, then if these people end up treading water, you might consider rescuing them through ALL AVAILABLE MEANS, which would include USING the any RESCUE life boats you might have onboard.


----------



## LandLocked66c

DougSabbag said:


> So, in the future, (if you ARE with the KJ, or any other AMVER member vessel), and find yourselves "rescuing" people, you might consider not destroying their boat, through negligent acts, then if these people end up treading water, you might consider rescuing them through ALL AVAILABLE MEANS, which would include USING the any RESCUE life boats you might have onboard.


Doug, your anger at the Crew over your destroyed boat is kinda weird... You were being rescued, who cares about the boat - you have your life... Is that not good enough? Not trying to be a jerk...


----------



## DougSabbag

PS No those pictures are NOT from that drill in Canada. 

You know, a friend of mine just surmised that whoever you are, you are most likely trying to diminish the perception of negligience by the KJ, since this blog is so widely viewed by mariners, in order to diminish any opportunity to initiate a legal case for their negligience.

Well, give it up. You KNOW what you did, and what you DIDN'T do. And it is only by the grace of GOD that I am still here. So, make sure you fix the electrical release mechanism of your starboard / aft RESCUE life boat, because God forbid, you might want to use it sometime.


----------



## Just4You

DougSabbag said:


> So, JUST4YOU, who ARE YOU? And why are you trying to act as though you were on the KJ when we were picked up by her?
> 
> OR, if you are from the KJ, then why are you trying to dismiss the reality as my wife and I know it to be?
> 
> Are you afraid of a legal suit???? FYI, I have been approached by a marine attorney to represent our interests in a claim against the KJ, based upon a case of negligience leading to loss of property; but we declined to proceed with such an act.
> 
> However, had our conceptual claim included *loss of life*, my wife WOULD HAVE proceeded in that tort.....
> 
> So, in the future, (if you ARE with the KJ, or any other AMVER member vessel), and find yourselves "rescuing" people, you might consider not destroying their boat, through negligent acts, then if these people end up treading water, you might consider rescuing them through ALL AVAILABLE MEANS, which would include USING the any RESCUE life boats you might have onboard.


Going out of here but not because of "attorney" as that has nothing to do with this post but due to fact I don't need to prove anything and need no publicity.

Captain of the Triumph will speak...

Just hope that my side of the story will be helpfull to others. Nothing else...

Best wishes and calm seas to all!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hellosailor

Casey,

"As far as e-pirbs, a friend of mines went off by accident (and without his knowledge) and after three days he got a call on his sat phone asking if everything was ok. The response from and e-pirb could take days."

You raise some interesting questions which really should be answered, because the blanket statement paints the entire SAR/SAT system as being incompetent.

What is the timeframe, what year did your friend's epirb go off?
What was the geographic locale?
What was the epirb frequency and type? 406? 127vhf? what kind?
Was the eprib REGISTERED and registered properly to the correct national body, with his information on it?
Who called him from what agency, and why did they say it took three days to reach him?
Was there, or wasn't there, any SAR mission launched during those three days?
Or did the epirb trigger while it was still stowed on land?

Please, give us the whole picture. Because a three-day response for a phone call would merit a Congressional investigation if this didn't have some other mitigating circumstances.

I got a phone call from NOAA a couple of short years ago "Hello, we tried to mail your registration renewal to you and it was returned?" Yeah, it turns out I had a postal forwarding order on temporarily and the genius letter carrier (forwarding orders are executed by the local route carrier, not the USPS) saw the "Return if undeliverable in five days" notice on the envelope, and decided incorrectly to return it instead of delivering it to the forwarding address.

Fortunately the man at NOAA had the brains to say "Let's try the telephone" even if the replacement sticker he sent out wrongly had the temporary forwarding address on it, to match the new envelope. (sigh.)

But three days for a phone call on a response? That just _begs _for more information. There's something wrong with that picture.


----------



## lancelot9898

DougSabbag said:


> So, in the future, (if you ARE with the KJ, or any other AMVER member vessel), and find yourselves "rescuing" people, you might consider not destroying their boat, through negligent acts, then if these people end up treading water, you might consider rescuing them through ALL AVAILABLE MEANS, which would include USING the any RESCUE life boats you might have onboard.


Even though you say you are most grateful for being rescued, the above statement to me says otherwise. Nothing like talking out both sides of your mouth!


----------



## casey1999

hellosailor said:


> Casey,
> 
> "As far as e-pirbs, a friend of mines went off by accident (and without his knowledge) and after three days he got a call on his sat phone asking if everything was ok. The response from and e-pirb could take days."
> 
> You raise some interesting questions which really should be answered, because the blanket statement paints the entire SAR/SAT system as being incompetent.
> 
> What is the timeframe, what year did your friend's epirb go off? I believe about 9 years ago
> What was the geographic locale? Northwest passage
> What was the epirb frequency and type? 406? 127vhf? what kind? Not quite sure of freq, but probably not the now used 406, probably a 127 Mghz. 406 units today are probably better- but still might let you down- nothing is 100%.
> Was the eprib REGISTERED and registered properly to the correct national body, with his information on it? It was properly registered- that is how they called his sat phone directly.
> Who called him from what agency, and why did they say it took three days to reach him? I am not sure of the agency. When they called, he said everything was fine, they were not aware the unit went off, they were transiting the northwest passage. My friend did not request further information.
> Was there, or wasn't there, any SAR mission launched during those three days? there was no SAR mission launched- the phone call was the only action taken. A few months ago I spoke with my friend about emergency comm equipment and he told me this story. He basically said the e-pirb is worthless (half joking I think). In any case I think what he meant is if you trust your life to an e-pirb, you might die. He still has an e-pirb, and so do I, but like anything man builds- it might not work. I see where the epirb I now have might have a recall- need to check that out.
> Or did the epirb trigger while it was still stowed on land? It was on his boat in a protected area outside the cabin. Boat was transiting northwest passage. Unit did not get wet or was not set off by anyone- it went off by itself.
> Please, give us the whole picture. Because a three-day response for a phone call would merit a Congressional investigation if this didn't have some other mitigating circumstances. My friend does not want a Congressional investigation- he just keeps sailing.
> I got a phone call from NOAA a couple of short years ago "Hello, we tried to mail your registration renewal to you and it was returned?" Yeah, it turns out I had a postal forwarding order on temporarily and the genius letter carrier (forwarding orders are executed by the local route carrier, not the USPS) saw the "Return if undeliverable in five days" notice on the envelope, and decided incorrectly to return it instead of delivering it to the forwarding address.
> 
> Fortunately the man at NOAA had the brains to say "Let's try the telephone" even if the replacement sticker he sent out wrongly had the temporary forwarding address on it, to match the new envelope. (sigh.)
> 
> But three days for a phone call on a response? That just _begs _for more information. There's something wrong with that picture.


See response to your questioins above.


----------



## DougSabbag

LandLocked66c said:


> Doug, your anger at the Crew over your destroyed boat is kinda weird... You were being rescued, who cares about the boat - you have your life... Is that not good enough? Not trying to be a jerk...


The reason why I care about the boat being destroyed is because we were STILL ONBOARD while she was being smashed to smitherines! You would have cared too.

And, considering I was sinking and rising for over 3 hours, I also CARED about them deploying a RESCUE life boat to save my butt. You would have cared too.

So, not to be a jerk, but these were the worst / most violent and life threatening portions of that day for us, and again, it is only by the grace of GOD that we both survived the "rescue".

Sure, we have our lives, but the greatest reasons why we almost lost our lives was not from the Triumphs' 2 broken stays, or the broken oil cooler, it was from the smashing of our boat and then the near drowning, while being photographed.

Is it really "weird" to remember this, and talk about it? If someone else here feels a need to discuss my selection of PFDs, and, or, whether I would have been better off to have gotten into the Boston Whaler instead of just jumping into the water, (not to diminish these errors), isn't it also worthy of discussion about being smashed to smitherines while onboard and then nobody coming to get me using ALL the available rescue equipment onboard?


----------



## deeman

LandLocked66c said:


> Doug, your anger at the Crew over your destroyed boat is kinda weird... You were being rescued, who cares about the boat - you have your life... Is that not good enough? Not trying to be a jerk...


Couldn't agree more. Doug - you are making a darn fool of yourself for no obvious reason. Geeze, he didn't say anything slanderous or mean.

Do yourself a favor and step away from the keyboard for a couple of weeks and let your anger subside. You are ruining your character here out of your frustration and anger. Relax and let it pass, you sound like a great guy with an intriguing past - don't discount that by posting more incriminating info.


----------



## DougSabbag

deeman said:


> Couldn't agree more. Doug - you are making a darn fool of yourself for no obvious reason. Geeze, he didn't say anything slanderous or mean.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and step away from the keyboard for a couple of weeks and let your anger subside. You are ruining your character here out of your frustration and anger. Relax and let it pass, you sound like a great guy with an intriguing past - don't discount that by posting more incriminating info.


First someone asks why I care about my boat being smashed to smitherines, which I just HAD to answer because my wife and I were onboard at the time. Then when I provide that answer which any normal person should find to be a valid, damn good reason why I would care, then YOU tell me to stop talking about this....

I am not angry, or frustrated. And I am quite relaxed. 

But, even 100,000,000 years from now, if anyone asks me why I would care about the Kim Jacob smashing the Triumph to smitherines, I will still say because my wife and I were onboard at te time, and guess what, you would care too.

So, yes I care, and I always will, and I would not want anyone else to go through that either..... said the very relaxed man.


----------



## DougSabbag

lancelot9898 said:


> Even though you say you are most grateful for being rescued, the above statement to me says otherwise. Nothing like talking out both sides of your mouth!


Well then, apparently you can't grasp the different "issues" involved.

1. We are very thankful that they responded to the call to assist the Triumph.

2. We are not so thankful that it was only by the grace of God that we lived through their rescue.

As I have stated earlier, if they really couldn't / or didn't want to / or didn't know how to conduct a transfer of 2 adults in broad daylight from a sailboat to their boat without jeopardizing their lives more so than they were already in jeopardy, than perhaps they should either learn how to or ask themselves if they are really interested in doing this rescue thing. And if the answer is, well, not so much, then they should drop out of the AMVER program.

I have never in my life, anywhere in the world, been face to face, (that I knew of) with people who would not deploy a rescue boat to get someone from the water if given plenty of time, in broad daylight, and having the equipment to do so. As much as I SINCERELY thank them for saving us, I also can never forget them standing on their deck watching me flounder around for over 3 hours with 2 rescue boats on their deck.

If you ever lived through that experience you would also be torn between thanking your "rescuer" and also keeping your weight on your back foot, because you know, better than ANYONE, that they were NOT going to come and get you..... but, would throw bouys and take pictures.

And, as I keep on saying, and I assume all of you, (or maybe not????!!), would agree, anyone of us would do everything we could to get anyone else out of the water instead of just take pictures for hours of them sinking.

Not angry here..... just sharing my first hand experience of the "limit" to how far people will go to save other people, which I was and am shocked I lived through.


----------



## steel

Visitor1111 said:


> Dude... Take someone to help you with this story...or check your self time to time. Must be that I don't follow you here but tell me if I am wrong or your boat was still transmiting 4 days after being abandoned?????? So much about damage from tanker.....


I just don't get the vomiting underwater thing. Drinking water does not make you any less able to float in water at all. And how did he get submerged and was forced to do this vomiting water thing while wearing a life jacket, even if it was for water skiing?

Where was the leak that caused them to take on water anyway?


----------



## DougSabbag

There were 24 men onboard the KJ. They had a lot of equipment. They had daylight to work in. It wasn't raining. It wasn't really all that bad of a day. Yes, we had 8 - 10 foot seas and 15 - 20 knot winds, but there were 2 dozen marine professionals onboard a 900 foot tanker, with tons of lines, things which float, rescue lifeboats, and then there was 1 man in the water.

If you completely disregard the fact that they would not utilize their resources to effect a rescue of that 1 man from the water, because they DID respond to the AMVER call in the first place, well, all I can say is that it is easy for YOU to so blithly come to that conclusion.

But, as that 1 man in the water, for hours, looking up at a deck with rescue boats, and 2 dozen men all nice and dry and alive, looking back down at me, I can neither forget the feeling received LOUD and CLEAR, that I was not worth getting wet to save; or that they really couldn't think their way out of a paper bag if they expect me to believe that they couldn't come up with SOMETHING to do to get me.

And yet, I would do everything possible to get anyone of them, as hard and as fast as I could possibly move to do it. I would throw more floating things toward that person. I would deploy the lifeboat. I would organize a group to go overboard with life preservers / flotation devices / air mattresses.... whatever would keep all of us floating, and lots of rope to get this person. If going overboard to rescue someone, we could attach a rope to ourselves, via a harness, while possibly wearing a wet suit, and flippers, with that rope attached to the KJ, so that there would be no possibility of becoming seperated from the boat yourself.

I could absolutely not watch a human being sinking and then fighting back to the surface for HOURS, in daylight, just a hundred feet from our vessel without acting as though a life depended upon acting real seriously, right now, with every tool and device onboard to get them out of the water.

Before telling me to calm down and just thank them, ask yourself how would you feel if you received their limited rescue effort, relying upon your own diminishing strength to reach a bouy.

Perhaps it is my American upbringing which places such a high value on the human life. My upbringing tells me every one of us are worth more than whatever equipment might be "lost" if that equipment would save our lives.

I was in the US Army. And within that organization, we would do whatever it took to retrieve one of us from harms way. Granted there are aberrations, i.e., "friendly fire", but that is either a true mistake, or conceptually _earned_. The 24 men of the KJ had never met me so they could not possibly have anything against me.... or could they?

Was there something about what they did know or see which inspired them to watch me flounder for 3 hours without putting themselves "out there" to get this guy?
I don't think I will ever know that answer. Especially perplexing because even if I didn't "like" somebody, I would forget that while moving heaven and earth to retrieve them.

So, the laxadasical effort to retrieve me is quite perplexing to me. 24 men mostly just watched. I wonder if they were making any bets about the outcome of the dude in the water?

You would think, considering the many hard times I have experienced in my life... there was a time I lived in hallways, and ate out of garbage cans, ( a long long time ago), after my father died, and my alcoholic mother abandoned me at 15, that I experienced "coldness" and being stabbed in the back, by even my own mother, BUT, even after that early wake up call, I am still apparently naive enough(?) to be amazed and perplexed that people would do so little to save another person dying right in front of them, so slowly.

Pardon me for not getting that, or understanding that, and especially not being thankful "enough" per some peoples' advice. But this is completely alien to me to be able to just watch a man drown, for 3 hours.

Nevertheless, and this must be a tribute to my good manners, I AM thankful that they did what they did, which as it turned out was enough that I AM alive.

Thank you Kim Jacob. Thank you.

But, if that crew member / officer "Just4you" would like to try to explain to me how they could do so little for the man they saw floundering, for so long, I would be more than a little curious to hear what he could say about that. And Just4you, please imagine that it was YOU in that water, and then tell me what you would like to see the other 23 sailors doing to get you......


----------



## neverknow

WOW Doug.

Why do you give a **** what anyone on this forum thinks. Ppl can say what ever they like. Who cares. It's your life and you make your own decisions. If others don't like them than that's just to bad.

You know what they say about opinions and a-holes. Everyone has them!!!


----------



## DougSabbag

steel said:


> I just don't get the vomiting underwater thing. Drinking water does not make you any less able to float in water at all. And how did he get submerged and was forced to do this vomiting water thing while wearing a life jacket, even if it was for water skiing?
> 
> Where was the leak that caused them to take on water anyway?


I don't completely understand the sinking situation either. What I do know is that there were times that I was being dragged underwater, for instance, by the line connecting me to the Triumph, wherein, I took on a lot of water... perhaps into my stomach and my lungs.

It was after being "flooded" with water that I would not be able to reach the surface to breath, and was sinking, until I regurgetated / vomitted / expelled the water from within me... wherever it was when it was in me. Then, I would be able to reach the surface, but still only by fighting with all of my might with my arms and legs to reach the surface.

There were times I did the "dead mans float" which would work for a while; lets say 5 minutes or so? Until I was swamped by a wave, and was flooded with water again.

After recovering from the hypothermia, and being able to walk around again, which took a little over 24 hours, it was quite apparent that my lung capacity was only a fraction of my normal amount. I couldn't walk up stairs without rests.

I assumed that there was still water in my lungs, or something related to that experience. It took numerous days to get my full lung capacity back.

I was wearing a pair of LL Bean jeans which were lined in flannel, underwear, a long sleeve shirt, a belt with a large silver belt buckle, a pair of sneakers, (those I managed to kick off), and a very heavy North Face jacket, rated for the sub zero temps. I thought about taking off the jacket during my floundering period, but it WAS keeping me warm; so I didn't. That might well be the reason I lasted so long in the water without the hypothermia getting to me before I managed to reach a bouy. Tough conflict there... reduce weight to float easier, but you will lose body heat and lose your strength.


----------



## DougSabbag

neverknow said:


> WOW Doug.
> 
> Why do you give a **** what anyone on this forum thinks. Ppl can say what ever they like. Who cares. It's your life and you make your own decisions. If others don't like them than that's just to bad.
> 
> You know what they say about opinions and a-holes. Everyone has them!!!


 No argument there.

But, I think I answer in order to straighten out the misunderstandings. I have to assume that if the person asking or saying such and such knew the details including the feelings, then they would of course agree with me.

There does come a point though, when I eventually tell them to FO.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> And to Jon Eisberg:
> 
> Regardless of YOUR belief that you should be able to share all of your "methinks" concepts that you want to with ME, I will not play that ludicrous game with you.


Well, despite the fact I only used the word _once_ in this entire thread, looks like my use of "methinks" was a big mistake...

However, I'll stand by my comment, and _methinks_ I'm probably not the only one here who believes a Boston Whaler could remain afloat despite a missing drain plug...










Methinks it is also entirely understandable, given the sort of trauma you had suffered by that point, that _anyone's_ thinking - myself included - might not have been entirely clear regarding such a relatively minor detail...



DougSabbag said:


> As far as this thread being a venue for you to share your ideas for the benefit of the world, do you really think you have anything all that new to share which hasn't been addressed at least once, if not numerous times, on this thread, already?


Well, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure my mention of making an approach under sail into the lee of the KJ, instead of relying upon a 900' ship to do the close maneuvering, might have been the first time that particular option was addressed... Not remotely worthy of an Honorable Mention, by any means, but seems a discussion of the possible merits/downsides of either approach could be worth discussing...



DougSabbag said:


> So, if you absolutely insist on posting your ideas - "methinks" concepts, here, do not be surprised or too distraught when I do not reply to any of them.


No worries, perfectly understandable... And yet, you continue to do so...



DougSabbag said:


> And, I really hope for both of our sake that we do not meet anywhere, ever.


Again, perfectly understandable... Probably not very likely, anyway...

In any event, I'm pretty easy to avoid - just steer your Bentley clear of any "beat-up Toyotas" out there, flying an Ambiguously Gay Pink and Aqua spinnaker...

Again, my apologies, I'll try to give it a rest, OK?

Best of luck to you in finding your next boat...


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

JonEisberg said:


> Well, despite the fact I only used the word _once_ in this entire thread, looks like my use of "methinks" was a big mistake...
> 
> However, I'll stand by my comment, and _methinks_ I'm probably not the only one here who believes a Boston Whaler could remain afloat despite a missing drain plug...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks it is also entirely understandable, given the sort of trauma you had suffered by that point, that _anyone's_ thinking - myself included - might not have been entirely clear regarding such a relatively minor detail...
> 
> Well, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure my mention of making an approach under sail into the lee of the KJ, instead of relying upon a 900' ship to do the close maneuvering, might have been the first time that particular option was addressed... Not remotely worthy of an Honorable Mention, by any means, but seems a discussion of the possible merits/downsides of either approach could be worth discussing...
> 
> No worries, perfectly understandable... And yet, you continue to do so...
> 
> Again, perfectly understandable... Probably not very likely, anyway...
> 
> In any event, I'm pretty easy to avoid - just steer your Bentley clear of any "beat-up Toyotas" out there, flying an Ambiguously Gay Pink and Aqua spinnaker...
> 
> Again, my apologies, I'll try to give it a rest, OK?
> 
> Best of luck to you in finding your next boat...


Jon,

I, for one (?), feel that you have provided A LOT of excellent thoughts and very level-headed arguments. I found that I had to push the 'Like' button in response to nearly all of your posts.

I entirely understand that in an extremely difficult situation, like the one Doug found himself, not always the best decision is made and that hindsight is 20/20. But if we want to learn from such situations to possibly come to better decisions in the future, it must be allowed to discuss them.


----------



## DougSabbag

Methinks the S/V Triumph was not underway, and therefore not able to manuever into anyone's lee. In fact if the S/V Triumph WERE underway, then the entire reasoning for calling the USCG would have evaporated, i.e., never happened. Therefore none of this would have happened, and I would not have to re-explain this to the self appointed Monday morning QB.
But, more importantly, methinks that the Captain of the KJ had told the Captain of the Triumph that they had it all under control and to relax and though it would take awhile, they would extract us smoothly.
So, again, there wasn't any reason to get underway to manuever a boat deemed unmanueverable. 
Now Mr. methinks will explain why he would get her underway anyway, and OMG I will then have to tell the Monday morning QB to FO again.


----------



## DougSabbag

And (why I do this I really don't know) methinks that the Captain of the Triumph did not know what was about to happen as he jumped overboard, so the option of the Boston Whaler was (like the other PFD options) not considered.

But, the Monday morning QB will again state that HE would have used the Whaler... and again I will have to tell him to FO.


----------



## DougSabbag

I don't have a Bentley. But, considering I did state what I own for a motor vehicle, I should rub it into Mr. Methinks that he thunk wrong.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> I don't have a Bentley. But, considering I did state what I own for a motor vehicle, I should rub it into Mr. Methinks that he thunk wrong.


Nah, I know you don't drive a Bentley...

Your car is one of those I'd give my left nut to own, if only I could afford one, right?



DougSabbag said:


> ...The same people who don't even have a radar are pointing at the windows in the stern of a boat they would give their left nut to own, if they only could ever afford one, as a reason not to have her.
> 
> Like driving around in a beat to hell Toyota while pointing out the poor gas mileage of a Bentley.


----------



## Minnewaska

Doug, what are you doing? How many times are you going to swear not to repeat yourself, but aggressively attack posters that question your story? None of us can actually know whose story is true, if any of these. We can't even know for certain that you were the skipper on the Triumph. Doesn't matter. The only value here is the discussion and thoughts surrounding these circumstances that any of us could find ourselves in one day. That requires different opinions and assessments. The whole scenario could be fictitious and would have the same value.

There are people that think Castro killed Kennedy and we've never landed on the moon. Can't beat them all up until they agree with us. Please try to get back on the high road here.


----------



## AdamLein

Minnewaska said:


> We can't even know for certain that you were the skipper on the Triumph.


Oh boy. Brace for impact.


----------



## CapnBilll

JonEisberg said:


> Just seems to me more could have been done to help effect their own rescue, an awful lot of the responsibility seems to have been placed on the crew of the KJ in this instance...


Any disaster is a chain of mistakes building to the final conclusion. But this is something else you can take to the bank.

"The first priority of any rescuer is to NOT make the situation worse".


----------



## AdamLein

steel said:


> Drinking water does not make you any less able to float in water at all.


This was dealt with a little while back.



> And how did he get submerged and was forced to do this vomiting water thing while wearing a life jacket


There's no law of physics that says a buoyant object must remain on the surface of the water. Heavy waves push floating objects under, and they can take a while to get back to the surface.

Earlier I mentioned a book I recently read, _Overboard!_ by (I think) Michael Tougias, which describes a very similar situation of a man overboard who vomits seawater a few times prior to rescue. Doesn't mention that he did it to stay afloat, of course, which I'm skeptical about. But I'm sure that a person who ingested enough seawater would vomit it; it's up to them what explanation they come up with as to why they did that.


----------



## CapnBilll

Lets drop the whole vomiting thing. 

I once had to swim in open rough water, most likely much calmer and closer to shore than Duog. In just a few minutes it became very clear that I was in an imediate life threatening situation. 

Ocean swimming is just not as easy as it looks. Keeping water out of your lungs is a real challenge. It is also really hard to tread water when your stomach and lungs are full of saltwater.

Anyone who even questions that part of his story obviously has never tried it.


----------



## LandLocked66c

DougSabbag said:


> Is it really "weird" to remember this, and talk about it? If someone else here feels a need to discuss my selection of PFDs, and, or, whether I would have been better off to have gotten into the Boston Whaler instead of just jumping into the water, (not to diminish these errors), isn't it also worthy of discussion about being smashed to smitherines while onboard and then nobody coming to get me using ALL the available rescue equipment onboard?


I had to think about your response for some time and I still feel/read that you are angry with your rescuers. You have even eluded to/suggested that they may have had malicious intent??? I don't get that at all... Seems very paranoid to me.

As far as you being on the boat while it being crushed around you, yes that was avoidable. But not that day, and I can't imagine that the captain had that in mind while trying to rescue you. Unfortunately it happened, but you "were" rescued and people did come for you!

I remember in SCUBA training we were taught how to rescue drowning people by swimming up behind them at all costs - because a drowning person would, in panic, potentially drown you as well. I have always thought in my mind that if I was a rescuer that I might have to disable a victim to rescue them. I can see the victim not being happy about that, but happy that they are alive. Is this the kind of sentiment I read from your posts, then? I know it's apples and oranges - just trying to think of an analogy...


----------



## Maine Sail

Doug,

I fully respect you coming here to tell your story and thank you. Doing so on the net is NEVER easy.

However, you are making yourself look a bit like a donkey. PLEASE grow up..

What you are "accusing" the KJ of doing, or not doing, is the SAME as what people are doing to you, second guessing/ Monday morning quarter backing. It is making you look like a total hypocrite. MM QB-ing' is okay for you to do to the KJ but not okay for ANYONE else to do to you. I find that uncomfortably odd.....

Apparently if you were the master of the KJ you would have done things differently, we know that, and have heard it LOUD and CLEAR. 

So why is it any different for those on here to think we'd have done differently in your shoes, to DISCUSS it? Why do we need to be told to "FO" or get threats of being beaten up??

If it is okay for you to second guess the KJ, and how they did or did not do their job, why is it not okay for folks to DISCUSS how things could have been done differently on your end? 

You have Monday morning QB'd the KJ just as folks have done to you. Apparently it is okay for you do do it to the KJ but it appears to be a ONE WAY street. When it comes back at you the threats come out and the "FO's" start flying.

Personally I find your pomposity is growing quite tiresome. For example, I have owned a Mercedes Benz (E320 4Matic wagon) and would never again touch an MB with a ten foot pole, or your pole for that matter. MB had the car in the shop longer than we did, over six months total time/days in the shop, and still could NOT resolve the issue. A pathetic example of poor customer service, poor quality product and complete and utter lack of ability on the part of the MB tech team, my dealer, and two others, to sort this problem out.. 

Many thousands of dollars spent on lemon law lawyers and MB still fought us every step of the way on a POS they could not fix. Never did fix the problem. Car drove nice but that was its only redeeming quality because "quality" is apparently no longer part of the MB experience, as we experienced it. So I guess I would give my left nut, but only for someone to take a MB OFF my hands.. As it was the car was worth about what used toilet paper is when I finally decided to give up the fight. Even though I could afford one I would never again choose to waste my hard earned money in that fashion again. Please don't assume everyone wants what you perceive to be the best, as it is not always true and some of us have already "been there, done that". 

I would also NEVER own a boat like Skol as I personally find the aesthetics to be the "Vegas" style of the ocean, cheesy. (that is personal opinion) So again your assertion that everyone would give their "left nut" to own one "if only they could afford one" is as off base as your Monday morning QB-ing' accusations of the KJ or the Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. 

Please grow up or grow a thicker skin. Your "FO's", and "I'll beat you up if I see you" statements are really, really offensive and do not comply with this forums rules. 


Again thank you for posting your story as lots will learn from it in the future.


----------



## DougSabbag

LandLocked66c said:


> I had to think about your response for some time and I still feel/read that you are angry with your rescuers. You have even eluded to/suggested that they may have had malicious intent??? I don't get that at all... Seems very paranoid to me.
> 
> As far as you being on the boat while it being crushed around you, yes that was avoidable. But not that day, and I can't imagine that the captain had that in mind while trying to rescue you. Unfortunately it happened, but you "were" rescued and people did come for you!
> 
> I remember in SCUBA training we were taught how to rescue drowning people by swimming up behind them at all costs - because a drowning person would, in panic, potentially drown you as well. I have always thought in my mind that if I was a rescuer that I might have to disable a victim to rescue them. I can see the victim not being happy about that, but happy that they are alive. Is this the kind of sentiment I read from your posts, then? I know it's apples and oranges - just trying to think of an analogy...


Would you really like an "analogy"?

Here's one:

You are driving in your car and have a flat tire. You call for assistance.
A large truck shows up and while parking near you, the truck runs OVER your car, with you in it. When you jump out of your car to avoid being crushed, you find yourself in the middle of the highway, and have to dodge the speeding cars to avoid being killed.

While this deadly game of dodge is going on, the truck driver takes pictures.

Eventually you manage to make it to the side of the road, and get into the truck.

Your car is totalled, and only by the grace of God are you still alive.

So, upon entering the truck, do you thank the truck driver from the bottom of your heart?

Does that about sum up what we experienced? Yes it does. Granted we had more than a flat tire.... should I have made that a blown motor? Would that make any real difference to this story?

There is your analogy.


----------



## DougSabbag

AdamLein said:


> This was dealt with a little while back.
> 
> There's no law of physics that says a buoyant object must remain on the surface of the water. Heavy waves push floating objects under, and they can take a while to get back to the surface.
> 
> Earlier I mentioned a book I recently read, _Overboard!_ by (I think) Michael Tougias, which describes a very similar situation of a man overboard who vomits seawater a few times prior to rescue. Doesn't mention that he did it to stay afloat, of course, which I'm skeptical about. But I'm sure that a person who ingested enough seawater would vomit it; it's up to them what explanation they come up with as to why they did that.


".... it's up to them what explanation they come up with as to why they did that." !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

How about this: In order to LIVE. We human beings require AIR in our lungs. Try going without that and see how inspired you are to fight for air.

There is my explanation of why I did that.


----------



## DougSabbag

To Landlocked:

Sorry I am a donkey in your eyes. So, move along now.... nothing to see here....... only a simple sailor with people taking shots left and right from a distance. 

Oh, I am also sorry you had such a bad time with your car. Gee, couldn't you just ACCEPT their ineptitude and thank them for nevertheless trying to provide you with a good car?

But no, when "wronged" you kept up the drum beat of "make it right", didn't you?

So, who is the hypocrite now?

What would bother YOU would be if people came back at you with the MM QBing and said you should have bought a BMW instead of the MB. After all your MB BS wouldn't you want to tell that MM QB to FO? 

Can you "relate" a little bit better now? 

No, not yet? OK.... then move along.... nothing to see here.


----------



## DougSabbag

Sorry Landlocked, my most recent post was to Mainsail, not you.


----------



## LandLocked66c

DougSabbag said:


> To Landlocked:
> 
> Sorry I am a donkey in your eyes. So, move along now.... nothing to see here....... only a simple sailor with people taking shots left and right from a distance.


I think you're mistaking me with another post... You got it, nevermind.


----------



## DougSabbag

Well, it is painfully obvious there is no reason for me to return to this site. 

Good bye.

Fair winds.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Well that sucks! Thanks for your input Doug! You don't have to leave man...


----------



## emoney

:batter


----------



## wavedancer38

It was painfully obvious a long, long time ago, Doug. Let's finally put this to rest. Good luck to you!


----------



## Maine Sail

DougSabbag said:


> To Maine Sail:
> 
> Sorry I am a donkey in your eyes.


Seeing as you were responding to me I put Maine Sail in your quote not Landlocked.

Doug,

Please read what I wrote. I did NOT call YOU a donkey I said you are making yourself LOOK "like" a "bit" like one. This means your writings and how you've written them are making you look bad. You've really disintegrated in this thread.. Maybe that is how you mean for your writings to come off, but I suspect not because you seem to care what people think.

This absolutely does not mean YOU are a donkey just that what you write may not be translating as you want it to. If it is how you want it to sound, then I am sorry for that...

What this means is that you could address how you write stuff and perhaps proof read before you hit "send" so as not to look so bad, come off as mean spirited or insulting. That entire post was meant as constructive criticism, not a personal attack. If you read it otherwise, I apologize and I'll gladly own that. My writings do not always translate as I would like them to either.



DougSabbag said:


> So, move along now.... nothing to see here....... *only a simple sailor with people taking shots left and right from a distance.*


Just like the simple merchant marines who SAVED YOUR LIFE taking pot shots from a distance... 



DougSabbag said:


> Oh, I am also sorry you had such a bad time with your car. Gee, couldn't you just ACCEPT their ineptitude and thank them for nevertheless trying to provide you with a good car?


Despite being frustrated that a 65K car could not be fixed I did thank my dealer as they tried very hard to fix the car. Actually bought the mechanic who spent the most time on it, replacing parts at MB requests, a gift cert to a local restaurant.



DougSabbag said:


> But no, when "wronged" you kept up the drum beat of "make it right", didn't you?


Let's see I actually PAID for my car, and the warranty, and live in a state with laws to protect me against lemons. I simply followed what the law and the warranty I PAID for allowed me to do..

Sadly I can't see any relevance for the comparison you're trying to make..? I was responding to you statement and assertion that everyone would give their "left nut" to own a MB. I was not and did not make a comparison to your rescue and our MB. But seeing as you brought it up...

As far as I know you apparently did NOT pay $$$ for your rescue, it in-fact cost the ship owners money to diverge for 5 hours and rescue you WHICH WAS 100% SUCCESSFUL and you are 100% STILL ALIVE.

Your problem was fixed, ours NEVER was. You AND your wife are ALIVE, in a few hours, by VOLUNTEERS who's job this is NOT. Our problem was NEVER FIXED even after six straight months by PROFESSIONALS and the MANUFACTURER who make this their sole profession... Hardly ANY similarities.

You were rescued by people offering goodwill and doing something that is NOT part of their everyday normal duties. My friend Bill ran an oil tanker for over 25 years and never once had to perform an at sea rescue. While they had training it it I would guess that they performed the duties they do daily, like my dealer and MB fixing cars, better than they would perform a rescue. My MB tech rep would probably have the same real life experience, in an at sea rescue, as perhaps 85% of the merchant mariners out there do.



DougSabbag said:


> So, who is the hypocrite now?


Yep let me check...Audience? :laugher



DougSabbag said:


> *What would bother YOU* would be if people came back at you with the MM QBing and said you should have bought a BMW instead of the MB.


Oh great more ASSUMPTIONS about how I would have felt or done things.. Once again you're doing EXACTLY what you accuse others in this thread of doing. Actually your assertion might have fit better if it were Honda or Toyota products cause our BMW's (multiple) were also not very well built..



DougSabbag said:


> After all your MB BS wouldn't you want to tell that MM QB to FO?


Nope I absolutely would not, and more importantly, DID NOT. Every friend with a Japanese brand, whom had previously owned an MB, warned me and then QB'd me after the fact. I could only laugh at myself in self deprecation and agree with them. They were, after all, right and I was the idiot so why would I tell them to FO unless I was a complete.....fill in the blank.................

I knew going into that car that it was a DUMB idea. I had read all the reliability ratings about how bad those cars were. I still made the choice because my wife loved the car, it was under warranty, and she had just had a great year with her business.. A little "granite" for my wife never hurt anyone....



DougSabbag said:


> Can you "relate" a little bit better now?


No, because you've proven my point, and that in and of itself is very sad.... 

Like you've been doing since you started with the name calling & bullying you are making ASSUMPTIONS about things other people would choose or do which DO NOT apply to them and only back up the post I wrote about your current behavior in this thread. Sad really..



DougSabbag said:


> No, not yet? OK.... then move along.... nothing to see here.


Nothing to see here except that when folks support you AS I HAVE DONE IN THIS THREAD you are their best friend and they are as right as apple pie in the fall. The minute someone tries to give you a little constructive criticism, so you may choose to examine your writings a little more closely, you act a bit like a school kid who picks up his toys and stomps out of the sand box when things don't go entirely his way. That's just how I see it, sorry if you disagree.



DougSabbag said:


> *To Maine Sail*, Svhylyte, chef2sail, smackdaddy, and those others who have dealt with Chrisncate so eloquently:
> 
> *Thank you.*
> 
> *Again, THANK YOU ALL for being humans with some understanding*, instead of piling on with those who enjoy finding the cracks and making them into ravines.
> 
> Can't wait to join you folks amongst the waves, again, ASAP.


My how quickly you turn on your friends...


----------



## JonEisberg

CapnBilll said:


> Any disaster is a chain of mistakes building to the final conclusion. But this is something else you can take to the bank.
> 
> "The first priority of any rescuer is to NOT make the situation worse".


Most certainly, no argument there...

To that I would simply add, "And, it is incumbent upon those being rescued, to make every reasonable effort to assist in lessening the probability of that happening..."

_If_ the account of the KIM JACOB's crewmember is accurate, it seems that the reluctance to cast off the sea anchor somewhat limited the KJ's options, and turned the operation into a considerably more "delicate" maneuver than it may have needed to be...

And, to further flog this dead horse with a repetition of what has already been mentioned, with simply a bit of quick work with a knife, the KIM JACOB's "destruction" of the TRIUMPH could likely have been avoided...

Please understand, I'm not claiming that I might have been any quicker to react in such a situation... I fully understand the sort of "I can't believe this is happening" paralysis that can prevent a swift or proper response to being drawn by a towline towards the bow of a 900' ship, and I have a hard time imagining the sort of terror one could feel in such a situation...

I also appreciate how the presence of a loved one aboard in such a situation can dramatically alter or cloud your thought processes... In such a situation, I would GREATLY prefer to be singlehanding. I really have a hard time relaxing on an offshore passage with my girlfriend aboard, the sense of responsibility is overwhelming to me, and is one of the reasons I prefer to make passages alone...

Doug made a very valid observation earlier, that they had no prior _training_ for this sort of transfer... Very few of us do, of course, we'd all be flying blind/making it up as we go along in such a situation... In the video posted earlier of the CG helo rescue from that Deerfoot, it's even a bit surprising how much _improvising_ the CG crew had to do at the time...

That's the value of these sort of discussions, it seems to me, to debate possible options, review the different scenarios, in the event any of us should ever find ourselves in similar straits, and having to make decisions under such extreme duress... That's why I try to stress the importance of certain _routines_ at sea, where certain seamanlike procedures should become second nature... Like checking the bilges once an hour, for example... Or, reminding oneself that one should never, _ever_ hook up to a towline, or the equivalent thereof, without having a knife at the ready, and being prepared to cut yourself free at the first hint of trouble...


----------



## LandLocked66c

Truly EPIC thread! Great information and great dialogue, I would've liked to see it end differently...


----------



## JonEisberg

LandLocked66c said:


> Truly EPIC thread! Great information and great dialogue, I would've liked to see it end differently...


Somehow, I'm getting the feeling the great Yogi's dictum applies to this one:

"It ain't over, 'till it's over..." (grin)


----------



## lancelot9898

JonEisberg said:


> ... Or, reminding oneself that one should never, _ever_ hook up to a towline, or the equivalent thereof, without having a knife at the ready, and being prepared to cut yourself free at the first hint of trouble...


Ditto that Jon.

One other comment about the car analogy. Suppose I come upon an accident and see someone trapped in the car with gas fumes and smoking engine. I assume it's going to go up at any minute and I pull the poor fellow out of the car. However as we await for others to arrive on the scence the car does not catch fire and I'm told that I did wrong by pulling the guy out. He ends up paralized for life and since I have deep pockets I'm hauled into court and have to defend myself. I just don't want merchant ships to feel hestitate about coming to help a fellow mariner.


----------



## casey1999

lancelot9898 said:


> Ditto that Jon.
> 
> One other comment about the car analogy. Suppose I come upon an accident and see someone trapped in the car with gas fumes and smoking engine. I assume it's going to go up at any minute and I pull the poor fellow out of the car. However as we await for others to arrive on the scence the car does not catch fire and I'm told that I did wrong by pulling the guy out. He ends up paralized for life and since I have deep pockets I'm hauled into court and have to defend myself. I just don't want merchant ships to feel hestitate about coming to help a fellow mariner.


I have also read of quite a few situations where there is a car along side the multi-lane highway with a flat tire. A man comes along to help. While changing the tire the man is hit by a passing car and killed. In many cases the man leaves a wife and some kids behind.

Here is one example:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/fatal-crash-man-changing-tire.html

Just google this to find many many more examples:
man killed while helping diabled vehichle

If you do want to help someone, or you are broken down, call the police, they will have a car with lights on parked behind you while you are working on the car, or waiting to get it towed, so that no one gets run over. I have done this many times and the police are more than willing to do it.


----------



## casey1999

Maine Sail said:


> I knew going into that car that it was a DUMB idea. I had read all the reliability ratings about how bad those cars were. I still made the choice because my wife loved the car, it was under warranty, and she had just had a great year with her business.. A little "granite" for my wife never hurt anyone....


Seems as in your case and the Triumph, it is our wives who are making us make the mistakes.

This was from Doug, many post ago:
"Well, my First Mate / Mrs. Sabbag, basically threw in the towel at that development. And I couldn't (though I should have in retrospect) overcome her insistence on abandoning the vessel."

From now on, I'm not listening to my wife, nor pay attention to her complaints about how much time and money I spend on my boat!


----------



## LandLocked66c

casey1999 said:


> From now on, I'm not listening to my wife, nor pay attention to her complaints about how much time and money I spend on my boat!


LOL, good luck with that! :laugher


----------



## smackdaddy

Just4You said:


> So here is another side of the Triumph's story from the eyes of officer being part of the bridge team on Kim during rescue of sailboat crew. Run on this post recently (couple of days ago) and decided on my own to post my story here for purpose of sharing true story with you without any benefits for me and please note that after this I will not be answering questions but will leave to Triumph's Captain to do so.
> 
> Early morning on 27th we received distress call stating that sailing boat is disabled and taking in the water in near proximity of our track. Master altered course toward distress position and contacted Boston RCC immediately. We reached Triumph some 5 hrs after the distress had been received. Meanwhile all our crew and equipment available was ready on main deck. Crew of the Triumph asked from us to pick them up. After info exchange we rounded Triumph which was laying on her sea anchor.
> 
> After rounding her Master requested from them to cut off their sea anchor line in order to approach to Triumph leaving it on lee side but they refused to do so worried that without it their drift rate will increase. Than Master ask them to shorten sea anchor line as much as possible but due to lack of their winch power were not able to do that. Finally it was agreed between Master and Triumhp's Captain to make approach with sea anchor line as it is and once come closer he will cut it off.
> 
> We approach and were making no headway (Master used kicks just to maintain heading) once close to sailboat but Triump's Captain failed to cut sea anchor line and due to contact with our vessel suffered damage main mast and fwd part of deck. Deck crew passed to them strong messenger line and lady secured her self jumping into water afterwards. Crew pulled her close to ship's side and than two crew members were lowered down to the water level in transfer basket and picked up her on deck. Meanwhile second team passed another line (small diameter line called heaving line with big ball in the end used for throwing on longer distances with bigger diameter line connected on the end) but instead pulling her on board Triump's Captain tried to secure it for his railing and line broke. Than we Master decided to abort and make new approach advising Captain of the Triumph his wife is on board and healthy and we need to make new approach requesting from him to forget on his belongings and prepare for transfer.
> 
> In second approach we made good lee again and fired our line throwing apparatuses (rocket propelled lines making strong noise) from main deck and the bridge. Due to very strong wind we missed two but other two ended over Triumph deck. Captain of the sailboat tried to pull one of those but it was trapped on sailboat deck and around broken mast which was hanging over sailboat side. As the sailboat start drifting-off Master decided to approach again as the sea was very rough with strong winds.
> 
> We approached again leaving sailboat on our lee side and managed to pass strong messenger to Captain of the sailboat who secured him self and jumped into water over the one of the lines fired to him in previous attempt which was floating and still being trapped to sailboat. Additionally he managed to grab lifebuoy which crew passed to him but than noticed that one of the bag he was carrying on his back had trapped for this small line and started pulling him with drifting boat. He let go our line and lifebuoy remaining connected to drifting sailboat. He drifted away and my Master ordered for extra lookout to be posted on fwd and aft main masts who later were advising him of the position of the man in the water. Captain of the Triumph managed to pull himself back to boat and hold for hanging sail.
> 
> We were maneuvering to approach again and when we were close noticed that he started to drift off the boat. Later was apparent that he is no longer connected to Triumph and than Master ordered additional lookout to be posted on the highest decks (we had about 5-6 crewmember on the top apart of us below) trying to keep insight man in the water. Due to high seas it was moments when we couldn't locate him (loosing him between waves). Approach was hard due to strong current, waves and limited maneuverability of our vessel and Master managed to bring vessel leaving Captain of the Triumph very close on lee side amidship. Than he grabbed one of the lifebuoys with line which we developed from our deck prior final approach. Than again Bosun was lowered down to the water secured in our transfer basked and picked up Captain of the Triumph.
> 
> When he was on deck in shock and suffering mild hyperemia officers and crew covered him with the blankets and take him in the hospital using stretchers. In the hospital prior placing him in hot bath we removed his cloth in order to check if he had suffer any visible injuries as he was in the shock and not able to give us proper answers on our questions.
> 
> For not deploying lifeboats as mate I don't want to comment decision of my Master but for sure I personally would not enter and go down in those orange lifeboats even if he ordered me to do, which luckily he didn't.
> 
> Above is only comment on all posted by captain of the sailboat and no other will be from my side. Wish him and his wife happy and healthy life.
> 
> For other here just story to think about and learn from it but using your own heads.


Just back from my race and thought I'd get caught up. Great to see yet another side of the story.

This is one of the best threads ever...anywhere. And it is so precisely because of the brave involvement by the dude who was actually there...*AND* its point/counter-point nature.

As is probably clear by now, I've never been a fan of anyone trying to make any discussion limited and one-sided. Though I don't agree with every one of them, I like Jon's, Maine's, and Just4's (and others) viewpoint and opinions. They create balance.

On the other hand, Doug, I totally understand your frustration at being "second guessed" at every turn after everything you've gone through and especially after laying it all out in public...mistakes and all. But, to Maine's point above, the general leeway given due to the compassion for your loss and the incredibly difficult time you guys went through doesn't suddenly create license for you to threaten those who have other opinions...and try to stifle their comments...regardless of whether "they were there". As was pointed out, you too have seriously MMQB'd the KJ's master and crew. And you were in the water...not on that bridge.

On yet the third hand, threats and abuse aside, I see no need for Doug to have to sugar coat his writings or feelings just to be "perceived" a certain way. At least he's saying what he means.

So, the bottom line is that there is ALWAYS plenty of "hypocrisy" to go around on any forum discussion out there. Everyone has their ideas and their egos. And no one owns the absolute truth. So you just have to roll with that.

Doug's willingness to come here and talk about this is one of the most valuable things a forum could ask for.

This thread has almost 43K views....not just because of the event in the title, but because of the valuable debate...and the various views on that event and the scenarios (hypothetical or not) surrounding each thing that happened and each decision that was made.

Neverknow nailed it: Everyone has an a-hole. A typical forum is just blessed with a whole bunch of them.


----------



## Maine Sail

casey1999 said:


> Seems as in your case and the Triumph, it is our wives who are making us make the mistakes.


But I don't consider that a "mistake" just one of lifes learning examples. Like in the 80's when GM turned a gas engine into a diesel then every one failed and they did not stand behind the product. In the nearly 30 years since NO ONE in my family has owned, or will ever own, a GM car.. Lesson learned...



casey1999 said:


> This was from Doug, many post ago:
> "Well, my First Mate / Mrs. Sabbag, basically threw in the towel at that development. And I couldn't (though I should have in retrospect) overcome her insistence on abandoning the vessel."
> 
> From now on, I'm not listening to my wife, nor pay attention to her complaints about how much time and money I spend on my boat!


Except in our case it was not a life or death situation. If it was I would not have purchased that car but seeing as it was nothing more than granite, lesson learned...


----------



## LandLocked66c

So about JonE's ambiguously gay Boat? I wonder if a salty Captain could find it in his heart to lend help if JonE needed it? On the other hand, Jon could just hoist some bikini's from the shrouds to expedite the process, although may be keel hauled after the angry Captain discovers the deception... Your thoughts?


----------



## steel

What happened to the pictures that the crew of the tanker were taking of him floating in water for 3 hours instead of coming down to rescue him?


----------



## Maine Sail

smackdaddy said:


> On yet the third hand, threats and abuse aside, I see no need for Doug to have to sugar coat his writings or feelings just to be "perceived" a certain way. At least he's saying what he means.


I don't think anyone asked Doug to "sugar coat it" but telling other members to FO, multiple times, and threatening others with bare fist is a little over the top. I have seen nothing in this thread that should warrant even a "FO" let alone a threat of a pummeling. I question whether Doug really meant those things or not. I suspect he did not mean them, but I've been wrong before.. In my opinion ,having been here for about 8 years, this thread has been quite civil. It is good discussion whether Doug likes what has been said or not. That's why they call them "discussion forums"..


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine Sail said:


> I don't think anyone asked Doug to "sugar coat it" but telling other members to FO, multiple times, and threatening others with bare fist is a little over the top. I have seen nothing in this thread that should warrant even a "FO" let alone a threat of a pummeling. I question whether Doug really meant those things or not. I suspect he did not mean them, but I've been wrong before.. In my opinion ,having been here for about 8 years, this thread has been quite civil. It is good discussion whether Doug likes what has been said or not. That's why they call them "discussion forums"..


Agreed.

I've only been here for 3 years or so - and I totally agree that this thread has been far more civil than those I've seen in the past where the local blowhard posse became so overwhelming that it almost seemed like a game of "crush the newb". It was ridiculous back then.

The fact that Doug has stayed around for this long in the face of a good deal of criticism (some right, some wrong) from many corners is a testament to that "enhanced civility" AND to his willingness to punch back when punched without being needlessly banned. That's a great stride forward.

The thing you have to remember is that in this situation it is Doug "against" an entire forum of anonymous posters. Many of the latter have been around the forum game a while, know the writing styles of each other, etc. It's inevitable that the critique is going to be heavy handed and hypocritical at times - and, in response, the defense against that relentless drip is going to be equally intense from that singular target.

I agree with you that Doug overreacted on some of this stuff. But I also understand his frustration at having his every move and decision during one of the most harrowing times of his life dissected and critiqued relentlessly by all us smug, anonymous typists.

As I said, I like both sides of the coin - point and counterpoint. And I'd personally pay good money to see the Doug vs. Jon Battle Royale. I hear Jon's spinnaker-inspired wrestling tights are pretty fabulous.


----------



## emoney

I think that most of the "MMQB" as it was so put, was a simple reaction to what was perceived as a slight towards the shipping boat that came to the rescue. Long gone are the days that when someone shared just one side of any story, and it was probably a little naive to think there wouldn't be detractors even in this particular event. For instance, it was never discussed if not cutting the sea anchor ultimately led to the destruction of the Triumph, but rather the blame solely heaped on rescuers for it's demise. And, when someone mentioned their distaste for granite on a sailboat, that became a "I'm richer than you are, so you can't be right" issue, which is a simple fallacy on every side because last I checked, no one was required to file financials to be a signed in member here. I appreciate your contributions, Smackdaddy, and I'm doing everything in my power to not take sides in this drama, however, this is one time that I have to disagree when you speak of the "bravery in sharing your story" involved with logging in and sharing a very skewed side of a multifaceted event. The way it's been revealed, regardless of the initial intent, show's no sign of bravery, but better defined as almost cowardice in that others were derided without an opportunity for defense. In the very beginning of this revelation, I mentioned to someone that Doug had moved into a "glass house", because it was easily identifiable what direction this thread would ultimately take, and it did. If you live in a glass house, it's hard to complain of peeping toms, don't you think? This thread could've easily ended a large number of pages ago, had it been about learning and even the retelling. Could you imagine what would've happened, had the initial responses been something along the line of, "You know, I'm thankful my wife and I were rescued, although heartbroken over the loss of our boat. I wish I would've done "x", but alas, i didn't, and have the memories and scars as proof. But still, the fact that I'm here discussing it proves that while I lost a few battles, I ultimately won the war and I'm eternally grateful to my rescuers." Had that taken place, and now maybe it's me being naive, but I believe enough in those that have gotten derided in this thread to think that their responses would've been quite a bit different, if nothing else, in tone.


----------



## LandLocked66c

emoney said:


> This thread could've easily ended a large number of pages ago, had it been about learning and even the retelling. Could you imagine what would've happened, had the initial responses been something along the line of, "You know, I'm thankful my wife and I were rescued, although heartbroken over the loss of our boat. I wish I would've done "x", but alas, i didn't, and have the memories and scars as proof. But still, the fact that I'm here discussing it proves that while I lost a few battles, I ultimately won the war and I'm eternally grateful to my rescuers." Had that taken place, and now maybe it's me being naive, but I believe enough in those that have gotten derided in this thread to think that their responses would've been quite a bit different, if nothing else, in tone.


Yes, exactly... He seemed very angry at his rescuers??? That's strange to me...


----------



## smackdaddy

emoney said:


> I appreciate your contributions, Smackdaddy, and I'm doing everything in my power to not take sides in this drama, however, this is one time that I have to disagree when you speak of the "bravery in sharing your story" involved with logging in and sharing a very skewed side of a multifaceted event. The way it's been revealed, regardless of the initial intent, show's no sign of bravery, but better defined as almost cowardice in that others were derided without an opportunity for defense. In the very beginning of this revelation, I mentioned to someone that Doug had moved into a "glass house", because it was easily identifiable what direction this thread would ultimately take, and it did. If you live in a glass house, it's hard to complain of peeping toms, don't you think? This thread could've easily ended a large number of pages ago, had it been about learning and even the retelling. Could you imagine what would've happened, had the initial responses been something along the line of, "You know, I'm thankful my wife and I were rescued, although heartbroken over the loss of our boat. I wish I would've done "x", but alas, i didn't, and have the memories and scars as proof. But still, the fact that I'm here discussing it proves that while I lost a few battles, I ultimately won the war and I'm eternally grateful to my rescuers." Had that taken place, and now maybe it's me being naive, but I believe enough in those that have gotten derided in this thread to think that their responses would've been quite a bit different, if nothing else, in tone.


I think you hit it on the nose. I say Doug is brave purely because he admitted his mistakes here. I tend to overreact on this front because so often in forums mistakes are treated as "stupidity". There's always an undertone, implied or not, that "you screwed up because you were an idiot". This is especially true in the event of a rescue. So, in light of that, I still think Doug has been pretty damn brave...yet still not justified in many of his comments as you say.

That's why I like threads like CharlieC's "Bonehead" thread...and even the BFS thread. We all get caught and make mistakes. We all want to learn from them...so we can be less "stupid" next time. But we all hate having them pointed out - especially if the pointers are not willing to admit their stupidities too.


----------



## imagine2frolic

This is why they have the colored tape at the door of 7/11. Everybody sees it differently! Maybe this should turn into AS THE PROPELLER TURNS?.......*i2f*


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
Did the Coast Guard interview the Capt of Kim Jacob? If so, is the interview public information (is copy available)?

You stated the Coast Guard interviewed you for I think 8 hours. Did the coast guard have any recommendation of how the rescue should have been done? 

I thought it was interesting the other post in this thread of the solo sailor being rescued by the cruise ship. In that situation they lowered the life boat, but then also came along side the sail boat and also demasted it. I did not quite understand why they came along side when they had the life boat in the water. In any event, the cruise ship rescue crew seemed very well trained and professional.


----------



## MikeWhy

Interesting... Don't the big ships often pick up/drop off pilots as they enter/leave harbor? Surely that operation is rehearsed to perfection, or at least passing competence.


----------



## neverknow

MikeWhy said:


> Interesting... Don't the big ships often pick up/drop off pilots as they enter/leave harbor? Surely that operation is rehearsed to perfection, or at least passing competence.


Pilots are picked up while underway and the pilot boat powers along side. It would be different in the open ocean where the other boat can not get underway.

In the Navy we often transferred fuel and other supplies while doing 15kts.


----------



## casey1999

MikeWhy said:


> Interesting... Don't the big ships often pick up/drop off pilots as they enter/leave harbor? Surely that operation is rehearsed to perfection, or at least passing competence.


They do. Sometimes they use helicopters. I rode one out in Wellington NZ once as they took and lowered the bay pilot onto a container ship. Ship was moving at about 15 knots and they lowered the pilot down between containers onto a deck. Makes it easier if ship is moving actually.

Also, pilot boats are used. Sometimes ship is moving and pilot climbs from pilot boat up a ladder to the ship to be piloted. Again in rough seas, it can be easier if ship is moving.

Pilot transfer is a whole nother ball game because the conditions are controlled and both parties know what actions are required.


----------



## Dean101

DougSabbag said:


> There were 24 men onboard the KJ. They had a lot of equipment. They had daylight to work in. It wasn't raining. It wasn't really all that bad of a day. Yes, we had 8 - 10 foot seas and 15 - 20 knot winds, but there were 2 dozen marine professionals onboard a 900 foot tanker, with tons of lines, things which float, rescue lifeboats, and then there was 1 man in the water.
> 
> If you completely disregard the fact that they would not utilize their resources to effect a rescue of that 1 man from the water, because they DID respond to the AMVER call in the first place, well, all I can say is that it is easy for YOU to so blithly come to that conclusion.
> 
> But, as that 1 man in the water, for hours, looking up at a deck with rescue boats, and 2 dozen men all nice and dry and alive, looking back down at me, I can neither forget the feeling received LOUD and CLEAR, that I was not worth getting wet to save; or that they really couldn't think their way out of a paper bag if they expect me to believe that they couldn't come up with SOMETHING to do to get me.
> 
> And yet, I would do everything possible to get anyone of them, as hard and as fast as I could possibly move to do it. I would throw more floating things toward that person. I would deploy the lifeboat. I would organize a group to go overboard with life preservers / flotation devices / air mattresses.... whatever would keep all of us floating, and lots of rope to get this person. If going overboard to rescue someone, we could attach a rope to ourselves, via a harness, while possibly wearing a wet suit, and flippers, with that rope attached to the KJ, so that there would be no possibility of becoming seperated from the boat yourself.
> 
> I could absolutely not watch a human being sinking and then fighting back to the surface for HOURS, in daylight, just a hundred feet from our vessel without acting as though a life depended upon acting real seriously, right now, with every tool and device onboard to get them out of the water.
> 
> Before telling me to calm down and just thank them, ask yourself how would you feel if you received their limited rescue effort, relying upon your own diminishing strength to reach a bouy.
> 
> Perhaps it is my American upbringing which places such a high value on the human life. My upbringing tells me every one of us are worth more than whatever equipment might be "lost" if that equipment would save our lives.
> 
> I was in the US Army. And within that organization, we would do whatever it took to retrieve one of us from harms way. Granted there are aberrations, i.e., "friendly fire", but that is either a true mistake, or conceptually _earned_. The 24 men of the KJ had never met me so they could not possibly have anything against me.... or could they?
> 
> Was there something about what they did know or see which inspired them to watch me flounder for 3 hours without putting themselves "out there" to get this guy?
> I don't think I will ever know that answer. Especially perplexing because even if I didn't "like" somebody, I would forget that while moving heaven and earth to retrieve them.
> 
> So, the laxadasical effort to retrieve me is quite perplexing to me. 24 men mostly just watched. I wonder if they were making any bets about the outcome of the dude in the water?
> 
> You would think, considering the many hard times I have experienced in my life... there was a time I lived in hallways, and ate out of garbage cans, ( a long long time ago), after my father died, and my alcoholic mother abandoned me at 15, that I experienced "coldness" and being stabbed in the back, by even my own mother, BUT, even after that early wake up call, I am still apparently naive enough(?) to be amazed and perplexed that people would do so little to save another person dying right in front of them, so slowly.
> 
> Pardon me for not getting that, or understanding that, and especially not being thankful "enough" per some peoples' advice. But this is completely alien to me to be able to just watch a man drown, for 3 hours.
> 
> Nevertheless, and this must be a tribute to my good manners, I AM thankful that they did what they did, which as it turned out was enough that I AM alive.
> 
> Thank you Kim Jacob. Thank you.
> 
> But, if that crew member / officer "Just4you" would like to try to explain to me how they could do so little for the man they saw floundering, for so long, I would be more than a little curious to hear what he could say about that. And Just4you, please imagine that it was YOU in that water, and then tell me what you would like to see the other 23 sailors doing to get you......


Doug,

When I first purchased my boat, a 32' Endeavour, I practiced making approaches by throwing a fender overboard and attempted to stop with the fender just beside me and within arms reach of the beam. My boat was 32', the fender about 2', on a calm lake in a light breeze. As difficult as it was the first few times to stop where I wished, I can only imagine the difficulty in approaching a 54' target with a 900' ship in 8' to 10' seas and 15 to 20 knot winds. Especially doing so with the knowledge that if I screw up I could potentially kill 2 people.

Yes, they responded to your call. Yes, they got close enough to attempt a rescue. Close enough to not only destroy your boat but to throw lines and bouys to you. Maybe things could have or should have happenned differently but they didn't. At least you and your wife are here to write about it. I've followed this thread hoping to learn from it. You have given me plenty of things to consider and learn from and so have other posters. But the statements you made that are quoted above draws the line for me.

Those 24 marine professionals you mentioned are just that, marine professionals. Probably experienced seamen with many a nautical mile behind them. But they are not professional rescue responders. In hindsight, maybe they could have done more, but what? You can't expect any one of them to do something they are not trained for.

There is a reason that Coast Guard rescue swimmers are pushed beyond what you can imagine when they go through their training. Their knowledge of rescue procedures must become habit and their endurance must go beyond what any seaman will ever have to endure. I know this first hand because I spent 10 years as a Naval air rescue swimmer. Things never go as planned on the scene. Conditions, shock, stress, they combine to create a very uncontrolled and fluid environment.

To put untrained men in the water under the conditions you have described, even if they had lifevests and were tied off to a line connected to the ship would have accomplished very little other than to have several people to worry about and recover rather than one. I seriously doubt the KJ had ANYONE aboard that would have been an effective resource in that capacity that day.

You said you had an inadequate life vest on, have been sailing since you were a kid, and undoubtably have many an ocean mile under your belt. I can only assume you to be a good to excellent swimmer and yet you almost drowned. Surely you wouldn't expect any of those men to be any better at swimming than you? You have first hand knowledge of how difficult it is to keep yourself afloat in a high sea state as well as a high stress environment. You probably have no idea how difficult and exhausting it is to tend not only to yourself but to pull another out of that same environment.

This thread has steadily become more about you, your perspective, and your side of the story and much less about sharing a traumatic event so others may learn from it. You seem to take offense where none is intended. It is not my intention to take away from what you experienced, defend or attack any party involved, or pretend to know every little detail of what happenned that day. But Doug, if you would look back at the tone your posts had when you first started relating your story compared to the tone they take now, you will understand why I will not be following this thread to it's conclusion. Some of the things you have insinuated just in this post alone are way over the edge. If you can't see that then I feel you have a long road ahead to a full recovery from this event.

Good luck and fair well.


----------



## DougSabbag

Addendum.

It was AFTER I discussed the existence of the sea anchor with the KJ Captain that he repeatedly stated they would get us smoothly, though it might take a while.

His plan to address the sea anchor included the use of a grappling hook to snag it, thereby providing them with a line to the Triumph. NOT to cut the sea anchor and let the Triumph drift, but to secure the Triumph in the area of the KJ's STERN.

When that plan failed in their first pass, I was never informed of what his new plan was, (if it changed at all), besides just repeating the grappling hook method of snagging the sea anchor. It wasn't until we were very quickly (within perhaps 1 minute?) drawn to their starboard side, and then within another minute or less, that the smashing began.

The often repeated concept that has begun to acquire erroneous traction on this thread, is that I should have cut the sea anchor rode. Not to say that that isn't true, however that is a concept which was NOT foreseen as a goal in time to accomplish, because who ever went to the bow area of the Triumph to cut the line, by the time it was realized as a BIG problem, would have been squished like a bug.

ONLY in HINDSIGHT, was cutting that line the thing to do... but not at the time this was becoming the thing that SHOULD have been done. Factor that in.

From what the Captain said, later, he had no idea that what happened would happen.
Neither did I.

I do not fault him for that. But, I can not applaud that either. It was a mistake, like the many which I did, the largest of which was calling them at all.

As to the poster who asked where the pictures are which the crew shot while I was floundering around for 3 hours, in my disgust with this crew of MM QBs, who are now congratulating themselves on how civil they are, I deleted my "album" on this site, which included only a few of the MANY which the KJ provided to us upon our departure in Canada.

Sadly, nobody has reacted to the picture which was within that album, of me beneath the surface, with only an arrow added with MS Paint, showing the assumed area I was below.

Many pictures were shot while I was drowning. But, nobody gives a damn. Except me apparently. When it is you drowning, lets see how you feel about the pictures, as opposed to the rescue life boats being left unused. I had over 3 hours to dwell on that ugly reality, while screaming to the crew to save me, help me, come and get me, all for naught.
Click, click, click, intead of deploy, lower, save.

As far as discussions on the errors, and how to avoid them, being valuable, I agree they can be. But they quickly become useless when they are based upon false facts, surmised by smugness within ones' own surety of their own infallibility. 

When the rescuer is telling you to sit back and they will rescue you, you might do as you are told. They are "in charge" at that time. It was only after their efforts had become painfully deadly and destructive that I / we learned to disregard their suddenly silent "plans".
However, as I have previously mentioned, I did not have a plan B, or C, or D. All I had was a lot of water in my body, and I was sinking, and nobody was coming to get me.

So, as you gentlemen (if you still do) discuss this catastrophe, don't forget the steps in the order they happened. We were told to accept their methods of rescue; they attempted once, then tried again, and in a BRIEF amount of time, that second attempt went wrong, very very wrong, without enough time to have cut the line causing the destruction without being killed most violently, for SURE.

The CG were completely in agreement that what the KJ did was from a lack of training and knowledge. But, as the officers shared, their hands are tied to really do anything about it because on the one hand, the CG is not ready to start AMVER training classes, and they also do not want to lose AMVER members. Anything is better than nothing. Even if there are some deaths along the way.... 

We thanked the KJ crew profusely; and we did not agree with the lawyer to initiate a case which he was more than willing to do on a contingent basis.

But, their lack of training, or even basic logic at sea, smashed a 50 footer with the people onboard, then allowed a man to flounder in the ocean for over 3 hours. THAT was what the CG was most freaking out about. They were tripping over that, (and from my point of view appropriately), because there really are and were many things 24 men could do in broad daylight to get the guy out of the water, which they chose not to do.

If that poster, Just4you, was from the KJ, he even stated that he would not get into the rescue life boat even if he was ordered to. WHY NOT? Sure, everyone has the option to get involved or not, but from the drowning persons' point of view, opting not to, is not worthy of either applause or thanks. As to the concept that they would have been in harms way to attempt to save me, of course they would, but if you are ever faced with saving someone or not, I really hope, as will the drowning person, that you choose to try. That is the HUMAN thing to do. And as I have stated a hundred times, I WOULD TRY, for anyone.

So, now you can take turns critiqing my attitude, and or my telling people who are so full of themselves that they inspire me to tell them to FO. You've ALL run aground. You've ALL had to climb the mast to retrieve a halyard. And perhaps each of you might, if only to yourselves, remember the previous errors each of you have done. This is proof that you are human too, and with that reality, you might have also followed the same path I did. I have been sailing for over 50 years without any prior loss of vessel(s). So, either I suddenly became an idiot, or this could happen to you too.

Does anyone know how I can delete my profile here?


----------



## davidpm

smackdaddy said:


> It's another thing entirely to make that call when you're looking your miserable, frightened, angry loved ones in the eye.


I could not imagine!!


----------



## neverknow

Doug if you have your friend delete his original post the whole thread will vanish.


----------



## davidpm

DougSabbag said:


> But, if it is going to be an oil tanker, or any of these freighters per the AMVER program, think again. They won't jump overboard to get you. They won't deploy a lifeboat.


Did you every find out from the captain of the tanker why he did not want to deploy his life boat.


----------



## DougSabbag

"I seriously doubt the KJ had ANYONE aboard that would have been an effective resource in that capacity that day."

Oh really? Just a man with a rope would have been a lot better to see than cameras clicking. "....effective resource..." Buddy, I was drowning. Anyone with the right attitude, i.e., I am going to get that guy in the water, could have been an effective resource.

Do you need a Doctorate in something to retrieve a person from water? 
This isn't rocket science. And the more you people diminish the value of a human beings life by insulating those who would eschew saving a human from water, the more my "attitude" deteriorates.

Those guys had all sorts of equipement to employ to get the drowning man, over the course of 3 hours. The most important one missing, was the humanity to do it.

Following some sort of group mentality that doing nothing was the right thing to do, follows that video you might have seen today of the 2 year old girl who was run over by 2 vans, in China, and the people walking by her didn't try to help her at all. Watch the video; it reminds me of the pictures...........

The more you guys support that inhumanity the more frightening you are; to me, and to anyone near you.

When someone falls overboard from your boat, GET THEM. Don't take pictures and watch them flounder while listening to them scream for help. GET THEM, even if you get wet too.
Even if you are "placing yourself in jeopardy". Get them.

Do not rationalize leaving them to drown. That is so wrong it is sick.

And therefore do not question my attitude as you defend those who just watched.


----------



## DougSabbag

davidpm said:


> Did you every find out from the captain of the tanker why he did not want to deploy his life boat.


Yes. I asked him as they were testing it right in front of my wife and I.

It was marked RESCUE LIFE BOAT because it has a side opening hatch unlike the kind which only open from the top, so that you can pull up to a person and pull them out of the water. They had / HAVE 2 of these on their deck.

He first said that with the height of the waves, ( 8 - 10 footers) they would not have been able to retrieve it with the cables they would deploy it with. To which I replied: Well, instead of trying to retrieve it with those cables, couldn't you bring it around to the stern, and then, (as he had done to attempt to get me), using harnesses and lines, pull us up to the deck; then tie the life boat to a line and TOW it the remaining 2 days to Canada?

Then he answered that they aren't the USCG, they are oil tankers.

That is the conversation we had on their deck, as I was watching them perform a test deployment of their RESCUE LIFE BOAT, which sure would have been a welcome sight to THIS drowning man.

So, if YOU are not a USCG member, does that mean that you likewise don't have to utilize any and all equipment onboard to rescue a drowning person?

Is that really a viable excuse to let them drown?

Not to me it isn't. But, as many are pointing out, I have a bad attitude.


----------



## DougSabbag

Another problem of mine, according to another poster: This has become all about me.

OK, excuse me; I'll just let you talk about me, my attitude, my boat, my actions, my mistakes, my wife, even my personal hell and terror of my life, WITHOUT me. 

Enjoy.


----------



## davidpm

DougSabbag said:


> Not to me it isn't. But, as many are pointing out, I have a bad attitude.


Well I can certainly understand why you are so angry.
The attitude seems very wrong.


----------



## Ninefingers

Methinks we shouldn't feed trolls.


----------



## Minnewaska

Another good issue is being identified here, I would hope the thread is not deleted.

The rescuer, in their sole discretion, decides whether they are comfortable with putting their life at risk to save another. If they do so, they are a hero. If they do not, they are human. Even USCG rescuers maintain this discretion.

The lesson is to be as self sufficient as possible at all times. Proper PFDs, proper life rafts, proper ditch provisions.

Doug, I understand why you were in the water, due in part to the KJ mistake and your own. KJ seems to have increased the danger by snagging the sea anchor. Being hours after the decison to call for rescue and not already having donned a proper PFD or seemingly had the liferaft at the ready was causal too. And, I believe you've indicated that you jumped prematurely. I'm not debating that, you've been very helpful and courageous in pointing these out.

I am pointing out to all that we can not expect a rescuer to risk their life for ours. We can only be grateful if they do.


----------



## Maine Sail

DougSabbag said:


> He first said that with the height of the waves, ( 8 - 10 footers) they would not have been able to retrieve it with the cables they would deploy it with.


Once again Doug you MMQB the KJ and their decisions. They chose not to risk crew life based on the data they had on hand. Wind , waves and skill of the crew in rescue operations apparently all went into his decision.



DougSabbag said:


> To which I replied: Well, instead of trying to retrieve it with those cables, couldn't you bring it around to the stern, and then, (as he had done to attempt to get me), using harnesses and lines, pull us up to the deck; then tie the life boat to a line and TOW it the remaining 2 days to Canada?


To which he could have replied _"Perhaps you could have chosen to inspect your chain plates before crossing an ocean, choose a better life jacket, not jumped pre-maturely, or cut the sea anchor."_ as apparently they asked you to do in the first place.  It goes BOTH ways.... The MMQB stuff that is...



DougSabbag said:


> Then he answered that they aren't the USCG, they are oil tankers.


Bingo! You second guessed him and MMQB him right on his own ship and then he gave you an HONEST answer. Yet you still choose to attack them and MMQB them for SAVING YOUR LIFE and the minute someone makes a mere mention of your poor decisions, which eclipse the KJ's as I have read it, you stomp your feet and tell folks to FO? Nice.....

I am sooo sorry you did not like the MANNER in which your LIFE WAS SAVED, but, after all, IT WORKED and WAS a successful rescue and the mast of the KJ did not lose or put at risk a member of his crew to be successful.



DougSabbag said:


> That is the conversation we had on their deck, as I was watching them perform a test deployment of their RESCUE LIFE BOAT, which sure would have been a welcome sight to THIS drowning man.


I'm sure it would have been a welcome sight but it did not happen for the reasons the master laid out for you, just as lots of stuff you could have done did not. Pot calling the kettle...



DougSabbag said:


> So, if YOU are not a USCG member, does that mean that you likewise don't have to utilize any and all equipment onboard to rescue a drowning person?


The USCG also makes decisions to NOT put their own personnel at risk and they too sometimes choose NOT to continue with an attempted rescue. Also lets not forget these guys are NOT professional rescuers they VOLUNTEER to do this AND they were 100% successful in your case.



DougSabbag said:


> Is that really a viable excuse to let them drown?


You drowned?



DougSabbag said:


> Not to me it isn't. But, as many are pointing out, I have a bad attitude.


Sorry but yes you do have a bad attitude that seems to be only ONE WAY. The KJ and crew were clearly inetp, you've made your point perfectly clear and you'd have done it DIFFERENTLY.

You are free to slam the KJ all day long here yet NO ONE is allowed to even so much as question your motives or perceived mistakes without being told to FO, or being called a MMQB, or threatened with a fist pummeling..

I was one of your biggest supporters in this thread and you've certainly lost me with your tone...

IF it is okay to discuss the KJ's short comings then it should be equally okay to discuss your short comings without being threatened or told to FO...


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> We thanked the KJ crew profusely; and we did not agree with the lawyer to initiate a case which he was more than willing to do on a contingent basis.


If anyone needed evidence that you're a stand-up guy, this is it. I have a great deal of respect for you in making this decision.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> Another good issue is being identified here, I would hope the thread is not deleted.
> 
> The rescuer, in their sole discretion, decides whether they are comfortable with putting their life at risk to save another. If they do so, they are a hero. If they do not, they are human. Even USCG rescuers maintain this discretion.
> 
> The lesson is to be as self sufficient as possible at all times. Proper PFDs, proper life rafts, proper ditch provisions.
> 
> Doug, I understand why you were in the water, due in part to the KJ mistake and your own. KJ seems to have increased the danger by snagging the sea anchor. Being hours after the decison to call for rescue and not already having donned a proper PFD or seemingly had the liferaft at the ready was causal too. And, I believe you've indicated that you jumped prematurely. I'm not debating that, you've been very helpful and courageous in pointing these out.
> 
> I am pointing out to all that we can not expect a rescuer to risk their life for ours. We can only be grateful if they do.


I agree with the basic premise. But I think Doug's broader point is that when they're standing on the deck photographing the impending death - a line is seriously crossed.

I'd be crazy pissed too.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> I do not fault him for that. But, I can not applaud that either.


To Maine's point above - I think that's exactly what you've seen in this thread. I haven't seen anyone "faulting" you for what happened (or calling you an idiot, etc.) - it's just that people want to think it all through with various scenarios and assumptions, just as you're doing with the KJ. You're interpreting of that lack of applause as an attack is not quite accurate.


----------



## emoney

And to add to this, ^, the "fact" that an attorney was willing to take this case on contingency means nothing, as there are attorneys that will sue your grandmother "on contingency" because she didn't put enough marshmallows in your hot cocoa. Now, the question that's not been answered, is how did the conversation about "proceeding with filing a case" even get initiated and from whom? I wonder how the USCG would feel about a vessel that was participating in a rescue operation entirely voluntarily and without significant training was sued over a (in one person's opinion) "botched" rescue where the parties in harm's way both survived? For that matter, I wonder how the several thousand sailors that chose to cross oceans would feel when they found out that no one was out there willing to offer aid, due in main part to the fact that one of their peers recently had to face an American lawsuit over exactly what they would be asked to do?


----------



## smackdaddy

sailingfool said:


> PS From 46 USC 2303
> 
> (c) An individual complying with subsection (a) of this section or gratuitously and in good faith rendering assistance at the scene of a marine casualty *without objection by an individual assisted*, is not liable for damages as a result of rendering assistance or for an act or omission in providing or arranging salvage, towage, medical treatment, or other assistance when the individual acts as an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent individual would have acted under the circumstances.


The bolded is the critical piece. Doug's objections, as he as said above, were not presented at the time of rescue, but after the fact.

In that vein, I think his main intent (at least early on) was to tell us to be far more willing to object to calling for help in the first place because of what can go wrong, or at least be willing to object to what you see as a potentially catastrophic idea during the rescue.



emoney said:


> For that matter, I wonder how the several thousand sailors that chose to cross oceans would feel when they found out that no one was out there willing to offer aid, due in main part to the fact that one of their peers recently had to face an American lawsuit over exactly what they would be asked to do?


And this is precisely why I respect Doug's decision on this matter. He obviously sees the broader picture.


----------



## smackdaddy

sailingfool said:


> That may be obvious to you, but I personally see no evidence of that at all. In fact this entire thread argues the complete opposite.


Maybe you're right. I have no idea what's really in his or anyone else's mind. I'm just saying that his decision to not take legal action indicates a pretty stand-up guy in my book. One that has an appreciation of the bigger picture.

I could be wrong. But that happens so rarely it would be mystifying if true.


----------



## blt2ski

I've only read the last 3 pages, not sure what or why this thread is still going on, other than Doug has threatened to sue......which may fall into the same category as one who knows CPR, attempts to save someone who needs it, the cpr user can not be sued per say for attempting to save the persons life if they lose it, or survive with injuries or something to this effect. 

Reality is, the freighter COULD have left them to there on devices, would they have survived? who know, if not.......does the family sue? if one does, the other does not, do you sue? 

I'm as surprised today as I was the last time I wondered why this thread is still going. Altho over all, what I read, no one is calling others names, so that is good. I guess keep debating. you are now over 850 posts, some were hoping to get to 550.....what is the new goal? a 1000? as I roll my eyes and snicker and head off to work............

I also agree with MS, MB is SHEET vehicles. I've only had one other rig with a worst record for repairs etc. I've also owned 12 of that brand that was worst, the other 11 have been stellar.......


----------



## DougSabbag

To any (sailingfool, Mainsail, etc) who would continue to rationalize, defend, and support, using their SICK inhumanity of you f__ked up, so you DESERVE(?????!!!!) to die, is this your extreme application of tough love or something??

Do that with your own family if you want to, but not with other people in the public. You're not my Daddy so you can't play that sick disgusting trip with me. 

And please, as I have mentioned, even if someone else doesn't check their chain plates before setting out, do WHATEVER you CAN DO to save a human being from drowning, even though your personal lack of humanity is inspiring you to rationalize not.

As far as the dude with the Google / law findings, I would provide the lawyer's number to you so you two can debate, but I wouldn't introduce an otherwise innocent person to your know it all, smug, self certified group of old men, any more than I would let any of you drown in front of me.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> To any (sailingfool, Mainsail, etc) who would continue to rationalize, defend, and support, using their SICK inhumanity of you f__ked up, so you DESERVE(?????!!!!) to die, is this your extreme application of tough love or something??


That all sounds good Doug - but you're overlooking a couple of very critical things. First, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the USCG will do exactly the same thing (i.e. - leave a victim behind - although not with the rationale you lay out above) if a rescue attempt is deemed too hazardous to their personnel. And it will all most likely be photographed. Heartless? I don't think so.

Second, you're alive. Pissed off, yes, but alive.

This very fact means only one thing: The skipper and crew of the KJ performed admirably at their most important job. You and your wife are the evidence of that.

This is what it all boils down to. Everything else is just wind. In the end, despite the mistakes, those guys saved your life.

If you can't acknowledge these things and step back off the high horse for a minute - I got nothin' for you.


----------



## LandLocked66c

DougSabbag said:


> To any (sailingfool, Mainsail, etc) who would continue to rationalize, defend, and support, using their SICK inhumanity of you f__ked up, so you DESERVE(?????!!!!) to die, is this your extreme application of tough love or something??
> 
> Do that with your own family if you want to, but not with other people in the public. You're not my Daddy so you can't play that sick disgusting trip with me.


NICE! It almost sounds like Doug is channeling MC?


----------



## Maine Sail

DougSabbag said:


> To any (sailingfool, Mainsail, etc) who would continue to rationalize, defend, and support, using their SICK inhumanity of you f__ked up, so you DESERVE(?????!!!!) to die, is this your extreme application of tough love or something??
> 
> Do that with your own family if you want to, but not with other people in the public. You're not my Daddy so you can't play that sick disgusting trip with me.
> 
> And please, as I have mentioned, even if someone else doesn't check their chain plates before setting out, do WHATEVER you CAN DO to save a human being from drowning, even though your personal lack of humanity is inspiring you to rationalize not.
> 
> As far as the dude with the Google / law findings, I would provide the lawyer's number to you so you two can debate, but I wouldn't introduce an otherwise innocent person to your know it all, smug, self certified group of old men, any more than I would let any of you drown in front of me.


Doug,

GROW UP, PLEASE. And STOP taking us OUT OF CONTEXT and INSERTING words into our mouths that were NEVER said or typed. I find your above quote the most utterly offensive yet and so far off base it hardly warrants a reply.

I will remind you of some of your own words:



DougSabbag said:


> You do not bring a 50 foot sailboat alongside a 900 foot oil tanker in 10 to 15 foot seas, unless you do not care about what will happen.


Sounds like you knew full well there was risk involved..?



DougSabbag said:


> The bottom line is that these tankers / freighers / AMVER participants are better than nothing, and they can't be trained or pushed further, because they will simply not participate anymore.


You said it, NOT ME.

And how quickly you forgot this little "tidbit" you posted earlier in this thread.



DougSabbag said:


> Another "tidbit" from July 27th,* the Captain of the Kim Jacob, (while I was drowning), put on a harness and lowered himself into the water from their transom, to try to swim over to me.* He found that once he rounded their stern, the current kept him from being able to proceed at all.


Apparently, by post 800, you forgot about the risk the MASTER OF THE SHIP put himself in to try and rescue YOU Doug Sabbag.

Please show us ANY example, even a single one, where the master of the ship put himself IN THE WATER from a 900 foot ship in rough seas to try and rescue a sailor like yourself? Perhaps there are other examples of this so please do show us..

Doug, YOU admitted that the captain himself tried to personally rescue you but he could not swim against the current. Despite his very brave actions you still vilify & publicly trash these folks who were successful in SAVING YOUR LIFE.. Perhaps he knew the other 24 guys were horrible swimmers and that is why he was the one to go over..?

NO ONE is saying the rescue could not have gone better, NO ONE. All we are saying is that mistakes happened on BOTH SIDES. For you to continue to trash them publicly is coming off as flat out OBNOXIOUS, RUDE, ARROGANT and HYPOCRITICAL when you also disallow any conversation that call your decisions that day into view.

You are holding the KJ to a higher standard than that of yourself and they deliver oil NOT save lives for a living.. Perhaps you should petition the USCG to no longer photograph or video rescues? After all that is what they do too.

Did you ever think those guys were perhaps photographing it because they were proud to be SAVING A LIFE and wanted a memento to say "Hey, see this, I helped save this guys life and his wife.."...??? Or perhaps for the threat of a law suit to document what they did to try and save your life if you had happened to drown?? After all they were rescuing a US sailor and the world knows how litigious we are..?



DougSabbag said:


> *The CG were completely in agreement that what the KJ did was from a lack of training and knowledge*. *But, as the officers shared, their hands are tied to really do anything about it because on the one hand, the CG is not ready to start AMVER training classes, and they also do not want to lose AMVER members.* Anything is better than nothing. Even if there are some deaths along the way....


Then it seems your argument should be with the USCG's admitted lack of training efforts for AMVER participants. Why is your argument with the crew and master of the KJ who were 100% successful in SAVING YOUR LIFE when the USCG has dropped the ball.....???


----------



## LandLocked66c

85 pages and counting, wow! This thread has certainly gotten awkward...


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
You keep blaming the KJ crew. These guys seem like professionals to me and I would be most appreciative if they come to my aid any day. And like wise I would be happy to help them in anyway I could.

You also keep repeating your near death experience at sea, and blame that on the KJ crew. It was not their fault. We are all going to die, and as sailors, our death may be by drowning. Live up to that. If you don't like that fact, there are a lot of cheap ocean front condos, with nice ocean views and big sliding glass doors in Miami you could purchase.

I hope you one day make peace with yourself and with those who saved your lives.


----------



## emoney

DougSabbag said:


> You're not my Daddy so you can't play that sick disgusting trip with me.


Technically, I'd have to agree with this, as Smackdaddy is the only sailnetter with legal claim to that title: daddy.

I think one of the easiest lessons of this thread, read situation, is that more than likely, the majority of us are "under-insured". Had there been a million dollar policy on the Triumph, the fact she got "wrecked" would've had a glimmer of 'good thing' attached to it. At least, as it relates to the "stuff portion" of the story. Obviously nothing compensates for the near loss of life, and I don't want this statement mis-perceived in any fashion, but, the fact of the matter is, replacing a lost home & vessel is a real part of any tragedy because it's ultimately something we would all have to face and could still. I know that this thread, and the one recently posted, sharing the sinking in New Jersey in the last week, have caused me to take pause and revisit my insurance policy limits.


----------



## DougSabbag

None of you will ever convince me that it is ever OK to not utilize every single piece of equipment available to get someone out of the water when they are drowning.

Not because you don't have a CG certificate in your resume.
Not because you might get wet.
Not because the person managed to live without maximum effort being applied.
Not because the person in the water should have chosen a different PFD.
Not because the person in the water should have checked their chain plates.
Not because the person in the water should have done or not done, ANYTHING else.
Not because you won't be able to retrieve the RESCUE life boat via the cables designated to that task.

None of you are accepting the basic premise, (which is very hard to understand why), that any human being deserves to be rescued, by ALL AVAILABLE MEANS.

Granted, if the scene was at night, in a hurricane, blah blah blah, then sure, even the CG will turn away and steam home.

But, this was in broad daylight, without even a drop of rain. Sure there was some wind, and some waves, but not enough that the CG said anything else except how *shocked* they were that the KJ was so laxadasical about extracting the person for over 3 hours.

You guys really have to get a handle on what you are trying to get across here.

The "value" of this thread has landed with relating and debating the value of a human being.

And none of you will ever convince me, or many other people, *Thank God, *that these cheap paultry rationalizations can superscede the over arching reality that you GET THE PERSON OUT OF THE WATER, using ALL AVAILABLE MEANS. *Period*.

Even if you don't like them.
Even if they didn't wear the right PFD.
Even if they didn't do many things the way you think they should have.
Even if you do not have any particular certificate or qualification in your wallet / resume.

You might be muttering under your breath what an idiot, but this will be WHILE you are doing EVERYTHING you can to save them.

And believe me, once you have that person back on deck, they will THANK YOU, SINCERELY, and will have learned to grab the BEST PFD in the future.

I am only here by the Grace of God. Not because the oil tanker, which first smashed my boat to smitherines, then took pictures of me floundering around, did much toward this wonderful result. In fact it is in SPITE of what they did, that I AM HERE.

AND in SPITE OF WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO, TOO.

You men really should explore where your heads are at to even be trying to convince me, or yourselves, that it is ever OK to turn away. It is NOT.

And God forbid YOU are ever in the water, you sure will want ALL AVAILABLE MEANS to be employed to save your ass, ASAP.

Do you argue that? Can you say that you would also be saying to yourself when you barely manage to regain the surface: Well, I don't deserve to be saved. REALLY?

Whatever you say now, I can speak for REALITY. No you would never say that, ever.

Unless you are suicidal. And in that case, just don't force yourself to vomit, the rest will take care of itself, and somone somewhere will throw a wreath into the ocean in your memory.


----------



## AdamLein

emoney said:


> Technically, I'd have to agree with this, as Smackdaddy is the only sailnetter with legal claim to that title: daddy.


True. However Smack is clearly a free person, belonging to no-one. So each of us can confidently say that while he may be a Daddy, he is not _my_ Daddy.


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> None of you will ever convince me that it is ever OK to not utilize every single piece of equipment available to get someone out of the water when they are drowning.
> 
> Not because you don't have a CG certificate in your resume.
> Not because you might get wet.
> Not because the person managed to live without maximum effort being applied.
> Not because the person in the water should have chosen a different PFD.
> Not because the person in the water should have checked their chain plates.
> Not because the person in the water should have done or not done, ANYTHING else.
> Not because you won't be able to retrieve the RESCUE life boat via the cables designated to that task.
> 
> None of you are accepting the basic premise, (which is very hard to understand why), that any human being deserves to be rescued, by ALL AVAILABLE MEANS.
> 
> Granted, if the scene was at night, in a hurricane, blah blah blah, then sure, even the CG will turn away and steam home.
> 
> But, this was in broad daylight, without even a drop of rain. Sure there was some wind, and some waves, but not enough that the CG said anything else except how *shocked* they were that the KJ was so laxadasical about extracting the person for over 3 hours.
> 
> You guys really have to get a handle on what you are trying to get across here.
> 
> The "value" of this thread has landed with relating and debating the value of a human being.
> 
> And none of you will ever convince me, or many other people, *Thank God, *that these cheap paultry rationalizations can superscede the over arching reality that you GET THE PERSON OUT OF THE WATER, using ALL AVAILABLE MEANS. *Period*.
> 
> Even if you don't like them.
> Even if they didn't wear the right PFD.
> Even if they didn't do many things the way you think they should have.
> Even if you do not have any particular certificate or qualification in your wallet / resume.
> 
> You might be muttering under your breath what an idiot, but this will be WHILE you are doing EVERYTHING you can to save them.
> 
> And believe me, once you have that person back on deck, they will THANK YOU, SINCERELY, and will have learned to grab the BEST PFD in the future.
> 
> I am only here by the Grace of God. Not because the oil tanker, which first smashed my boat to smitherines, then took pictures of me floundering around, did much toward this wonderful result. In fact it is in SPITE of what they did, that I AM HERE.
> 
> AND in SPITE OF WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO, TOO.
> 
> You men really should explore where your heads are at to even be trying to convince me, or yourselves, that it is ever OK to turn away. It is NOT.
> 
> And God forbid YOU are ever in the water, you sure will want ALL AVAILABLE MEANS to be employed to save your ass, ASAP.
> 
> Do you argue that? Can you say that you would also be saying to yourself when you barely manage to regain the surface: Well, I don't deserve to be saved. REALLY?
> 
> Whatever you say now, I can speak for REALITY. No you would never say that, ever.
> 
> Unless you are suicidal. And in that case, just don't force yourself to vomit, the rest will take care of itself, and somone somewhere will throw a wreath into the ocean in your memory.


Doug,
Has anyone contacted you yet for a book and movie deal? This is some good stuff!


----------



## DougSabbag

"This very fact means only one thing: The skipper and crew of the KJ performed admirably at their most important job. You and your wife are the evidence of that.

This is what it all boils down to. Everything else is just wind. In the end, despite the mistakes, those guys saved your life."


Performed ADMIRABLY!? Hell, even the pictures are of poor quality, and that is what they did while I was drowning in front of their eyes, in the sun lit daylight, while SCREAMING for help.

As I just mentioned, it is IN SPITE of the KJ that we are alive. 

This might be along the lines of a person wanting to die, who simply brandishes a gun in front of a policeman. The cop will shoot you, though you really didn't do anything bad.
How I am relating this is through the concept that I called for assistance. 

You folks seem to think that once I did that, all bets were off. That anything, including death, is off the table of "negligience" and guilt. Well, I'm here to tell you that is not the case. You are still responsible for your actions even if you are trying to "help".

If I ask you to kill the mosquito near my head, and you choose to use a shot gun, you are not innocent of the repercussions of doing the wrong thing, resulting in a death.

If you turn away from a person drowning, in broad daylight, because you are not a USCG member, you are guilty of gross negligience, at least in my book, and I hope in yours too.

"Performed admirably". REALLY? When they did what? 

As the CG agreed, in this case, the AMVER alert / call was erroneous, and was erroneously handled. From start to finish. All with the best of intentions, but with LIMITED INTENTIONS, and THAT is the problem. 

Either you are "all in" or not, and if not, do not become an AMVER member.

If you're all in, then figure out how to transfer people from small boats to your large one.

If you're all in, then be ready to USE the equipment you have to save someone.

If you're all in, then USE IT. 

"Performed admirably"..... easy for you to say. Not so much from us.

As I said at the start, the biggest mistake I ever made in my life was calling the CG for assistance. But, that does NOT give anyone the freedom to kill me without guilt.

I am alive IN SPITE of the KJ and crew. Not because of them. The Triumph can't say the same. She was destroyed indirectly by me, and then by them. 

My mistakes do not constitute earning a death penalty. But, their inaction, (not deploying either of their RESCUE life boats), was such a penalty.


----------



## smackdaddy

AdamLein said:


> True. However Smack is clearly a free person, belonging to no-one. So each of us can confidently say that while he may be a Daddy, he is not _my_ Daddy.


Who's your daddy?


----------



## LandLocked66c

DougSabbag said:


> My mistakes do not constitute earning a death penalty. But, their inaction, (not deploying either of their RESCUE life boats), was such a penalty.


What the hell does that even mean? So now you are saying the KJ crew deserves to die???

Off your rocker, you are...


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> Performed ADMIRABLY!? Hell, even the pictures are of poor quality, and that is what they did while I was drowning in front of their eyes, in the sun lit daylight, while SCREAMING for help.
> 
> As I just mentioned, it is IN SPITE of the KJ that we are alive....
> 
> ...My mistakes do not constitute earning a death penalty. But, their inaction, (not deploying either of their RESCUE life boats), was such a penalty.


Sorry. But you're flat wrong on this one, Doug. You're arguing nuance that didn't exist in that situation from what I've read thus far. That situation was this:

1. You call the CG for assistance when things start going south.
2. Assistance shows up in the form of the KJ.
3. You _agree_ to have yourself and your wife pulled off the Triumph, thereby _abandoning_ her and making the only real priority the lives of you and your wife. (Triumph no longer matters.)
4. Your wife is pulled off the boat and onto the KJ without much of a problem. She is saved.
5. You go into the sea due to some pretty serious mistakes/miscommunication during the attempted transfer.
6. You stay in that water for a very long time and keep yourself alive due to an incredible will to survive.
7. The KJ stays around for this same amount of time due to their admirable will to save you. They don't give up on you, even when you slip beneath the waves. Without this significant fact, you would be dead. No question.
8. You are pulled from the water and onto the KJ and brought back safely.
9. The primary mission of the KJ is, finally, accomplished and you are given the opportunity to now complain about how the KJ did things.

You are not alive _in spite_ of the KJ. You are alive _because_ of the KJ. Period. And saving lives is about as admirable as it gets in a rescue situation. It's all a matter of the timeline of events and decisions, and the priorities that arose out of those - which you now seem to be conflating in hindsight.

Everything you are now arguing simply regards the mistakes/priorities during a problem-fraught rescue...not the outcome. The outcome was successful. Your mere arguing proves that. Yes, the rescue sounds like it was very sloppy and poorly executed and it will make me think long and hard before calling for assistance in the future. But it was successful.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> Hell, even the pictures are of poor quality,


Are these pictures available someplace?



> If you turn away from a person drowning, in broad daylight, because you are not a USCG member, you are guilty of gross negligience,


Regardless of the circumstances?



> "Performed admirably". REALLY? When they did what?


Saved your life I guess. You realize that if they were really as negligent as you accuse, then instead of watching you drown for three hours, they could have steamed towards their destination? You said "it's negligent to turn away from a person drowning," but they didn't do that, even when they had the opportunity. They could have said, "Aw, well, no way we can get this guy; we're not CG and don't know how/want to use our mysterious rescue boats. Might as well turn away." If nothing else this disproves your claim of negligence, at least by your own definition.

Anyway, I keep hearing about the CG's reaction to the KJ's rescue. If we're going to hear the CG's view of events, I'd personally prefer it directly from them... has anybody found or heard anything about an official report? Or is it too soon?


----------



## lancelot9898

LandLocked66c said:


> NICE! It almost sounds like Doug is channeling MC?


They do seem to have a lot in common by their actions. Speaking of which has the police charged anyone yet in the arson?


----------



## LandLocked66c

lancelot9898 said:


> They do seem to have a lot in common by their actions. Speaking of which has the police charged anyone yet in the arson?


Dunno, I doubt they will...


----------



## Maine Sail

DougSabbag said:


> None of you will ever convince me that it is ever OK to not utilize every single piece of equipment available to get someone out of the water when they are drowning.


And yet YOU had a chance to NOT put yourself in that situation and DID NOT use every means available to NOT put yourself in harms way.. Hello Pot....

I guess you missed in your own typings where the Master of the KJ "thought" it was unsafe to lower the life boat as it could not be hoisted back up or where HE LOWERED HIMSELF INTO THE WATER to try and save you.

You assumed or "thought" it was safe to sail off across the Atlantic, in an old boat, with only a visual inspection of your chain plates. Seems like both of you perhaps made two bad assumptions or "thoughts". Why is his any more right or wrong than yours. Were they not still trying at three hours to rescue you? They were, and they did.

Why does a guy who physically lowered himself into the water to try and save you deserve such a beat down by you Doug? Sorry but I am stupefied by you and the double standard you've applied to the KJ... In my opinion you have given new meaning to the term "double standard" in this thread.

And PLEASE stop placing words and feelings into the mouths of others. NO ONE here has EVER said you didn't deserve to live, NO ONE... We are simply questioning your attack on the very vessel and crew that saved your life SUCCESSFULLY.

*"Holy crap I was gifted a million dollars! Freakin' jerk off paid me in $1.00 bills."* is what you sound like...



DougSabbag said:


> *And believe me, once you have that person back on deck, they will THANK YOU, SINCERELY*, and will have learned to grab the BEST PFD in the future.


Yeah and then you go on the internet and STAB THEM IN THE BACK... Real nice way to say your "sincerely thankful"........


----------



## LandLocked66c

Lighten this up a bit! Made me think of you Doug!


----------



## casey1999

LandLocked66c said:


> Dunno, I doubt they will...


I have seached the local on line paper. Nothing new since the boat burned. Seems all leads are cold now and nothing will happen.


----------



## LandLocked66c




----------



## neverknow

I'm sure everyone of us would have done things different and would have had different out comes.

Doug what I don't understand is why you give crap what anyone else has to say. Did you make mistakes? yes, even you have said so. So move on.

What I have learned from you is,

Inspect chain plates before crossing a ocean.

Inspect / replace oil cooler.

Not take your wife with you unless you can make her shut up...lol

Launch the dinghy and life raft before help shows up. Maybe meet them in the Boston Whaler?

Cut away the sea anchor.

Put on a good PFD or two.

Maybe put on dive equipment.

and NOT post everything I did wrong on Sailnet should I live to tell about it!:laugher


----------



## casey1999

LandLocked66c said:


>


Notice no ports below deck level!


----------



## LandLocked66c

casey1999 said:


> Notice no ports below deck level!


Granite counter tops have obviously made it unstable as well!


----------



## casey1999

LandLocked66c said:


> Granite counter tops have obviously made it unstable as well!


I thought she looks like she's holding her own, I might reduce sail a little!


----------



## LandLocked66c

casey1999 said:


> I thought she looks like she's holding her own, I might reduce sail a little!


What you can't see is the counter top bashing around inside the cabin. That picture was taken right before it made it's own port right through the hull!!! :laugher


----------



## MedSailor

Doug,

In your repeated re-assessments of the rescue and in your apparent growing anger and bitterness over the mistakes made, I fear you are missing one CRUCIAL piece of the equation:

INTENT

You are angry at the crew of the KJ for not lowering the lifeboat and talk of the "inhumanity" of not being WILLING to save a soul at sea. I put it to you that the crew of the KJ WAS doing everything they thought they could. It appears that successfully rescuing you by lowering of the lifeboat was something that had not occured to them, and stemmed from lack of rescue training, rather than a decision of intent.

We all agree that logistical and tactical decisions could have been made done better but I don't gather from this event that the captain decided "I could save this guy, but geez these rescue boats are expensive, best not launch it." I'd say that when the captain lowered himself down personally to get you, he qualifies for INTENDING to do everything in his power to get you. The fact that he didn't think about the lifeboat option in the same way you did, sounds like a logistical call.

I put it to you that the decisions that made the rescue not go well, were all well intentioned decisions. Mistakes were made by both parties, but BOTH parties were acting to the best of their abilities in the situation. Lets look at some of the events that didn't go well and evaluate weather they were poor logistical/tactical decisions or decisions of intent. The opinions below are mine alone:

Decision to call for help: Logistical mistake? Maybe, maybe not. Lives were saved but a boat was lost. Who knows the outcome if no call was made. In making the call, the intent was good i.e. to save the crew of Triumph.

Interception of sea anchor and destruction of Triumph: Logistical or piloting mistake? Probably. Again the plan was agreed and seemed like a good idea at the time to both parties. Again the intent of the KJ captain was good, to safely bring the Triumph alongside for rescue.

Not thinking up the idea and running through the logistics of deploying the Whaler in the heat of battle: Logistical mistake? Maybe, who knows it it would have worked as discussed. Again the Triumph captain was doing what he thought was best at the time, by sticking to the agreed plan.

Not thinking that deploying the lifeboat would work: Logistical mistake? Again maybe, who knows it it would have worked as well as discussed. _I put it to you that had the KJ captain thought it would work he would have done it. _ It sounds like the idea had crossed his mind (the davits can't bring it back on deck discussion in Canada) but the idea of towing it hadn't crossed his mind. This would be a logistical omission in the heat of battle, not an inhumane decision to intentionally withhold something that he thought would work. Intent here was good.

The captain lowering himself into the water personally to swim to you: Logistical mistake? Maybe maybe not. He certainly put another person at risk, and it didn't work, and nobody was harmed. The intent here is OBVIOUS. He was trying to do EVERYTHING HE COULD THINK OF to save you. This is the most human act of anything told in the story so far and hasn't been disputed by any party.

The captain of the KJ "is not the coast guard" and could not have thought of every possibility (such as towing the lifeboat) just as you could not have thought of every possibility in the heat of battle (such as launching the whaler). Incorrect tactical or logistical decisions are not inhumane. To err is human.

_I think what offends us all is that you are so angry at him for a perceived omission of tactics and are turning it in your mind into an omission of intent. _

Look inside yourself and ask yourself do you really think that the man who personally lowered himself into the ocean to swim to you wasn't trying his damnedest to save you?

I think you will feel better if you forgive the KJ for their _tactical mistakes_ in leu of inadequate training, and _continue to be grateful for their extraordinary humanity_ in trying their hardest to save you. They did the best the could with what they had. I don't think you can ask more of your fellow sailor/fellow man.

Respectfully,

Medsailor

P.S. Again thank you Doug for sharing your experiences with us in such a public way, including the post event re-living, anger, and trauma of your losses. I think we'd all be fools to assume that the event "sinking of the S/V Triumph" is over for the crew of Triumph once they are safely back on land.


----------



## Minnewaska

"None of you are accepting the basic premise, (which is very hard to understand why), that any human being deserves to be rescued, by ALL AVAILABLE MEANS."

Doug, you oversimplify this. I and all rescue agencies reject this statement. 

No one is required to attempt a rescue whereby they believe the rescuer would be in excessive danger. Naturally, the victim would feel differently, but that's the way it is.


----------



## casey1999

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> Did the Coast Guard interview the Capt of Kim Jacob? If so, is the interview public information (is copy available)?
> 
> You stated the Coast Guard interviewed you for I think 8 hours. Did the coast guard have any recommendation of how the rescue should have been done?


Doug,
You never answered the above. I think the answers are critical to get a full understanding of the situation, if that is what you really want.


----------



## DougSabbag

Yes, their intent was good.

But, they smashed the boat with the occupants still aboard.

They did stay in the area waiting until I managed to reach a life bouy.

But, they didn't utilize ALL avaliable means to help me.

The Captain did try to get me himself. I fully support this, and thank him for doing that!
That is a great start to "trying", as opposed to not.

I do agree that they exhibited good intentions.

But, their actions made a difficult situation worse. And, my actions also made a difficult situation worse.

But, as I have stated numerous times, if you are a member of AMVER then you should undergo training and learn to *USE* the equipment which they do train on, and test, on regular frequencies. Considering they do test their rescue lifeboats, why didn't they USE them? So, I sort of argue that they did have the "training" which is mandated upon them to know how to deploy their rescue life boats. Given that regular testing of that equipment, why not use it when the moment arose to use it?

But, OK, they are just as prone to errors as me, or others, and given that, I thank them for their intentions. Perhaps, out of the 24 men, watching a man nearly drown for over 3 hours, followed by my questions of the Captain of why they didn't use their rescue life boats, if ever in another rescue / MOB situation, perhaps at least one of those men might have learned from our interaction to suggest that they use them.

But I sure don't agree to any concept, or even sideways insinuation that I deserved their errors because I made errors.

I suppose perhaps we can agree that July 27th 2011 was a bad day for the Triumph and the Kim Jacob, and though a lot of errors were made, amazingly, lives were not lost, in spite of all of the errors.

And while we're in an agreeable mood, perhaps we can also agree that out of this perhaps one of the errors which can be better avoided in the future is to FULLY utilize all available life saving equipment in a MOB situation.

The USCG did not conduct a full debriefing with the KJ Captain. They were in contact with the KJ during the incident. But, the KJ Captain maintained a radio silence during the 3 + hours of the MOB situation, though the CG was trying to raise them repeatedly.
Only after I was on their deck did they answer the CG, with the good (and surprising) news. The post MOB communication between them was very short and to the point. Without any detailed descriptions. Then the CG asked to speak with me and we agreed for me to meet with them when we returned to Boston for a debriefing, which I did.

So, as far as I either know, or can imagine, there is no CG record from the KJ beyond the "highlights" which I would assume are kept on record somewhere.
The most detailed records were acquired from the official debriefing which I provided. I provided the step by step detailed accounting including all of my actions / errors, and repeatedly assumed all responsibility for the entire catastrophe.

As I started my discussions here with, as the Captain, everything which occurred to the Triumph and her occupants, was my responsibility, and therefore my fault. Everything.

Part of what was consciously driving me to not give up, even in the face of nearly impossible odds, was the anger at how far the scope and potential result of these errors had expanded, and how quickly. For me to die from such a cascade of errors, was just too obscene to accept. 2 broken stays and a broken oil cooler were not a good enough reason for Doug Sabbag to die. So, Thank God, at least someone (me) was absolutely determined not to allow Doug to die from this. I will always wish that more people that day had felt that same level of determination.


----------



## Dean101

DougSabbag said:


> Yes, their intent was good.
> 
> But, they smashed the boat with the occupants still aboard.
> 
> They did stay in the area waiting until I managed to reach a life bouy.
> 
> But, they didn't utilize ALL avaliable means to help me.
> 
> The Captain did try to get me himself. I fully support this, and thank him for doing that!
> That is a great start to "trying", as opposed to not.
> 
> I do agree that they exhibited good intentions.
> 
> But, their actions made a difficult situation worse. And, my actions also made a difficult situation worse.
> 
> But, as I have stated numerous times, if you are a member of AMVER then you should undergo training and learn to *USE* the equipment which they do train on, and test, on regular frequencies. Considering they do test their rescue lifeboats, why didn't they USE them? So, I sort of argue that they did have the "training" which is mandated upon them to know how to deploy their rescue life boats. Given that regular testing of that equipment, why not use it when the moment arose to use it?
> 
> But, OK, they are just as prone to errors as me, or others, and given that, I thank them for their intentions. Perhaps, out of the 24 men, watching a man nearly drown for over 3 hours, followed by my questions of the Captain of why they didn't use their rescue life boats, if ever in another rescue / MOB situation, perhaps at least one of those men might have learned from our interaction to suggest that they use them.
> 
> But I sure don't agree to any concept, or even sideways insinuation that I deserved their errors because I made errors.
> 
> I suppose perhaps we can agree that July 27th 2011 was a bad day for the Triumph and the Kim Jacob, and though a lot of errors were made, amazingly, lives were not lost, in spite of all of the errors.
> 
> And while we're in an agreeable mood, perhaps we can also agree that out of this perhaps one of the errors which can be better avoided in the future is to FULLY utilize all available life saving equipment in a MOB situation.
> 
> The USCG did not conduct a full debriefing with the KJ Captain. They were in contact with the KJ during the incident. But, the KJ Captain maintained a radio silence during the 3 + hours of the MOB situation, though the CG was trying to raise them repeatedly.
> Only after I was on their deck did they answer the CG, with the good (and surprising) news. The post MOB communication between them was very short and to the point. Without any detailed descriptions. Then the CG asked to speak with me and we agreed for me to meet with them when we returned to Boston for a debriefing, which I did.
> 
> So, as far as I either know, or can imagine, there is no CG record from the KJ beyond the "highlights" which I would assume are kept on record somewhere.
> The most detailed records were acquired from the official debriefing which I provided. I provided the step by step detailed accounting including all of my actions / errors, and repeatedly assumed all responsibility for the entire catastrophe.
> 
> As I started my discussions here with, as the Captain, everything which occurred to the Triumph and her occupants, was my responsibility, and therefore my fault. Everything.
> 
> Part of what was consciously driving me to not give up, even in the face of nearly impossible odds, was the anger at how far the scope and potential result of these errors had expanded, and how quickly. For me to die from such a cascade of errors, was just too obscene to accept. 2 broken stays and a broken oil cooler were not a good enough reason for Doug Sabbag to die. So, Thank God, at least someone (me) was absolutely determined not to allow Doug to die from this. I will always wish that more people that day had felt that same level of determination.


Now this is the tone and attitude you started out with. This is the attitude that earned my respect from the beginning. You are absolutely right that you did not deserve errors simply because you yourself made some errors. I did not read any posts that lead me to believe anyone had intentionally insinuated this but if I missed one that did, you have my sincere apologies. I never felt that any errors made by either you or the KJ were intentional anyway.

There is always a "human factor" that plays into events that stems from differing perspectives, life experiences, expectations, etc. Doug, the statement you made in the above post, *"2 broken stays and a broken oil cooler were not a good enough reason for Doug Sabbag to die. So, Thank God, at least someone (me) was absolutely determined not to allow Doug to die from this." *is a perfect example of this. Thank God that for those 3 hours out of all the years you have lived, you simply refused to give up and die.

After everything that has been said, I'm curious as to whether or not at any point during the training phase of entering employment with any merchant marine company if there is any type of formal training given concerning rescue or recovery procedures. I have never attended any of the sailing schools I see advertised so does anyone know if this subject is covered in any of the classes offered?


----------



## JonEisberg

neverknow said:


> I'm sure everyone of us would have done things different and would have had different out comes.
> 
> Doug what I don't understand is why you give crap what anyone else has to say. Did you make mistakes? yes, even you have said so. So move on.
> 
> What I have learned from you is,
> 
> Inspect chain plates before crossing a ocean.
> 
> Inspect / replace oil cooler.
> 
> Not take your wife with you unless you can make her shut up...lol
> 
> Launch the dinghy and life raft before help shows up. Maybe meet them in the Boston Whaler?
> 
> Cut away the sea anchor.
> 
> Put on a good PFD or two.
> 
> Maybe put on dive equipment.
> 
> and NOT post everything I did wrong on Sailnet should I live to tell about it!:laugher


How easily we tend to overlook the fact that TRIUMPH was a _sailboat_&#8230; A full inventory of mechanical spares is certainly nice to have, but her primary means of propulsion were still her sails, and I think you'd do far better to focus on having the means aboard to effect a repair/jury rig to stabilize the rig, and seal the deck in the area of the shroud repair to limit the ingress of water&#8230;

Had such been done in this case, chances are good your points #3 through 8 would never have come into play&#8230;

The first priority, and primary focus of any sailor setting off on a bluewater passage/beyond the range of SeaTow, should be to maximize the possibility of remaining self-sufficient, and to manage a self-rescue. I believe Doug agrees, in hindsight, not making a more concerted effort in that regard was the biggest mistake made&#8230;

The great irony of this incident, is that the outcome likely would have been far happier had TRIUMPH *not* been equipped with a Sat phone, SSB, EPIRB, or any other means of communication with the outside world that have come to be regarded as "essentials" for offshore sailing today&#8230; Lacking the means for calling for assistance, Doug would have had no other option than to repair the starboard shroud failure, and continue under reduced sail on port tack towards any of the numerous excellent landfalls afforded by the Canadian Maritimes&#8230; After some time spent repairing the rig and engine in a place like Halifax or Cape Breton, a late summer cruise of the Bras 'd Or Lakes and a leisurely return to Boston along the beautiful cruising grounds of the south shore of Nova Scotia, and a postponement of the Atlantic crossing to next summer, would have been the most probable outcome&#8230;

Calling for assistance should always be considered only as a last resort, and that is the single most important lesson that should be taken away from this story, IMHO&#8230;


----------



## svHyLyte

In contrast with the rescue of the crew of Triumph, the following is the rescue of an injured 62 year old owner and the crew of the 48' Quantum Leap by the 815' cruise ship Celebrity Century some 800 miles from Hawaii:






Evidently, Quantum Leap was intact but abandoned and remains drifting in the mid-Pacific. More details are available at Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude


----------



## Visitor1111

Nice movie...glad crew of sailboat being rescued..

Just now imagine that this rescue took place in weather conditions like were on scene in Thriump's case...


----------



## emoney

Good video, thx for sharing. That gives a glimpse of just how precarious these situations are. Not sure that the participants of AMVER would all agree to rescue training, but as you can see, even when all the individuals involved are trained for rescue, there's still the element of danger that is very real. I can only imagine what would've occurred had there been no protocol as was evidenced aboard the KJ. Doug, you may be even luckier than you think.


----------



## JonEisberg

emoney said:


> Good video, thx for sharing. That gives a glimpse of just how precarious these situations are. Not sure that the participants of AMVER would all agree to rescue training, but as you can see, even when all the individuals involved are trained for rescue, there's still the element of danger that is very real. I can only imagine what would've occurred had there been no protocol as was evidenced aboard the KJ. Doug, you may be even luckier than you think.


Yup... Imagine trying to re-attach those lifting cables in 10-15' seas...


----------



## n0w0rries

+1 for this post. Whatever happened to the ebay boat in turkey? That was interesting. The bottom line is the other Captain saved your life at his employer's expense. You think these AMVER folks need better training? How about training for people who want to sail across the ocean? Maybe you should have to pay to have your boat inspected by AMVER before you leave to qualify for AMVER to come save you. They can inspect chain plates, thru hulls, and the quality of your life jackets. The money they make inspecting you could be used to train their members.



Maine Sail said:


> And yet YOU had a chance to NOT put yourself in that situation and DID NOT use every means available to NOT put yourself in harms way.. Hello Pot....
> 
> I guess you missed in your own typings where the Master of the KJ "thought" it was unsafe to lower the life boat as it could not be hoisted back up or where HE LOWERED HIMSELF INTO THE WATER to try and save you.
> 
> You assumed or "thought" it was safe to sail off across the Atlantic, in an old boat, with only a visual inspection of your chain plates. Seems like both of you perhaps made two bad assumptions or "thoughts". Why is his any more right or wrong than yours. Were they not still trying at three hours to rescue you? They were, and they did.
> 
> Why does a guy who physically lowered himself into the water to try and save you deserve such a beat down by you Doug? Sorry but I am stupefied by you and the double standard you've applied to the KJ... In my opinion you have given new meaning to the term "double standard" in this thread.
> 
> And PLEASE stop placing words and feelings into the mouths of others. NO ONE here has EVER said you didn't deserve to live, NO ONE... We are simply questioning your attack on the very vessel and crew that saved your life SUCCESSFULLY.
> 
> *"Holy crap I was gifted a million dollars! Freakin' jerk off paid me in $1.00 bills."* is what you sound like...
> 
> Yeah and then you go on the internet and STAB THEM IN THE BACK... Real nice way to say your "sincerely thankful"........


----------



## smackdaddy

Visitor1111 said:


> Nice movie...glad crew of sailboat being rescued..
> 
> Just now imagine that this rescue took place in weather conditions like were on scene in Thriump's case...


Good point. Those were some pretty mellow conditions. And that was one big-ass block swinging around the bow of that boat!

Doug, is that the kind of rescue boat you saw on the KJ?


----------



## SVAuspicious

Fascinating video. It doesn't surprise me that a cruise ship with a substantially larger crew than a cargo ship would have the time and resources for substantial training and protocols evident in their execution of the rescue.

Something of a digression and a sensitive issue for me, the video includes a demonstration of why head-lamps are evil. The sailboat crewmember wearing a headlamp obviously illuminates whatever he is looking at including blinding the people trying to rescue him.

On my boat we have a discussion about light discipline before we leave the dock. You have one shot - blind me once and I take your head lamp away.


----------



## DougSabbag

"A full inventory of mechanical spares is certainly nice to have, but her primary means of propulsion were still her sails, and I think you’d do far better to focus on having the means aboard to effect a repair/jury rig to stabilize the rig, and seal the deck in the area of the shroud repair to limit the ingress of water…"

I did have everything onboard you could ask for, i.e., fiberglass cloth, resin, even imron paint. A full compliment of tools, enough to rebuild a motor and restore a Gulfstar.
I did not have a spare oil cooler, but I did have a spare starter, alternator, and almost an entire "spare" B&G nav system. Spare lines, (halyards, etc.), hoses, spare wire, (tons of it), nuts, bolts, screws, washers, clamps, grinders, etc., etc. And, I did have the means to secure the rig, i.e., hold the 2 stays in place, with enough force, to turn NW - back to Boston - and sail with reduced sail, i.e., no main, reduced jib, and the mizzen.
It was the "dynamic" of my crew freaking out, when she lost confidence and demanded to terminate the cruise then, that the call went out to the USCG.

As was stated by the poster, if we didn't have an EPIRB, and didn't have a Sat phone, we would be in Boston, with the Triumph right now.

"Not sure that the participants of AMVER would all agree to rescue training...."

Well, they are mandated to "test" the deployment of the rescue life boats, and therefore do that. Apparently testing deployment does not address that entire goal, i.e., USING it.
So, I would assume that if that mandatory testing was augmented to include using it, then they would do that too. That mandatory test, has nothing to do with AMVER participation / membership.

As far as the question on the Ferretti 53, that is "in process", and if all goes successfully, we should have ownership soon, and take possession in Europe this spring.
The "in process" part, involves a friend going to Turkey to review it, completeing the purchase, then moving it to Kefalonia, a Greek Island, where she will await our arrival.

On that note, tomorrow we are taking possession and ownership of a 1991 Carver 28, which we will be living aboard until we leave for Europe. I bought that from a repo / salvage place in Mendon, Ma., for $7500, with twin 2005 Volvo Penta 350 engines, and only needing some cleaning up, and a new exhaust elbow on one of the motors.
The previous owner was selling it for $32000 when one of the exhaust elbows failed, which apparently pumped water into the engine compartment, and for some reason this became an insurance claim..... This will serve us well for a few months, and then I am sure we will be successful at selling it for a profit. 

So, that is the staus of the Sabbags marine life.

Perhaps the "bottom line" out of this entire adventure is that considering we're going from a 1975 ketch rigged Gulfstar 50, to a 1981 ketch rigged Ferretti 53, which has 4 staterooms and twin Mercedes diesel engines, and a beautiful interior of Italian leather, etc., and we are driving a MB S class during our unintended stay in America, and will make a profit when we're ready to sell our newly acquired Carver, and we both have jobs paying great money which will enable us to rebuild our "sailing fund", AND last but not least, the Ferretti will already be IN Europe (our intended goal), some might say we came out of this "smelling like a rose". 

So, this summer coming up, we will be able to tour the Northern Med, as we had intended last summer, in a much finer vessel, and will actually be owing nothing.

God works in strange ways. Well, God plus a very determined sailor......


----------



## DougSabbag

"On my boat we have a discussion about light discipline before we leave the dock. You have one shot - blind me once and I take your head lamp away. "

My God, you're a real tough cookie, aren't you!? 

We have witnessed some boats as they leave their slip, wherein the Captain is barking orders like a drill sargeant, as opposed to others where it is a much more relaxed / calm / friendly ship. Witnessing the drill sargeants' first mate, already hanging her head in submission, and embarrassment as they were just setting out for a cruise to Europe, followed by their early return to their slip when their stuff hit the fan, followed by their divorce, provided all the support we would ever need to keep the priorities of a "pleasure cruise" within all that that phrase embodies.

So, what does all that mean to you? Don't take away their light when they turn in your direction, once. Nobody wants to cruise with Captain Bligh....
Either don't have lights mounted on peoples' heads, or suck it up when they look at you.
And try to keep the spirits high, not submissive to an ogre.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> Perhaps the "bottom line" out of this entire adventure is that considering we're going from a 1975 ketch rigged Gulfstar 50, to a 1981 ketch rigged Ferretti 53, which has 4 staterooms and twin Mercedes diesel engines, and a beautiful interior of Italian leather, etc., and we are driving a MB S class during our unintended stay in America, and will make a profit when we're ready to sell our newly acquired Carver, and we both have jobs paying great money which will enable us to rebuild our "sailing fund", AND last but not least, the Ferretti will already be IN Europe (our intended goal), some might say we came out of this "smelling like a rose".
> 
> So, this summer coming up, we will be able to tour the Northern Med, as we had intended last summer, in a much finer vessel, and will actually be owing nothing.
> 
> God works in strange ways. Well, God plus a very determined sailor......


+1, dude. +1.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Doug, make sure to check in with us while you are over in the Med. We'd love to chastise you over your use of Italian Leather and fine Italian wines!!! I know i'm looking forward to it!


----------



## DougSabbag

"Doug, is that the kind of rescue boat you saw on the KJ? "

Well, no... especially because the ones on the KJ did not have all those windows; though they do have a side opening hatch / door.

If I had not lost our camera that day, I would most definetly have taken a few pictures of their (unused) rescue life boats.

If you ever happen to see a life boat on a tanker, which has the markings on it which says:
RESCUE LIFE BOAT / 32 PERSON CAPACITY, then that is what the KJ has.
It should also therefore have the side opening hatch, which differentiates it from the straight "life boat" which has the top hatch only. 

Obviously the rescue ones are to address a MOB situation, where the non rescue ones are only for evacuation from the mother ship. Some of those are on ramps too.

Considering the Google masters here seem to find things when they want to, I am surprised they haven't been able, (or is it missing inspiration?), to find the RESCUE LIFE BOATs which are predominately (according to the KJ Captain), the life boats to have on these tankers and perhaps freighters too.

The KJ officers were quite negative about them, as their attitude was that they were more hassle than they were worth. Though nobody wants to hear this, I still have to say, when you are the MOB, those rescue life boats look VERY USEFUL at that moment.
Even if they have to be towed the remaining distance to port, or calmer waters, before being reattached to their cables.

That video, of the smooth as silk transfer of people from the sailboat to the 800 + foot ship, showed how useful they are. And for all the people unlike me who went down and stayed down, they show how deadly not using one is too.


----------



## DougSabbag

"After everything that has been said, I'm curious as to whether or not at any point during the training phase of entering employment with any merchant marine company if there is any type of formal training given concerning rescue or recovery procedures. I have never attended any of the sailing schools I see advertised so does anyone know if this subject is covered in any of the classes offered?"

Well, I have no idea what, if any, rescue / recovery training merchant marine people recieve. I might be wrong, but whatever requirements do exist, might well differ based upon the country of origin, as in an American Merchant Marine person vs. a Monrovian one, as the KJ is flagged / registered.

In the case of the mandatory deployment / testing of the KJ rescue life boat(s), it was the country receiving them, in that case Canada, whose laws mandated that testing process. 

So, there are many different levels of authority in play. And beyond the global Laws of the International Waters, i.e., Maritime Law, each country has different requirements.

The country where the ship and crew are registered / flagged from. And the laws of the country / port of entry. Then, within all of that, there might well be State, and even City / Port laws and, or, regulations.

I know I had to get a TWIC ID card, as part of my Merchant Mariner Credentials, in order to renew my USCG 6 pack Captains' license. And obviously all the regulations involved in that accreditation, were only mandated and enforced by America.

And all this just to go for a cruise.... wow.


----------



## mitiempo

Here is a youtube with some audio of the rescue of the Triumph by the Kim Jacob
MV Kim Jacob rescue operations - YouTube

Fact sheet of the Kim Jacob
Merchant Vessel - Kim Jacob

Details of lifesaving equipment is on page 7 here
http://www.frontline.bm/pdf/mtkimjacob.pdf

The AMVER details of the rescue
Amver, Saving Lives at Sea Since 1958: Amver ship saves two sailors in dramatic Atlantic rescue


----------



## DougSabbag

Addendum: When I said "there might well be" in reference to individual Port regulations, I was clearly wrong. There ARE individual Port regulations. Tons of them. Onboard the KJ, I saw, and flipped through, a whole library of them.


----------



## DougSabbag

"Details of lifesaving equipment is on page 7 here
http://www.frontline.bm/pdf/mtkimjacob.pdf "

The description on page 7 of their life boats is obsolete. That is what they used to have, not what they have now.
I am stating that because the ones they have now are labelled RESCUE life boats, not just life boats.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> The description on page 7 of their life boats is obsolete. That is what they used to have, not what they have now.


Yeah, looks like the document was filed in 1998, so it's probably not up-to-date. However, photos as recent as 2009 also don't know any rescue boats on the deck or in davits.


----------



## GMFL

I'm not very proud to say that I've read every page of this thread over the past week and have come to a conclusion and a question.

The conclusion is that I'm not spending enough time working. (JK, there are some lessons learned here)

However, the question if I have this right. Doug:

You live on a $7500 boat but drive a $100,000 car?

Gotta love the times we are living in.


----------



## MedSailor

Congrads Doug on the new boat(s) and on your continuously improving situation! 

You are hereby nominated for "Get Back on the Horse 2011 world champion". 

I'm sad though that you're not going to buy Angelique. She would look great with granite counters.  

Fair Winds

MedSailor


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> "On my boat we have a discussion about light discipline before we leave the dock. You have one shot - blind me once and I take your head lamp away. "
> 
> My God, you're a real tough cookie, aren't you!?
> 
> We have witnessed some boats as they leave their slip, wherein the Captain is barking orders like a drill sargeant, as opposed to others where it is a much more relaxed / calm / friendly ship. Witnessing the drill sargeants' first mate, already hanging her head in submission, and embarrassment as they were just setting out for a cruise to Europe, followed by their early return to their slip when their stuff hit the fan, followed by their divorce, provided all the support we would ever need to keep the priorities of a "pleasure cruise" within all that that phrase embodies.
> 
> So, what does all that mean to you? Don't take away their light when they turn in your direction, once. Nobody wants to cruise with Captain Bligh....
> Either don't have lights mounted on peoples' heads, or suck it up when they look at you.
> And try to keep the spirits high, not submissive to an ogre.


Interesting. Doug I've been supportive of you even as you have gotten testy. Why lash out? I don't yell - it's a boat rule. We have a _discussion_ before the boat leaves and everyone understands my issues with light discipline. Some people like using headlamps on watch to read and others like to use them below off watch. I explain my issues and we agree that anyone that blinds the captain won't use the headlamp for the rest of the trip.

After hundreds of passages and thousands of miles this has worked out to be a reasonable accommodation. Since I settled on this procedure I've had to ask only two crew to stop using headlamps.

Please hold yourself to the same standard for treatment of others that you ask us to meet with regard to you.


----------



## Visitor1111

Just found interesting study explaining bit about lifeboats on merchant ships. Here is extract from page 28:

"Somewhat perversely, the role of weather may limit the number of accidents involving lifeboats. Most of the reported accidents have occurred during crew training or exercises. The timing of the activities is, therefore, under the control of a vessel's master. In poor weather, few masters would elect to carry out a practice launching, or even lowering.
This is not because of any thoughts for their crew's comfort, but more out of
consideration for their safety.
The net result is that lifeboat drills and training are, for quite sound reasons, generally carried out in good weather conditions. The systems and their crews are therefore rarely used or tested in adverse conditions, and the limits and capabilities remain unknown factors."

Link for complete study...interesting to read...

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resource... lifeboat_and_launching_systems_accidents.pdf


----------



## Dean101

DougSabbag said:


> "After everything that has been said, I'm curious as to whether or not at any point during the training phase of entering employment with any merchant marine company if there is any type of formal training given concerning rescue or recovery procedures. I have never attended any of the sailing schools I see advertised so does anyone know if this subject is covered in any of the classes offered?"
> 
> Well, I have no idea what, if any, rescue / recovery training merchant marine people recieve. I might be wrong, but whatever requirements do exist, might well differ based upon the country of origin, as in an American Merchant Marine person vs. a Monrovian one, as the KJ is flagged / registered.
> 
> In the case of the mandatory deployment / testing of the KJ rescue life boat(s), it was the country receiving them, in that case Canada, whose laws mandated that testing process.
> 
> So, there are many different levels of authority in play. And beyond the global Laws of the International Waters, i.e., Maritime Law, each country has different requirements.
> 
> The country where the ship and crew are registered / flagged from. And the laws of the country / port of entry. Then, within all of that, there might well be State, and even City / Port laws and, or, regulations.
> 
> I know I had to get a TWIC ID card, as part of my Merchant Mariner Credentials, in order to renew my USCG 6 pack Captains' license. And obviously all the regulations involved in that accreditation, were only mandated and enforced by America.
> 
> And all this just to go for a cruise.... wow.


I see your point on the number of authorities involved. I was not sure whether or not some sort of international body existed that mandated that each ship have a rescue recovery procedure with crewmembers required to have at least minimal training in it's execution. It would make sense to me. Having a general idea of how to recover a MOB would also provide an idea of what to expect if any of them became a MOB.

With the exception of a 50' sailboat floating in your vicinity, you were in the same boat (no pun intended) as any crewmember of the KJ would have been had they fallen overboard at that particular time. Did anybody ask them how exactly they would have recovered one of their own crew in a similar situation?

I've directed this question towards Doug, but would be interested in hearing a response from Visitor1111 or the other gentleman who indicated his presence on the scene.


----------



## casey1999

I have been doing some searches as to how a MOB would be brought aboard a large ship. Have not found much. If it is military, they would normally use a helo if available. Maybe the thought is you have much less chance of going overboard on a large frieghter or tanker than say a low freeboard boat like a sail boat or fishing boat. Low freeboard boats you would attempt to come along side the MOB and have them climb or hoist them on board. On freighters or tankers there is really no reason for crew to be near the side of a boat, especially in bad weather, and therefore very little risk in going overboard.

I did find several "Rescue Boats" that could be used on a tanker, but these were smaller open type boats that could be manuvered easily and designed to bring someone on board. Not like the Rescue Boat Doug says he saw on Kim Jacob.Single Arm Rescue Boat Davit Products Offered By WUXI HUAHAI MARINE EQUIPMENT FACTORY China

http://www.tradekey.com/product_view/id/1701998.htm

In any case I found this.

And life boat instructions on how to recover a MOB- notice it states "if safe to do so"


----------



## DougSabbag

"You live on a $7500 boat but drive a $100,000 car?"

Looks pretty funny when you reduce it all down to that view.

FYI, I bought the MB used; it is a 2001, with about 55K miles on it for $10K. 
And the prior owner of the boat I am getting tomorrow was selling her for $32K up until a couple months ago when one of the engine exhaust elbows failed and pumped water into the engine compartment. That's when the Carver became an insurance salvage piece of property.

Nevertheless, you're absolutely correct, Evelyn and I live way below our means... 

NEXT:
"I'm sad though that you're not going to buy Angelique. She would look great with granite counters."

We still have an interest in the Formosa / Hudson / Mikelson / Force 50 boats.
If the Ferretti falls through, we will return to shopping for one of those Taiwanese boats.

We found one in St. Lucia and another in New Orleans, each for around $135K. Well, we have found others too, but they are either on the West Coast, or are approaching $50K - $100K more expensive. We are building an Excel spreadsheet of each of them, with all their particulars and links. So, one of those would be plan B.

NEXT:
"Why lash out? I don't yell - it's a boat rule. We have a discussion before the boat leaves and everyone understands my issues with light discipline."

I apologize. I do not know you at all, and am therefore "missing" what you ARE like as a person, in person. I reacted from the image you drew for me, and, or, what I constructed from that image in my mind, with your statement of such a firm / fast / tough rule.

Following on the heels of the tough rules as shared on this post of when it is officially approved to leave a drowning person in the ocean, I think I have developed a "give them a break" streak in me, as opposed to siding with the follow the book, (and it is a tough book), *above following the heart*.

NEXT:
"....crewmember of the KJ would have been had they fallen overboard at that particular time. Did anybody ask them how exactly they would have recovered one of their own crew in a similar situation? "

NOW ISN'T THAT THE $64,000 QUESTION!?! I do not know, because I did not ask. But, you know what(?) I wanted to ask - badly.

NEXT:
"In any case I found this. And life boat instructions on how to recover a MOB- notice it states "if safe to do so"

That design looks very similar.... I just don't see the markings - to confirm.

"If safe to do so", is a wonderfully powerful disclaimer. And then that would be generally officially judged as the condition, by the "rescuer". Hmmmmmmmmmm............ as the MOB, that dynamic might really suck. Oh wait, it DID really suck.


----------



## DougSabbag

I do "get it' about how a tanker crew mate is no more required to perform heroic / life saving tasks than a pizza maker in the North End. It is just from their unique positioning, (in the deep ocean), that the merchant marines are pressured and then expected to occasionally do such unique, normally "above and beyond the call of duty" category of acts.
So I can see how it can be viewed as a lot to ask, especially if any element of danger to them is included in that request.

Aren't there some "good samaritan" laws which somewhat require a minimum of human response to help someone else in harms way? 

I vaguely remember a Law & Order episode where they charged someone with negligent indifference, when their inactivity allowed another person to die.


----------



## jackdale

DougSabbag said:


> Aren't there some "good samaritan" laws which somewhat require a minimum of human response to help someone else in harms way?


There is a requirement to render assistance



> For example, the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS") says that every signatory to the convention must require the master of a ship flying its flag to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost and to proceed to the rescue of persons in distress.
> 
> Simultaneously, the Safety of Life at Sea Convention ("SOLAS") sets out the obligation on ships' masters to render assistance.
> 
> The SOLAS Convention states:
> 
> "... the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so."


The Obligation to Render Assistance at Sea


----------



## davidpm

I can just see it now. In about 20 years I'm prepping a boat for a sea voyage and take the ski vests and stow them in a hold, leaving the type ones right on top in a cockpit locker.
A new deck hand asks, "Why did you do that those light weight vests are handy".
And I go : "Well young fella there was this great boat and great captain who had close call. Have a seat and I'll tell you the story"
And that is why at the end of the story I'll say. "So that's why I always hide the toy vests and leave the good ones out. Probably wouldn't matter but it sure can't hurt."


----------



## DougSabbag

I Googled the Negligent Indifference crime, and eventually ran into this:

Discussion

In the criminal law, at common law, there was no general duty of care owed to fellow citizens. The traditional view was encapsulated in the example of watching a person drown in shallow water and making no rescue effort, where commentators borrowed the line, "Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep another alive." (Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861)) in support of the proposition that the failure to act does not attract criminal liability. Nevertheless, such failures might be morally indefensible and so both legislatures and the courts have imposed liability when the failure to act is sufficiently blameworthy to justify criminalisation. Some statutes therefore explicitly state that the actus reus consists of any relevant "act or omission", or use a word that may include both. Hence, the word "cause" may be both positive in the sense that the accused proactively injured the victim and negative in that the accused intentionally failed to act knowing that this failure would cause the relevant injury. In the courts, the trend has been to use objective tests to determine whether, in circumstances where there would have been no risk to the accused's health or well-being, the accused should have taken action to prevent a foreseeable injury being sustained by a particular victim or one from a class of potential victims.[citation needed]

So, returning to the drowning example, the accused would be liable if the victim was a child in a pool with a water depth of six inches, or there was a floatation device nearby that could easily be thrown to the victim, or the accused was carrying a mobile phone that could be used to summon help. However, the law will never penalise someone for not jumping into a raging torrent of water, i.e. the law does not require the potential saver to risk drowning even though the individual might be a lifeguard paid to patrol the given beach, river or pool.

ME / Doug:
From the many different sites I ran into, this is a highly discussed and fine line legal discussion. There have been widely varying rulings.............

The word "morality" is frequently used within the discussions of this issue.


----------



## davidpm

I came into this thread late for some reason. What Doug said about there being an almost infinite number of things to check made me smile.
I've made it my business to sail with as many skippers as possible the last few years.
I'm always amused when I see a guy super careful about the engine water. I ask why and he says "I overheated the engine a few years back, cost a fortune so I check every time now." Or the guy who checks the goose-neck every couple of hours. Turns out he lost a rig because a goose-neck failed.
The guy who checks the gears every time starting the engine had his steering cable bracket fall off a while back.
In every case they check what happened to bite them in the past but not the thing that bit someone else.
Its a lot like paint prep. When do you say it is good enough?
Everyone has to make the call!!
Like me tonight. I really wanted to go out sailing, beautiful day but it was gusting to 30 and it's not my boat, its for sale and the rig is over 30 years old with closed turnbuckles. 
Don't trust it that much so I read a great thread on sailnet instead of creating my own story.


----------



## jackdale

DougSabbag said:


> I Googled the Negligent Indifference crime, and eventually ran into this:
> 
> Discussion
> 
> In the criminal law, at common law, there was no general duty of care owed to fellow citizens.


In maritime law there is an obligation to render assistance (see my earlier post).


----------



## DougSabbag

Jackdale posted: "... the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so." 

But, then the law doesn't mandate what "provide assistance" includes. Not that I am trying to reopen my wound.... I was just curious.


----------



## DougSabbag

davidpm said:


> I came into this thread late for some reason. What Doug said about there being an almost infinite number of things to check made me smile.
> I've made it my business to sail with as many skippers as possible the last few years.
> I'm always amused when I see a guy super careful about the engine water. I ask why and he says "I overheated the engine a few years back, cost a fortune so I check every time now." Or the guy who checks the goose-neck every couple of hours. Turns out he lost a rig because a goose-neck failed.
> The guy who checks the gears every time starting the engine had his steering cable bracket fall off a while back.
> In every case they check what happened to bite them in the past but not the thing that bit someone else.
> Its a lot like paint prep. When do you say it is good enough?
> Everyone has to make the call!!
> Like me tonight. I really wanted to go out sailing, beautiful day but it was gusting to 30 and it's not my boat, its for sale and the rig is over 30 years old with closed turnbuckles.
> Don't trust it that much so I read a great thread on sailnet instead of creating my own story.


I really associate with this! Couldn't have said this better....


----------



## jackdale

DougSabbag said:


> Jackdale posted: "... the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so."
> 
> But, then the law doesn't mandate what "provide assistance" includes. Not that I am trying to reopen my wound.... I was just curious.


Doug - I do not think that render assistance is spelled out. But I will check.

Canadian law



> As a result of its membership in these organizations and its obligation to enforce such noble objectives, Canada has legislated the following requirements of masters of Canadian vessels, as well as any vessel operating in Canadian waters (such as transient vessels):
> 
> Upon receiving a distress signal, the master of a ship shall proceed with all speed to the assistance of the vessel making the distress call, but if the master is unable, or considers in unreasonable or unnecessary to respond, he shall enter the reason in his official log book;
> *A ship in distress may, after all possible consultation with vessels answering a distress call, requisition one or more of the responding ships best fit, and it is the duty of the master of the vessel requisitioned to proceed with all speed to render assistance;*
> The master is only released from his obligation to respond to a vessel in distress when he learns that another vessel that has been requisitioned is complying with the requisition; and
> A master is released from a requisition only if he is advised by the person in distress or by another master that has reached those persons that assistance is no longer needed.


----------



## jackdale

Doug

Check this out

Blank Rome LLP Maritime Responder Obligations and Liability



> The law mandates that those who render assistance must exercise reasonable care and acceptable seamanship in doing so, or else suffer liability for the aggravation or excess harm that they cause to the individuals or property. One of the two federal statutes cited above contains a specific "Good Samaritan" provision, which provides that those who render assistance shall not be found liable for the damage caused by their efforts unless they have failed to exercise reasonable care. The immunity provided by such a law is illusory, in my estimation, because the general maritime law would never impose liability upon any person unless they either breached some contractual obligation or were determined to have been negligent.


Search render assistance maritime law


----------



## jackdale

davidpm said:


> In every case they check what happened to bite them in the past but not the thing that bit someone else.


One advantage to following the forum threads to learn what can bite you. I do all of the things that you listed. The only one that has occurred in a vessel on which I was sailing was the broken gooseneck.

I have a very long list of standing orders - one includes no white lights on deck at night, and I do not like them below.


----------



## Minnewaska

Good Samaritan laws are typically written to protect the good Samaritan from potential harm done in the process of helping. 

Doug, great to see you are getting things back together. Truly wish you the best of luck in finding your new home. Be careful with your used MB. BTDT and the cost of maintenance was a bear, I would never do it again. If I buy a used luxury car, I insist it is still within warranty. Just looking out for your cruising kitty.


----------



## Minnewaska

I am also unfamiliar with what assistance is actually required once you have arrived on scene. I'm sure we've all heard The USCG issue a Pan Pan for all nearby vessels to keep a lookout and render assistance if possible. 

I've also listened to many direct conversations between a nearby vessel and the USCG. The USCG has asked whether they were able to provide assistance, but never insisted upon it.


----------



## SVAuspicious

jackdale said:


> I have a very long list of standing orders - one includes no white lights on deck at night, and I do not like them below.


Strongly agreed. Particularly since my night vision is deteriorating as I get older I make sure my gear is set up to dress for watch without turning on lights. Light from electric panels and other minor sources are fine for getting around.

Still not everyone is as organized (or anal - your choice *grin*).

I carry a roll of blue painter's tape in by go bag for deliveries. A couple of layers of blue tape over the port light in the head helps a lot to reduce the amount of light spilling onto the deck from below. On my own boat I have an aluminum shield for the port that completely blocks light in addition to a very small LED light in the head in lieu of the overhead lights.

The military has put a lot of effort into understanding the effect of light on night vision. Apparently dimmable white light is as effective as red lighting. Most important is not shining lights in your or anyone else's eyes. *grin*

@jackdale - want to swap standing orders?


----------



## emoney

I've recently added a low watt, solar "deck" light for night that is weak enough to produce just enough lumination to be able to function, but far from capable of being a distraction. Still, there's something about having the "red lights" on in the cabin........As for the headlights, I've even stopped using them professionally because they just blind the patients and that's during daylight hours.


----------



## jackdale

SVAuspicious said:


> @jackdale - want to swap standing orders?


You show me yours and I will show you mine. 

I "plagarized mine from a couple of sources and added some sections after somke concerns arose. For example I require a visual and radar horizon scan for altering course.

I will pm my email.

Jack


----------



## jackdale

emoney said:


> I've recently added a low watt, solar "deck" light for night that is weak enough to produce just enough lumination to be able to function, but far from capable of being a distraction. Still, there's something about having the "red lights" on in the cabin........As for the headlights, I've even stopped using them professionally because they just blind the patients and that's during daylight hours.


Can that deck light be confused for a a navigation light?

Headlamps with red lenses only on my boats. My Mag lite also has a red lens.


----------



## tempest

It has always been my understanding that the requirement to render assistance at sea does not require a master to place their vessel or crew in serious jeopardy, "Standing into Danger"; thus the caveat " If it is safe to do so". In an example of a vessel that is on fire. A " Good Samaritan" is not required to closely approach or board such a vessel if it exposes it's ship or crew to the same fate. However, you are required to "stand by", relay information via radio, telephone etc. ( such as: how many people are on board, the ships's coordinates, are they wearing lifejackets etc.) to the CG or other authorities; and be prepared to extract people from the water. I'm sure we've all heard communications from vessels in distress, that were not able to provide clear, concise, information in the heat of the moment. 

The Good Samaritan Act, protects the renderer of assistance from liability; if, for instance, in pulling someone out of the water, I dislocate your shoulder. 

All rescue attempts are not successful.

Laws can vary in different states, and countries.

What is deemed " safe to do so" can vary by training, experience, specialized equipment and preparedness; and " appears" to reside in the judgment of the master. 
The wordings that I have seen regarding the "protections" afforded to a Good Sam from liability " In "hindsight" ( would have, could have, should have) all seem to discuss " reasonable" judgments "at the time" " under the circumstances" etc. 

Courts seem loathe to impose penalties upon rescuers for fear that others would be reluctant to provide assistance. Any acts of omission or harm by a Good Sam would likely have to be egregious, to draw legal condemnation.


----------



## smackdaddy

jackdale said:


> Can that deck light be confused for a a navigation light?
> 
> Headlamps with red lenses only on my boats. My Mag lite also has a red lens.


I use an Energizer headlamp with white spot, white flood, and red spot settings. I found, though, that even when below you really need to angle the light downward (the fixture is on a hinge) so you don't blast the helmsman when you're looking around. It's been a good piece of equipment.


----------



## jackdale

Tempest said:


> It has always been my understanding that the requirement to render assistance at sea does not require a master to place their vessel or crew in serious jeopardy, "Standing into Danger"; thus the caveat " If it is safe to do so". In an example of a vessel that is on fire. A " Good Samaritan" is not required to closely approach or board such a vessel if it exposes it's ship or crew to the same fate. However, you are required to "stand by", relay information via radio, telephone etc. ( such as: how many people are on board, the ships's coordinates, are they wearing lifejackets etc.) to the CG or other authorities; and be prepared to extract people from the water. I'm sure we've all heard communications from vessels in distress, that were not able to provide clear, concise, information in the heat of the moment.


That is correct. But note the requirement to make a log entry.



> Laws can vary in different states, and countries.


When Canada brought in the new Shipping Act the fine for violating the "render assistance" requirement went from $500 to $1,000,000 maximum.

Also from the conclusion of the previous article.



> Clearly, the maritime law has seen fit to motivate and, under certain circumstances, even to compel mariners to come to the aid of others in distress at sea.* No such obligation exists if the responder would be putting his own crew, passengers, or vessel in serious danger. *But, liability will ensue and salvage awards could be lost or diminished if the responder/salvor does not undertake the assistance effort in a reasonable and seaman-like manner.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

jackdale said:


> You show me yours and I will show you mine.
> 
> I "plagarized mine from a couple of sources and added some sections after somke concerns arose. For example I require a visual and radar horizon scan for altering course.
> 
> I will pm my email.
> 
> Jack


Any chance you gentlemen would be willing to share your standing orders with the unwashed masses? Or at least with me, in a pm  ?


----------



## SVAuspicious

emoney said:


> I've recently added a low watt, solar "deck" light for night that is weak enough to produce just enough lumination to be able to function


Really? I've found the light from the nav instruments even turned all the way down is plenty. The only time I need more light is for sail trim and a small single-LED penlight is plenty for that.

Under sail the tricolor lights up the windex nicely.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

SVAuspicious said:


> Really? I've found the light from the nav instruments even turned all the way down is plenty. The only time I need more light is for sail trim and a small single-LED penlight is plenty for that.
> 
> Under sail the tricolor lights up the windex nicely.


... and for under motor, when the tricolor is out but one still would like to see the windex, I installed a tiny LED at the mast top which is switched on automatically with the running lights.


----------



## jackdale

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Any chance you gentlemen would be willing to share your standing orders with the unwashed masses? Or at least with me, in a pm  ?


PM your email.

Jack


----------



## jackdale

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> ... and for under motor, when the tricolor is out but one still would like to see the windex, I installed a tiny LED at the mast top which is switched on automatically with the running lights.


Could that be mistaken for a navigation light? I might flip the anchor light on for a second, but find that my Mag lite is sufficient. I also like to to able to steer by feel and compass.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

jackdale said:


> Could that be mistaken for a navigation light? I might flip the anchor light on for a second, but find that my Mag lite is sufficient. I also like to to able to steer by feel and compass.


NO WAY!

This is a tiny LED that consumes maybe a hundreds of an amp. I don't know how to quantify the amount of light it sends out, I would say comparable to a candle.

Furthermore, it sits on top of the mast and shines upwards. From a boat right next to mine you could see the illuminated Windex but not the light itself. From a boat a bit further away, you couldn't see anything.


----------



## jackdale

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> NO WAY!
> 
> This is a tiny LED that consumes maybe a hundreds of an amp. I don't know how to quantify the amount of light it sends out, I would say comparable to a candle.
> 
> Furthermore, it sits on top of the mast and shines upwards. From a boat right next to mine you could see the illuminated Windex but not the light itself. From a boat a bit further away, you couldn't see anything.


Well thought out.


----------



## Maine Sail

SVAuspicious said:


> Strongly agreed. Particularly since my night vision is deteriorating as I get older I make sure my gear is set up to dress for watch without turning on lights. Light from electric panels and other minor sources are fine for getting around.
> 
> Still not everyone is as organized (or anal - your choice *grin*).
> 
> I carry a roll of blue painter's tape in by go bag for deliveries. A couple of layers of blue tape over the port light in the head helps a lot to reduce the amount of light spilling onto the deck from below. On my own boat I have an aluminum shield for the port that completely blocks light in addition to a very small LED light in the head in lieu of the overhead lights.
> 
> The military has put a lot of effort into understanding the effect of light on night vision. Apparently dimmable white light is as effective as red lighting. Most important is not shining lights in your or anyone else's eyes. *grin*
> 
> @jackdale - want to swap standing orders?


SV have you considered installing some green or red LED's in the fixtures?

We have reds in every overhead fixture and at night the head is left on from dusk until we pull into port. We also leave the red over the nav station on so no one accidentally flips through white trying to get to red. With these two lights moving about the cabin is a breeze. They don't affect my night vision at all and a bright white takes me a full 10+ minutes to recover from so I know where you're coming from.

We also keep three to four identical LED head lamps on-board that have three settings. Two white, hi & low, and one red for night time. I know, as does my wife, how many presses of the button it takes to turn on the red. I simply close my eyes and click two times then open and I'm on red. Normally we don't need the head lamps unless tying knots or working on deck and need more vis on an overcast night.

Here in Maine night vision is especially important as you need every bit you can to see the lobster pots. Some plotters won't even go dim enough for me.. We often find our selves being closed out on by darkness, so like you, I take the no white light thing pretty seriously as I hate to be diving at night..


----------



## AdamLein

davidpm said:


> The guy who checks the gears every time starting the engine had his steering cable bracket fall off a while back.


How exactly do you check this? Also what do engine gears have to do with the steering cable?


----------



## jackdale

AdamLein said:


> How exactly do you check this? Also what do engine gears have to do with the steering cable?


Good point. Maybe he meant the transmission cable.

I do engage forward and reverse with the dock lines attached to ensure that I have a working transmission.


----------



## AdamLein

I only ask because I've decided to make daily and seasonal checklists. Current boat doesn't have gears or a steering cable anyway


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
Concerning rescue by life boat. Thinking about it, would it have really been the best thing to do? If the KJ could have launched the rescue boat without getting the crew hurt in the process, getting you aboard the rescue boat could have still been very difficult and may have resulted in your death. Think about trying to manuver the rescue boat in those conditions. I imagine the boat would be slamming off waves and you could have been struck when they attempted to bring you close to the boat. If they had managed to get you aboard, then they still need to get the rescue boat aboard the KJ, another very dangerous manuver in those conditions. And, as you suggest, they decided to tow the rescue boat, how would they get everyone off? say they have 3 crew and you on the rescue boat. They need to hoist each of you off, another very difficult and dangerous manuver in those conditions. And how does the last man get off the rescue boat? There would be no one to manuver the rescue boat during the last man's exit of the boat- another very difficult and dangerous manuver.

To know the captain of the KJ went over the side to attempt to get you shows they were doing everything in there capability to rescue you. And they did rescue you- they were very sucessful- you are alive. 

I think within the decision of the KJ captain, he considered your lives, and the lives of his crew. He put his life behind all others as he alone is the person that took the greatest risk in this evolution. I believe, even after all this MMQ, the captain made the best decision.


----------



## Bene505

jackdale said:


> One advantage to following the forum threads to learn what can bite you. I do all of the things that you listed. The only one that has occurred in a vessel on which I was sailing was the broken gooseneck.
> 
> I have a very long list of standing orders - one includes no white lights on deck at night, and I do not like them below.


Great thought that. I keep the interior lights off as much as possible and have a red-ish light that I use if needed.

When on the Long Island sound there are plenty of shore lights to keep the boat oriented. So I turn off the 2 compass lights (one at each wheel). They are red, but very bright when you are trying to look forward over one of them.

As someone who spent (literally) 90 minutes preflighting Cessnas and Pipers before each flight, I can relate to a long list. Please send it if you can.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## davidpm

AdamLein said:


> How exactly do you check this? Also what do engine gears have to do with the steering cable?


I was using "gears" in a somewhat literary sense. IE forward gear and reverse gear.
It is considered good practice, at least by some, to every time you start the engine to put it in forward, rev engine slightly then idle then reverse, throttle up slightly then idle then neutral to make sure it all works.
Coming into a dock an finding out you can't go go to neutral or idle can be hard on gel-coat.
Other folks turn the wheel all the way right and all the way left then center. If someone was playing with the wheel and you are are in the channel with about three feet for and aft clearance is not the time to find out that the center spoke on your wheel is centered a full turn to port when you thought it was really centered. The boat behaves in a slightly different manner from expectations.

Course lots of folks don't do all of that and 99 time out of a hundred you will be fine. The solution of course it to not go out sailing much as there is less chance something will go wrong.


----------



## jackdale

Bene505 said:


> Great thought that. I keep the interior lights off as much as possible and have a red-ish light that I use if needed.
> 
> When on the Long Island sound there are plenty of shore lights to keep the boat oriented. So I turn off the 2 compass lights (one at each wheel). They are red, but very bright when you are trying to look forward over one of them.
> 
> As someone who spent (literally) 90 minutes preflighting Cessnas and Pipers before each flight, I can relate to a long list. Please send it if you can.
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


Can you install a rheostat on your compasses?

BTW - I hate shore lights - they interfere with aids to navigation.

pm me your email

Jack


----------



## jackdale

jackdale said:


> pm me your email
> 
> Jack


Brad I tried the email in your tag without success.


----------



## DougSabbag

Minnewaska said:


> Good Samaritan laws are typically written to protect the good Samaritan from potential harm done in the process of helping.
> 
> Doug, great to see you are getting things back together. Truly wish you the best of luck in finding your new home. Be careful with your used MB. BTDT and the cost of maintenance was a bear, I would never do it again. If I buy a used luxury car, I insist it is still within warranty. Just looking out for your cruising kitty.


Well, thank you for the experienced advice. But, we've had 2 XJ8 Jaguars previously, which we bought for $3500 & $5000 respectfully, with around 50K miles on them, which we used for about 1 year each, then sold for a profit, without any major problems, beyond a set of new tires and oil changes.

This is my 4th MB, which follows 3 absolutely fantastic MB experiences for me.

Considering our short term stays in an area, we like to buy very good cars through Craigs list, then sell them as we sail away. This has worked out very well - perhaps we have been lucky, or as we think, buying quality is a good inititial step.

None of these have had any warranties.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Maine Sail said:


> SV have you considered installing some green or red LED's in the fixtures?


My research indicates heavily dimmable white is as good as red light for maintaining night vision.

Underway at night my boat has seven red LEDs and two green LEDs on at the nav station plus the dimmed displays of the VHF and SSB. I usually leave the display of the entertainment radio on for the clock display (official Auspicious time *grin* for watch changes). That's enough light for moving around the boat.

I have a small white LED light (the battery operated sort sold for use in closets) in the head with a couple layers of clear gel to further reduce light output. As noted earlier I keep the head port blocked to avoid even the low LED light from appearing on deck.

In the cockpit there are three ST-60 displays usually set to the dimmest setting and an E80 chartplotter with the display dimmed way way down.

In the aft cabin I have a single ST60 display I keep on the dimmest settings.

In my opinion everything except cooking can be done at night with the ambient light from all that gear. I try to get the cooking done early enough that light isn't a factor. I set up a pot of coffee before dark to perc overnight (more light from the cooker).

This protocol works well for me. YMMV. Whatever the color, less light is better.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

*How to dim chartplotter below minimum?*



SVAuspicious said:


> My research indicates heavily dimmable white is as good as red light for maintaining night vision.
> 
> Underway at night my boat has seven red LEDs and two green LEDs on at the nav station plus the dimmed displays of the VHF and SSB. I usually leave the display of the entertainment radio on for the clock display (official Auspicious time *grin* for watch changes). That's enough light for moving around the boat.
> 
> I have a small white LED light (the battery operated sort sold for use in closets) in the head with a couple layers of clear gel to further reduce light output. As noted earlier I keep the head port blocked to avoid even the low LED light from appearing on deck.
> 
> In the cockpit there are three ST-60 displays usually set to the dimmest setting and an E80 chartplotter with the display dimmed way way down.
> 
> In the aft cabin I have a single ST60 display I keep on the dimmest settings.
> 
> In my opinion everything except cooking can be done at night with the ambient light from all that gear. I try to get the cooking done early enough that light isn't a factor. I set up a pot of coffee before dark to perc overnight (more light from the cooker).
> 
> This protocol works well for me. YMMV. Whatever the color, less light is better.


A question in this context that I have been pondering for some time: My chartplotter is too bright, even on its lowest setting (well, except for the VERY lowest when the backlighting is turned off entirely). Anybody have a trick to dim it further? I am hesitant to glue something on it that will interfere with contrast, in particular during daytime.

In case it makes a difference, it is an oldish Garmin, with black and white screen.


----------



## jackdale

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> A question in this context that I have been pondering for some time: My chartplotter is too bright, even on its lowest setting (well, except for the VERY lowest when the backlighting is turned off entirely). Anybody have a trick to dim it further? I am hesitant to glue something on it that will interfere with contrast, in particular during daytime.
> 
> In case it makes a difference, it is an oldish Garmin, with black and white screen.


Some chartplotters have a night palette as well the ability to dim them. Usually it is different colours so I am sure it would work in your case.


----------



## hellosailor

mastund, you can always pick up a piece of stick-on window tint film to put over the screen at night. This is not the adhesive stuff, there are some made of a vinyl like the old "colorforms" toys that simply sticks to any flat smooth surface. Stick it on at night, peel it off in day. Or you could buy a couple of sheets of theatric gels or similar material to lay over the screen at night, maybe with a little velcro or scotch tape at the sides. You might find blue, green, red or amber "saran" wrap in some food or baking supply stores, or ask your local deli for some of the stuff they wrap party platters in. Cheap kludge.


----------



## SVAuspicious

I think the gel idea is a good one.

You might also try turning the backlight off completely and using a single LED penlight when you need to check the plotter.

Note that power consumption from your instruments goes way down with the backlights turned down or off.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> Concerning rescue by life boat. Thinking about it, would it have really been the best thing to do? If the KJ could have launched the rescue boat without getting the crew hurt in the process, getting you aboard the rescue boat could have still been very difficult and may have resulted in your death. Think about trying to manuver the rescue boat in those conditions. I imagine the boat would be slamming off waves and you could have been struck when they attempted to bring you close to the boat. If they had managed to get you aboard, then they still need to get the rescue boat aboard the KJ, another very dangerous manuver in those conditions. And, as you suggest, they decided to tow the rescue boat, how would they get everyone off? say they have 3 crew and you on the rescue boat. They need to hoist each of you off, another very difficult and dangerous manuver in those conditions. And how does the last man get off the rescue boat? There would be no one to manuver the rescue boat during the last man's exit of the boat- another very difficult and dangerous manuver.
> 
> To know the captain of the KJ went over the side to attempt to get you shows they were doing everything in there capability to rescue you. And they did rescue you- they were very sucessful- you are alive.
> 
> I think within the decision of the KJ captain, he considered your lives, and the lives of his crew. He put his life behind all others as he alone is the person that took the greatest risk in this evolution. I believe, even after all this MMQ, the captain made the best decision.


First, being much closer to me from a life boat as opposed to hundreds of feet away, then a hundred feet high / off of the water, they could have thrown a life bouy to me from perhaps 10 feet away, i.e., practically dropped it onto me. That's if they would have been concerned about running me over.

Once aboard, if they manuevered the boat to the KJ stern, then first they could have established a tow line to keep the life boat close to the KJ stern; then they could have leisurely used lines and harnesses to extract each of us up to their deck.

By establishing a tow line to the life boat, the relative distance between the KJ and the life boat would be maintained, and with the 100 foot high deck looming overhead, lines dropped from the KJ deck would be relatively stable.

So, whether you are the first or the last person to be hoisted up, as long as you accomplish connecting your harness to a line to the deck, it should be a smooth hoist up.

The KJ was not pitching, at all. It is 900 feet long and I suppose that works to make pitching a very rare occurrance on that vessel.

As far as saying "they were successful"... well, if I had not of my own volition, managed to grab a life bouy, I am fairly sure I would not have made it to their next swing by me, as each one took at least 20 minutes for them to accomplish, and the hypothermia was clearly having a big effect on my abilities to fight to survive.

Simply throwing bouys at me, when most were shot back to the "thrower" from the wind, and considering that I would not have been there for one more swing by, doesn't support the concept that they were really doing the best thing to get the MOB.

As someone asked, I wonder what the KJ crew would have done if one of the KJ crew had fallen over board.....

But, yes, the KJ Captain did place himself into the water to try to swim over and get me. Well, that shows, (besides his commendable efforts and intent), that it was relatively easy and safe to lower and raise people off of their stern.

So, using a life boat to get me to their stern would have placed my body in the same positioning as he himself was, and therefore able to be hoisted up to the deck.

The whole "challenge" was to get any connection to me from their deck.
A life boat could accomplish that with much greater probablility of success due to its ability to get much closer to me than you can ever get from a deck 100 feet off of the water.

Whoever would go into a life boat, wouldn't have been in a fear of sinking... the life boats are viable vessels. 
So, what would be the great fear once in one? They are big enough to hold 32 people! They have their own motors. And if you forget about attaching it to the cables to bring it back up, then you are bypassing the only "problem" I can see with being in one.

It was in spite of their actions that I am alive. The probability of success from what they were doing was slim, and becoming closer to none with each minute.

But, yes I am alive.


----------



## DougSabbag

As far as onboard deck lighting, the Triumph had all LED nav lights, and a remote controlled search light (GoLight) mounted on the bow pulpit rail.

We also had spreader lights, again the new LED ones.

We had curtains on all of our cabin port lights and windows.

We also had a 12 V computer (used a tiny amount of power compared to a lap top or tower PC), tied to a GPS unit, and we had the Rosepoint / Coastal Explorer software accessing a large selection of digitized charts. These were displayed onto a helm mounted 8 inch touch screen monitor. 

So, at all times, we had our position displayed onto the appropriate chart, with zoom in / out abilities. 

We could also plot a course on that software and then upload that to our B&G auto helm.

We went to huge lengths to make sure that the entire system used 12 v power, and very little at that; so we did not need to run any inverters at all.

We LOVED this whole set up. 

We could pull into "foreign" ports in the middle of the night, in fog, and find our way around easily. The search light worked great for lobster pots too!

PS Our radar was a digital one, so it would also display onto that same screen at the helm.


----------



## DougSabbag

Addendum:

The PC display, could be switched to any of the 3 monitors within the cabins.
One at the nav desk, a large one in the main salon, and one in the aft cabin.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

hellosailor said:


> mastund, you can always pick up a piece of stick-on window tint film to put over the screen at night. This is not the adhesive stuff, there are some made of a vinyl like the old "colorforms" toys that simply sticks to any flat smooth surface. Stick it on at night, peel it off in day. Or you could buy a couple of sheets of theatric gels or similar material to lay over the screen at night, maybe with a little velcro or scotch tape at the sides. You might find blue, green, red or amber "saran" wrap in some food or baking supply stores, or ask your local deli for some of the stuff they wrap party platters in. Cheap kludge.


All great ideas! I will definitely experiment with those. Thanks a lot!


----------



## JonEisberg

svHyLyte said:


> In contrast with the rescue of the crew of Triumph, the following is the rescue of an injured 62 year old owner and the crew of the 48' Quantum Leap by the 815' cruise ship Celebrity Century some 800 miles from Hawaii:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, Quantum Leap was intact but abandoned and remains drifting in the mid-Pacific. More details are available at Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude


Some interesting follow-up "Comments" to this video on YouTube...

Sounds like the owners of the boat opted to go with the "Bargain" option in selecting a delivery crew (the injured man was the only one with any prior experience on a sailboat), and now the owners have likely lost their "life savings"...



> My brother and I are the owners of the boat and now, the boat is lost at sea or has been claimed by someone else via Salvage laws. There was no serious damage when it left San Diego and apparently since it sailed apprx 2k miles, it was obviously sea worthy. The erratic Longitude/Latitude sail pattern tells a﻿ lot. Just a FYI - Power loss was due to crew failing to run the generator and filling the back up generator with diesel instead of gasoline. Our Life Savings DOWN THE DRAIN.
> mark97213 20 hours ago


Abandoning that boat with the main hatch left open, pretty much says it all...


----------



## DougSabbag

So Eisberg, I take it you are "methinking" that they shouldn't have left the hatch open?

And, you are "methinking" that they should have hired someone else to do the delivery?

Are you planning on appending this story to your brochure?


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> So Eisberg, I take it you are "methinking" that they shouldn't have left the hatch open?


You are correct...

When a boat is abandoned at sea, the crew basically has 2 options. To either scuttle it, or attempt to secure it so as to give it the best possibility to survive what might be a lengthy period of time adrift, hoping for the opportunity to re-locate it, and mount a future salvage effort...

Leaving such a gigantic, vulnerable companionway (that one has to rate as one of the dumbest I've seen in quite some time, BTW) open to the elements certainly lessens the probability of that boat coming through a prolonged abandonment with minimal damage from the sea or rainwater...

Or worse... This boat was found 10 weeks after being abandoned in the Pacific. Just a hunch, but _methinks_ there would be somewhat less of a mess to clean up, had the boat been closed up, as opposed to left open...










April 7, 2006​


DougSabbag said:


> And, you are "methinking" that they should have hired someone else to do the delivery?


Well, if the posted Comments from the owners are to be believed, _they_ certainly appear to think so, in hindsight...

If I were choosing a crew to deliver my boat from San Diego to Hawaii, I think I would pass on the one that that was offering 2 of the 3 crewmembers with no prior experience on a sailboat... But, perhaps that's just me...



DougSabbag said:


> Are you planning on appending this story to your brochure?


Nope, I don't have a brochure... As far as I know, they're not really required to qualify as an armchair cyber-sailing Monday morning quarterback...


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Nope, I don't have a brochure... As far as I know, they're not really required to qualify as an armchair cyber-sailing Monday morning quarterback...


Today is Tuesday.


----------



## tommays

That cruise ship video sure shows how hard it was to do the rescue lifeboat in pretty nice conditions


----------



## gvolos

*Ferretti*



DougSabbag said:


> "A full inventory of mechanical spares is certainly nice to have, but her primary means of propulsion were still her sails, and I think you'd do far better to focus on having the means aboard to effect a repair/jury rig to stabilize the rig, and seal the deck in the area of the shroud repair to limit the ingress of water&#8230;"
> 
> I did have everything onboard you could ask for, i.e., fiberglass cloth, resin, even imron paint. A full compliment of tools, enough to rebuild a motor and restore a Gulfstar.
> I did not have a spare oil cooler, but I did have a spare starter, alternator, and almost an entire "spare" B&G nav system. Spare lines, (halyards, etc.), hoses, spare wire, (tons of it), nuts, bolts, screws, washers, clamps, grinders, etc., etc. And, I did have the means to secure the rig, i.e., hold the 2 stays in place, with enough force, to turn NW - back to Boston - and sail with reduced sail, i.e., no main, reduced jib, and the mizzen.
> It was the "dynamic" of my crew freaking out, when she lost confidence and demanded to terminate the cruise then, that the call went out to the USCG.
> 
> As was stated by the poster, if we didn't have an EPIRB, and didn't have a Sat phone, we would be in Boston, with the Triumph right now.
> 
> "Not sure that the participants of AMVER would all agree to rescue training...."
> 
> Well, they are mandated to "test" the deployment of the rescue life boats, and therefore do that. Apparently testing deployment does not address that entire goal, i.e., USING it.
> So, I would assume that if that mandatory testing was augmented to include using it, then they would do that too. That mandatory test, has nothing to do with AMVER participation / membership.
> 
> As far as the question on the Ferretti 53, that is "in process", and if all goes successfully, we should have ownership soon, and take possession in Europe this spring.
> The "in process" part, involves a friend going to Turkey to review it, completeing the purchase, then moving it to Kefalonia, a Greek Island, where she will await our arrival.
> 
> On that note, tomorrow we are taking possession and ownership of a 1991 Carver 28, which we will be living aboard until we leave for Europe. I bought that from a repo / salvage place in Mendon, Ma., for $7500, with twin 2005 Volvo Penta 350 engines, and only needing some cleaning up, and a new exhaust elbow on one of the motors.
> The previous owner was selling it for $32000 when one of the exhaust elbows failed, which apparently pumped water into the engine compartment, and for some reason this became an insurance claim..... This will serve us well for a few months, and then I am sure we will be successful at selling it for a profit.
> 
> So, that is the staus of the Sabbags marine life.
> 
> Perhaps the "bottom line" out of this entire adventure is that considering we're going from a 1975 ketch rigged Gulfstar 50, to a 1981 ketch rigged Ferretti 53, which has 4 staterooms and twin Mercedes diesel engines, and a beautiful interior of Italian leather, etc., and we are driving a MB S class during our unintended stay in America, and will make a profit when we're ready to sell our newly acquired Carver, and we both have jobs paying great money which will enable us to rebuild our "sailing fund", AND last but not least, the Ferretti will already be IN Europe (our intended goal), some might say we came out of this "smelling like a rose".
> 
> So, this summer coming up, we will be able to tour the Northern Med, as we had intended last summer, in a much finer vessel, and will actually be owing nothing.
> 
> God works in strange ways. Well, God plus a very determined sailor......


Hi Doug,
I happen to be the second highest bidder for the Feretti in Turkey. Today I received an e-mail through e-bay explaining that I have a second chance at the boat for the amount of my my highest bid. His explanation is that the highest bidder is not responding to his e-mails. Is this so? Is there something else going on? Lemon? Can you please explain? Perhaps it's just some sort of scam. Please reply as soon as possible.
P.S. So sorry for your adventure with "Triumph". I must admit though you certainly have a very healthy attitude towards life. Keep it up. 
Cheers.


----------



## hellosailor

"Apparently testing deployment does not address that entire goal, i.e., USING it."

I expect the answer lies elsewhere: Costs. If you throw a line and someone doesn't take it, no loss to you. If a sailboat is dismasted as it bangs against your hull, no cost to you. Paint is cheap.

OTOH if you launch a rescue boat and can't retrieve it--that's expensive. If you send out crew, off the ship, and they are injured, that's expensive. Let's face it, commercial shipping these days is all about costs and if a captain risks a boat or crew from his ship--someone at the home office is going to hold that against him.

Same thing applies to the airlines, pilots are told to fly at the most fuel-efficient speeds and if that gets them in late, too bad. (Although the formula is more complex now and I'm told some airlines will authorize extra speed because of gate availability, crew overtime, and other considerations, case by case.)

It is all about the buck. And in water rescue, the first thing they drum into your head is DO NOT GO TO THE VICTIM, do not go in the water, do not endanger the rescuer--until all the other options are exhausted.

The rescue boat might be appropriate--but not if you are the one that has to pay for it, one way or the other.


----------



## DougSabbag

gvolos said:


> Hi Doug,
> I happen to be the second highest bidder for the Feretti in Turkey. Today I received an e-mail through e-bay explaining that I have a second chance at the boat for the amount of my my highest bid. His explanation is that the highest bidder is not responding to his e-mails. Is this so? Is there something else going on? Lemon? Can you please explain? Perhaps it's just some sort of scam. Please reply as soon as possible.
> P.S. So sorry for your adventure with "Triumph". I must admit though you certainly have a very healthy attitude towards life. Keep it up.
> Cheers.


Hello!

WOW, what a small world! Well, the "seller" apparently wanted to sell the boat for more money than my friend John bid and "won" the auction with.

So, the seller has refused to accept Johns' deposit, ($5K through PayPal), and won't provide an account # and routing # to wire the remainder of the money to!

The seller has also emailed the other Ebay auction participants with an offer to buy shares of the boat.

AND, there is a broker in Europe who claims to have a buyer and says that they "closed" on the boat sale 2 days ago!

I've also been emailing with the seller, trying to reason with him about why he should comply with the Ebay auction process and complete the sale.

The seller is in England, and as you know the boat is supposedly in Turkey.
Overall, I think there is something pretty fishy going on with this boat sale.

TREAD VERY CAREFULLY ON THIS ONE...... we are.


----------



## DougSabbag

hellosailor said:


> "Apparently testing deployment does not address that entire goal, i.e., USING it."
> 
> I expect the answer lies elsewhere: Costs. If you throw a line and someone doesn't take it, no loss to you. If a sailboat is dismasted as it bangs against your hull, no cost to you. Paint is cheap.
> 
> OTOH if you launch a rescue boat and can't retrieve it--that's expensive. If you send out crew, off the ship, and they are injured, that's expensive. Let's face it, commercial shipping these days is all about costs and if a captain risks a boat or crew from his ship--someone at the home office is going to hold that against him.
> 
> Same thing applies to the airlines, pilots are told to fly at the most fuel-efficient speeds and if that gets them in late, too bad. (Although the formula is more complex now and I'm told some airlines will authorize extra speed because of gate availability, crew overtime, and other considerations, case by case.)
> 
> It is all about the buck. And in water rescue, the first thing they drum into your head is DO NOT GO TO THE VICTIM, do not go in the water, do not endanger the rescuer--until all the other options are exhausted.
> 
> The rescue boat might be appropriate--but not if you are the one that has to pay for it, one way or the other.


No argument on these realities from me..... just disgust. If any of you people ever live through the terror and fear of drowning, while a rescue lifeboat is not being deployed because of the potential costs, i.e., $$$$, well, I'll bet you would likewise be quite disgusted with the inhumanity.


----------



## gvolos

DougSabbag said:


> Hello!
> 
> WOW, what a small world! Well, the "seller" apparently wanted to sell the boat for more money than my friend John bid and "won" the auction with.
> 
> So, the seller has refused to accept Johns' deposit, ($5K through PayPal), and won't provide an account # and routing # to wire the remainder of the money to!
> 
> The seller has also emailed the other Ebay auction participants with an offer to buy shares of the boat.
> 
> AND, there is a broker in Europe who claims to have a buyer and says that they "closed" on the boat sale 2 days ago!
> 
> I've also been emailing with the seller, trying to reason with him about why he should comply with the Ebay auction process and complete the sale.
> 
> The seller is in England, and as you know the boat is supposedly in Turkey.
> Overall, I think there is something pretty fishy going on with this boat sale.
> 
> TREAD VERY CAREFULLY ON THIS ONE...... we are.


It sure is a small world! This does sound very fishy. Why would he be willing to accept my lower bid and not wiling to go ahead with your friends winning higher bid? Also his English in the e-mail does not sound to be from a native English speaking person. Nigerian scam perhaps? Who knows. I will not be going ahead with this, but I would really like to know how it turns out. Perhaps e-bay should be notified. In all reality, the price was too good to be true.
All the best.


----------



## gvolos

Hi Doug,
I just checked with e-bay by forwarding them the e-mail, and they confirmed that it's spoof!!!! Watch out!!!! This guy is obviously out to bite some one.
Cheers.


----------



## Minnewaska

Note to self........ do not buy a boat from the middle east on Ebay. Think I will probably remember that one.


----------



## hellosailor

"I'll bet you would likewise be quite disgusted with the inhumanity. "
Doug, can you say "Kitty Genovese" ? No surprise here.

I wonder if the guy selling the Feretti is really looking to sell multiple shares (i.e. way more than 100%) and really pulling just another old scam. And really based in...Nigeria?

Might be worth contacting the internet crime commission, because investigating these things (like where the real IP addresses are) is right up their alley, and there are career criminals pulling scams like selling "300%" of the shares in something they don't even own.

Or can you look up the _actual _ownership of that boat, and verify that it really is the seller's in the first place? I suspect not, but then again, I'm a professional cynic. Got my union card for that, too.


----------



## JonEisberg

hellosailor said:


> "I'll bet you would likewise be quite disgusted with the *inhumanity*. "
> Doug, can you say "Kitty Genovese" ? No surprise here.


I've got to wonder, if the Master of the KIM JACOB had _*not*_ taken the risk of having himself lowered into the water off the stern of his ship and made the attempt to swim to Doug - after wantonly _destroying_ the TRIUMPH - what words could possibly be invoked to even begin to characterize the profundity of the disregard for the value of human life on display that day?

Would references to, say, _Hitler_, or perhaps _Idi Amin_, suffice?

I'm beginning to think not... (grin)


----------



## cb32863

So when this thread hits 100 pages can we finally kill it? It has gone so off topic so many many times....


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> I've got to wonder, if the Master of the KIM JACOB had _*not*_ taken the risk of having himself lowered into the water off the stern of his ship and made the attempt to swim to Doug - after wantonly _destroying_ the TRIUMPH - what words could possibly be invoked to even begin to characterize the profundity of the disregard for the value of human life on display that day?


An interesting perspective Jon. From my own, I think the master of the ship--officer in command--presumably the most able leader aboard, should not have taken such a step. His departure means two changes of command. That may be okay when Captain Kirk leads an away team with half the bridge crew leaving who knows who aboard the Enterprise, but in the real world that isn't responsible exercise of command authority.


----------



## DougSabbag

gvolos said:


> Hi Doug,
> I just checked with e-bay by forwarding them the e-mail, and they confirmed that it's spoof!!!! Watch out!!!! This guy is obviously out to bite some one.
> Cheers.


Update, the seller has stopped replying to my emails. Likewise, to Johns'. 
Sadly this is a great example of: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't".

Nevertheless, we are having a great time getting our recently purchased 32 foot 1991 Carver m/v ready for her launch on Monday. We will live aboard her until we find the right sailboat, then be able to sell the Carver / Triumph Jr., for roughly 3 times what we paid for her. Triumph Jr., is cozy, modern, has twin Volvo Penta 350s that run smoothly, and will therefore be fun and easily marketable when the time comes. Hopefully that will be sometime this spring.

This will enable us to look for the sailboat in a more relaxed manner.

Too bad about that Ferretti........ For under $50K, she was a hell of a great buy.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> I've got to wonder, if the Master of the KIM JACOB had _*not*_ taken the risk of having himself lowered into the water off the stern of his ship and made the attempt to swim to Doug - after wantonly _destroying_ the TRIUMPH - what words could possibly be invoked to even begin to characterize the profundity of the disregard for the value of human life on display that day?
> 
> Would references to, say, _Hitler_, or perhaps _Idi Amin_, suffice?
> 
> I'm beginning to think not... (grin)


Between your use of the negative: "not", and then the word: "profundity". coupled to another reverse with the Hitler / Amin references, I am at a real loss as to what you are saying, or not saying..... (grin).

However, I would not characterize the destruction of the Triumph as "wanton" at all. I would more appropriately categorize that destruction as clearly an accident. The only intent was to help, however violent the actions taken turned out. That there was no loss of life was a tribute to luck and self determination. But clearly you wouldn't want to jeopardize a valuable rescue life boat just for a persons' life, now would you? So, that choice was the correct business decision from any accountants' point of view.

And, that same accountant can only point to the results of the Triumph / Kim Jacob interaction as an example of containing the costs of a not for profit action of corporate property and resources; which he would be pleased with.

Luckily, accountants are not in charge at the Red Cross, or any other group that actually saves humans. Especially as we approach the 7 billion lives on this planet, when some would support the concept that it would be best for all of us to allow some to perish from their own choices, rather than expend valuable resources to save the person who placed themselves into harms way.

I can only hope nobody else, none of you, are ever a MOB when an accountant, or their followers, are standing next to a rescue life boat.


----------



## DougSabbag

SVAuspicious said:


> An interesting perspective Jon. From my own, I think the master of the ship--officer in command--presumably the most able leader aboard, should not have taken such a step. His departure means two changes of command. That may be okay when Captain Kirk leads an away team with half the bridge crew leaving who knows who aboard the Enterprise, but in the real world that isn't responsible exercise of command authority.


So, the rescue life boat(s) should not be used to save a human because they are too valuable to potentially lose; and, a Captain should not try to save a human because his responsibilities are too valuable to jeopardize too.

According to the logic of all of that, once someone is a MOB, they are also, SOL.

Given your logic, I will never step foot on any vessel under your command; because sadly I am a human. And we strongly differ on the value of those.


----------



## DougSabbag

cb32863 said:


> So when this thread hits 100 pages can we finally kill it? It has gone so off topic so many many times....


Oh oh, another accountant.......


----------



## DougSabbag

john9 said:


> Sorry to hear their loss, I am glad they are safe. This could happen to me so I like to learn more from their mishaps.


And what have you learned from this one?


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Between your use of the negative: "not", and then the word: "profundity". coupled to another reverse with the Hitler / Amin references, I am at a real loss as to what you are saying, or not saying..... (grin).


What I was trying to convey, was that to describe the actions of the master and crew - that came to your assistance and plucked you and your wife from a boat you'd decided to abandon - as "inhuman", seems a bit over the top...

And, that the comparison of this situation to that of Kitty Genovese made by another poster is laughable, especially considering the extraordinary risk taken by the KIM JACOB's skipper...


----------



## SVAuspicious

> Originally Posted by SVAuspicious View Post
> An interesting perspective Jon. From my own, I think the master of the 
> ship--officer in command--presumably the most able leader aboard, 
> should not have taken such a step. His departure means two changes 
> of command. That may be okay when Captain Kirk leads an away team 
> with half the bridge crew leaving who knows who aboard the 
> Enterprise, but in the real world that isn't responsible exercise of 
> command authority.



DougSabbag said:


> So, the rescue life boat(s) should not be used to save a human because they are too valuable to potentially lose; and, a Captain should not try to save a human because his responsibilities are too valuable to jeopardize too.


I didn't say that at all Doug.

What I said was that the job and professional responsibility of the Master was to manage the entire situation including recovery of you and your wife, navigation of the Kim Jacob, safety of his own crew, and management of resources. I don't believe those responsibilities could be effectively discharged from the end of a line hanging over the side, much less from in the water.

I salute his humanity but not his judgment.

I don't understand why a life boat was not launched. I wasn't there. I don't know what policies and procedures are in place by the owners and corporate operators of the Kim Jacob. I don't know what cost recovery (or from whom) there might have been if a life boat was lost. I suspect that an objective look at the costs the operator did incur (fuel, labor, delay, opportunity cost) compared to the potential loss of a life boat might have suggested that launching a life raft and getting the situation over earlier might have been a cost-effective step in addition to a more humane one.

It seems to me that despite the best of intentions the place for the Master is in command aboard.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> What I was trying to convey, was that to describe the actions of the master and crew - that came to your assistance and plucked you and your wife from a boat you'd decided to abandon - as "inhuman", seems a bit over the top...
> 
> And, that the comparison of this situation to that of Kitty Genovese made by another poster is laughable, especially considering the extraordinary risk taken by the KIM JACOB's skipper...


And what I have been trying to convey is not that their intentions were inhumane, but that watching a man drown, without utilizing all available resources to rescue him, is, and always will be, inhumane.

Rationalizing that by quoting rules of comand and, or, fear of jeopardizing a life boat by using it, is just plain wrong.

We frequently break rules in life, and to save a life, would seem to me a most honorable time to do so. To not save a life while standing behind an administrative rule is obscene.

Trying to swim to me proved to be another mistake, and accomplished nothing. Though it showed great intentions, offsetting that intent by not initiating the use of a rescue life boat only compounded the chain of errors of that day.

Please stop defending an act, or the lack of an act, when a life hangs in the balance. Because life is worthy of extraordinary acts to save, as opposed to allowing a loss to occur to follow rules.

I can always remind you that should you ever have the unfortunate experience of being a MOB, suddenly, you too will agree most heartily with my sentiments. You will never at that moment want anyone to follow any rule which would not place you in a higher priority than following an administrative or accounting rule(s).

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is life is worth saving; and that is why rescue life boats exist. But all the rescue life boats in the world are useless without anyone willing to use it.


----------



## svHyLyte

SVAuspicious;791810... said:


> I don't understand why a life boat was not launched. I wasn't there.


Evidently the sea state was such that a recovery of the life-boat would have been extremely hazardous to the life-boat crew and rescued survivor had he/she been recovered by the boat. Had the boat not been recovered getting the boat-crew and survivor aboard would have been as difficult as simply recovering the survivor alone multiplied by the number of people on the boat. At times in command one must weigh the greatest good against the least loss. Triage. I doubt the captain's decision had much to do with material cost



SVAuspicious;791810... said:


> It seems to me that despite the best of intentions the place for the Master is in command aboard.


While heroic--and perhaps motivated-in part-by his decision concerning the life-boat--unless he had an executive officer as capable of manning and commanding the ship in the event of his own loss, the captain's efforts were foolish. His foremost responsibility is/was the safety of his own ship and crew


----------



## Visitor1111

Must be that Master of the tanker is stupid and not aware to weight if his life is worth than one of the lifeboats on his ship before he enter into the water. Than also can be that the Company who is trusting him as Master of 900 feet tanker full of oil with over 20 crew members is not good in judgment or so....

Costs for rescue?!!!!! In such situations I think that time and money are not issue at all simply due to fact that if that is case than no one will deviate to render asisstance at sea as those costs are not small at all.......but saving life at sea.......

So who can tell what is the price of one human life???????????? One Triumph, one lifeboat, hours of delay of tanker.....????

Stupid things to discuss about isn't it?


----------



## emoney

DougSabbag said:


> Between your use of the negative: "not", and then the word: "profundity". coupled to another reverse with the Hitler / Amin references, I am at a real loss as to what you are saying, or not saying..... (grin).
> .


Is it considered "ironic" if the person that said this, ^, is also the same person that said this;



DougSabbag said:


> Sadly this is a great example of: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't".


In theory, doesn't that statement read, "if it sounds too go to be true, it probably isn't too good to be true"....right?
Sorry...but I just had to do it.


----------



## neverknow

Doug, Why tell everyone here on sailnet about the Ebay boat to begin with. It's not like there's 1000's of sailors here that might be interested and would have run the bids up. Even if that didn't happen you might have alerted someone to find the boat/broker and steal the deal out from under you. Remember a deal is not done until you have the title in your hands. You might be better served to keep future deals to yourself???


----------



## sailingfool

neverknow said:


> Doug, Why tell everyone here on sailnet about the Ebay boat to begin with. It's not like there's 1000's of sailors here that might be interested and would have run the bids up. Even if that didn't happen you might have alerted someone to find the boat/broker and steal the deal out from under you. Remember a deal is not done until you have the title in your hands. You might be better served to keep future deals to yourself???


Could it be that someone who believes that he is going to buy a yacht half way across the world, on EBay, for a fraction of its value...may not have the resources to be artful about the process?


----------



## h20man

*lessons learned from rescue swimmer*



AdamLein said:


> Pretty intense. I found this interview with the rescue swimmer in that case (the _Marine Flower II_): Rescue Swimmers Have Special Strengths


I think the best comment that the Coast Guard rescue swimmer Mario Vittone had was the following:

*Q. What advice would you give to boaters to help them avoid having to be rescued?

A. This is my own personal theory. For the most part boaters get in trouble for the same reason. They forget where they're going. They think they're going fishing or they're going to go sailing or just going for a day trip up the bay to the restaurant.

That's not where they're going. What they're doing is completely surrounding themselves with something that will not sustain their lives. Now go do that, and it changes the way they get ready. It changes the decisions they make. I'm lost. My engine won't start. Should I call? No I'll wait. If you think you are surrounded on all sides with something that's trying to kill you, maybe you should call now.

I'd rather go out there when it's daylight. They wait until it's dark. They're scared. We went on a case just a few weeks ago where the guy forgot to put the plug in the bottom of his boat. He's sinking. You're going out to surround yourself with something that's trying to kill you. You don't forget your plug when you think of it that way. Remember where you're going, and then go have some fun. 
*​
(from Rescue Swimmers Have Special Strengths )


----------



## h20man

*abandoned boat sails to shore....*



JonEisberg said:


> Some interesting follow-up "Comments" to this video on YouTube...
> 
> Sounds like the owners of the boat opted to go with the "Bargain" option in selecting a delivery crew (the injured man was the only one with any prior experience on a sailboat), and now the owners have likely lost their "life savings"...
> 
> Abandoning that boat with the main hatch left open, pretty much says it all...


Amazingly... even with the opened hatches etc, the boat managed to sail itself to Mauii....

from the story:
*Maui firefighters responded to a sailboat that run aground on the reef off "Baby Beach" in Spreckelsville.

Officials say around 9:30 Thursday night, a fisherman reported a large sailboat coming in out of the dark right in front of his lines.

Firefighters made their way to the boat, investigated and found no one on board.

The 48ft. "Quantum Leap" got disabled earlier in October 600 miles northwest of Hilo on its way from the west coast.

The three men on board were rescued by a passing cruise ship.​*


----------



## smackdaddy

h20man said:


> Amazingly... even with the opened hatches etc, the boat managed to sail itself to Mauii....
> 
> from the story:
> *Maui firefighters responded to a sailboat that run aground on the reef off "Baby Beach" in Spreckelsville.
> 
> Officials say around 9:30 Thursday night, a fisherman reported a large sailboat coming in out of the dark right in front of his lines.
> 
> Firefighters made their way to the boat, investigated and found no one on board.
> 
> The 48ft. "Quantum Leap" got disabled earlier in October 600 miles northwest of Hilo on its way from the west coast.
> 
> The three men on board were rescued by a passing cruise ship.​*


Sailboats are almost always the best sailors. As long as the people on board don't screw with things....they'll most likely get you there.

Has anyone told the guys that owned it? They had commented on the Youtube page of the rescue video.


----------



## h20man

The youtube video that I saw had no comments...

I had understood that the owners had not been notified... If you have contact info please let them know..


----------



## tdw

> Originally Posted by john9
> 
> Sorry to hear their loss, I am glad they are safe. This could happen to me so I like to learn more from their mishaps.





DougSabbag said:


> And what have you learned from this one?


I'm not really sure what she will have learned that will assist her with shipwreck in the middle of China but you never know.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Sailboats are almost always the best sailors. As long as the people on board don't screw with things....they'll most likely get you there.


Well, that's an argument in favor of a steel or alloy hull, I suppose... After being abandoned, and eventually fetching up on some shore to leeward, there's a better chance it will come through reasonably intact...

Below is the J-44 FIRST LIGHT, abandoned 1000 miles east of the Lesser Antilles, after the rudder fell off on passage to St Lucia from the Canaries about 5 years ago... She was assumed to have sunk, but about a month later she showed up on a beach on Barbados, probably a better feat of navigation than most of us would have managed without GPS... (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag; said:


> Please stop defending an act, or the lack of an act, when a life hangs in the balance. Because life is worthy of extraordinary acts to save, as opposed to allowing a loss to occur to follow rules.


Fair enough, you were there, and I wasn't ... The master of the KJ is not here to defend himself, and I'm not able to read his mind from afar... But I will stand by my statement that to describe the actions of the crew that _actually DID save you_, when all is said and done, as "inhumane", or akin to the neighbors who shut their windows to silence the screams of Kitty Genovese, is absurd...

Can't help but wonder what any Master or ship owner, faced with a decision whether or not to participate in the AMVER program, would make of this thread? I certainly couldn't blame them, if their reaction went something like this:

_"Damn, talk about 'no good deed going unpunished', eh?

To hell with this AMVER crap, and all these yachties calling for Mommy on their Sat phones when their engines quit, and the legions of American ambulance chasers eager to sue for damages to a boat that had already been consigned to abandonment...

Who needs that sh_t?"_

Anyway, looks like we'll be seeing another YouTube rescue posted soon - a Beneteau 391 is floating around out there somewhere N of Bermuda:

Cruise Diva: Norwegian Gem Rescues Storm Tossed North Atlantic Sailors


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> Fair enough, you were there, and I wasn't ... The master of the KJ is not here to defend himself, and I'm not able to read his mind from afar... But I will stand by my statement that to describe the actions of the crew that _actually DID save you_, when all is said and done, as "inhumane", or akin to the neighbors who shut their windows to silence the screams of Kitty Genovese, is absurd...
> 
> Can't help but wonder what any Master or ship owner, faced with a decision whether or not to participate in the AMVER program, would make of this thread? I certainly couldn't blame them, if their reaction went something like this:
> 
> _"Damn, talk about 'no good deed going unpunished', eh?
> 
> To hell with this AMVER crap, and all these yachties calling for Mommy on their Sat phones when their engines quit, and the legions of American ambulance chasers eager to sue for damages to a boat that had already been consigned to abandonment...
> 
> Who needs that sh_t?"_


Jon,

As I keep bringing up, how would YOU feel if you were floating around / nearly drowning, for over THREE HOURS while people were on their deck standing next to TWO RESCUE LIFEBOATS?

Stop telling me how wonderful these people are, and tell us how YOU WOULD FEEL as you sunk, and only regained the surface after you vomited and expelled the water from your body; only to do that again, and again, and again, for over 3 hours?

How would you feel after that experience about using or not using any rescue life boats for MOB cases if you were drowning?

Simple question Jon.


----------



## DougSabbag

And Jon, as I have also stated before, anyone who wants to participate in the AMVER program, as far as I am concerned, really should do whatever training they can before accepting that rescue role. 
As the KJ "untrained" actions show, sometimes, doing the wrong things can easily be worse than doing nothing at all. No matter how honerable their intentions.


----------



## DougSabbag

Visitor1111 said:


> Must be that Master of the tanker is stupid and not aware to weight if his life is worth than one of the lifeboats on his ship before he enter into the water. Than also can be that the Company who is trusting him as Master of 900 feet tanker full of oil with over 20 crew members is not good in judgment or so....
> 
> Costs for rescue?!!!!! In such situations I think that time and money are not issue at all simply due to fact that if that is case than no one will deviate to render asisstance at sea as those costs are not small at all.......but saving life at sea.......
> 
> So who can tell what is the price of one human life???????????? One Triumph, one lifeboat, hours of delay of tanker.....????
> 
> Stupid things to discuss about isn't it?


I agree completely! It is ludicrous to try to use an accountants' view to determine whether or not to save a person who is in the water.

I do not for a second think poorly of the Captain or the crew of the Kim Jacob. They are all honerable men, whose intentions were to save my wife and I, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for that.

What I HAVE shared here is that this could have been accomplished without destroying the Triumph with us onboard, and as I was drowning, their lifeboat would have been a good choice to deploy to get me, as opposed to not.

Would the KJ have deployed a lifeboat if one of their own fell overboard?
That is a very good question. Can you answer that please?

It was broad daylight. And the challenge of retrieving their lifeboat via the cables could have easily been resolved by just towing the lifeboat off of their stern.

But, what I continually ask EVERYONE is: How would YOU FEEL about deploying a rescue lifeboat if YOU were in the ocean, drowning????


----------



## DougSabbag

svHyLyte said:


> Evidently the sea state was such that a recovery of the life-boat would have been extremely hazardous to the life-boat crew and rescued survivor had he/she been recovered by the boat. Had the boat not been recovered getting the boat-crew and survivor aboard would have been as difficult as simply recovering the survivor alone multiplied by the number of people on the boat. At times in command one must weigh the greatest good against the least loss. Triage. I doubt the captain's decision had much to do with material cost
> 
> While heroic--and perhaps motivated-in part-by his decision concerning the life-boat--unless he had an executive officer as capable of manning and commanding the ship in the event of his own loss, the captain's efforts were foolish. His foremost responsibility is/was the safety of his own ship and crew


In the first place, saying that it would be just as dangerous for the crew of the life boat as it was for the man in the water is not true. The man in the water was slowly dying. He only had a short time remaining until hypothermia would render him incapable of fighting anymore. Then he would sink, without coming back up, unlike the dozen or more times he managed to come back up for air.

The crew in a lifeboat would have a lot more time to resolve the issue of extraction from the lifeboat back up to the deck. And they would have been dry and warm while dealing with that situation.

So, saying that the crew in a lifeboat would be in the same danger as the man in the water, multiplied by the number of crew, is simply wrong.

And again I ask YOU: How would YOU FEEL if you were the man in the water about using a lifeboat, or not? Stop the rationalizations and logic to explain why it is OK to leave the man in the water, and just answer how YOU WOULD FEEL if you were in the ocean, drowning, about deploying a lifeboat to get you.


----------



## DougSabbag

neverknow said:


> Doug, Why tell everyone here on sailnet about the Ebay boat to begin with. It's not like there's 1000's of sailors here that might be interested and would have run the bids up. Even if that didn't happen you might have alerted someone to find the boat/broker and steal the deal out from under you. Remember a deal is not done until you have the title in your hands. You might be better served to keep future deals to yourself???


I agree completely. For whatever value, I didn't bring it all up until the auction was over and my friend had "won".

If the seller was an honerable man, a done deal is a done deal, and we could all talk about it, as much as we would enjoy.

So, as much as I spoke prematurely, only a piece of **** "seller" could create a mess out of this AFTER the auction was over.


----------



## DougSabbag

sailingfool said:


> Could it be that someone who believes that he is going to buy a yacht half way across the world, on EBay, for a fraction of its value...may not have the resources to be artful about the process?


Oh Boy, thanks a lot.

How about this concept: I thought the deal was in hand, and assuming, (big mistake there), that the seller would follow through with the process and therefore our "agent" would travel to Turkey, confirm the vessel validity, and along with a couple other "confirmations", we would make the final payment.

As it turned out, the steps we were following led to the failure of the scam artist in scoring any money from us.

AND, wait for it....... by my talking about this, here on this blog, OTHERS were also saved from being taken by this scam artist. It is a small world, and we sailors help each other more than we hurt ourselves when we talk to each other.

Think about it.


----------



## Visitor1111

DougSabbag said:


> I agree completely! It is ludicrous to try to use an accountants' view to determine whether or not to save a person who is in the water.
> 
> I do not for a second think poorly of the Captain or the crew of the Kim Jacob. They are all honerable men, whose intentions were to save my wife and I, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for that.
> 
> What I HAVE shared here is that this could have been accomplished without destroying the Triumph with us onboard, and as I was drowning, their lifeboat would have been a good choice to deploy to get me, as opposed to not.
> 
> Would the KJ have deployed a lifeboat if one of their own fell overboard?
> That is a very good question. Can you answer that please?
> 
> It was broad daylight. And the challenge of retrieving their lifeboat via the cables could have easily been resolved by just towing the lifeboat off of their stern.
> 
> But, what I continually ask EVERYONE is: How would YOU FEEL about deploying a rescue lifeboat if YOU were in the ocean, drowning????


Good..but now need to ask is it fair to say that Master of tanker should place 4 or 5 crew members in life treathening situation as well in order to save you?

I wrote that is stupid for me for sure to discuss price of the human life against material costs but we are talking here now about one life for 4 or 5. In this case one is less than 5 I think.....

And it is bit strange for me that after being rescued you are continuously traying to to say that Master should lower lifeboat with his crew in it.......

Honestly speaking if I find myself in any kind of life-treathening situation for sure would not call for even one to help me if there is risk that he can die together with me...prefer to die alone (hope will never happen but...)

Not to mention that you are doing this from nice sofa after being rescued....strange.....

And don't try to say that it was safe to do it...not to me as I have sailed oceans for years and well familiar with all when high seas are about.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Jon,
> 
> As I keep bringing up, how would YOU feel if you were floating around / nearly drowning, for over THREE HOURS while people were on their deck standing next to TWO RESCUE LIFEBOATS?
> 
> Stop telling me how wonderful these people are, and tell us how YOU WOULD FEEL as you sunk, and only regained the surface after you vomited and expelled the water from your body; only to do that again, and again, and again, for over 3 hours?
> 
> How would you feel after that experience about using or not using any rescue life boats for MOB cases if you were drowning?
> 
> Simple question Jon.


That's a fair question, impossible to answer with certainty, of course... I suspect I would feel very much the same as you did at the time, although I would imagine there would be a pretty heavy dose of kicking myself for the mistakes I had made that had gotten myself into that situation to begin with... And, once I had made my way back to the TRIUMPH, I would imagine there would be no freakin' way I'd leave the boat a second time until a secure tether to the KJ had been established somehow... (going by my recollection of your story, I may have misunderstood something about that particular chain of events)

However, in the wake of my rescue, if I ever summoned the nerve to relate my story - as you have admirably done so here - I would simply _hope_ that I would exercise a bit more restraint, and temper my remarks about the actions of the ship and crew that came to my rescue, and refrain from using a word like "inhumane" to characterize their actions... But, hopefully we'll never know the definitive answer to that...

Here's a video from Canadian TV on the rescue of the crew of the s/v SANCTUARY, shows what a risky business bringing 2 boats together in a seaway can be... At about 1:20 in, you can clearly see how close one of the crew came to getting crushed between the 2 boats, that was an extremely close call:

NBC News: Cruise ship rescues 5 from sinking sailboat on MSN Video


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> I agree completely! It is ludicrous to try to use an accountants' view to determine whether or not to save a person who is in the water.


Then I am missing your point somehow.

You said at one point something to the effect that the Master told you (perhaps during the calm water exercise on the way into port) that he was concerned about being able to retrieve the lifeboat in the conditions extant at the time of your rescue.

Since you repeat your position that the boat should have been deployed it would seem that you believe that once aboard the lifeboat you and the crew of the boat could have been safely recovered even if the lifeboat itself could not.

So I'm left with two candidate conclusions:

1. You would have a lifeboat crew (three to five people, people just like you) risk their lives to come after one person, you.

2. You think the risk to lives of the life boat crew was not significant and therefore the only reason for not deploying the lifeboat was concern over the economic loss of the lifeboat.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you are not uncaring about the lives of others. That led me to consider the policy pressures the Master might have been under. What else might I conclude? Help me out here.


----------



## Bene505

JonEisberg said:


> Fair enough, you were there, and I wasn't ... The master of the KJ is not here to defend himself, and I'm not able to read his mind from afar... But I will stand by my statement that to describe the actions of the crew that _actually DID save you_, when all is said and done, as "inhumane", or akin to the neighbors who shut their windows to silence the screams of Kitty Genovese, is absurd...
> 
> Can't help but wonder what any Master or ship owner, faced with a decision whether or not to participate in the AMVER program, would make of this thread? I certainly couldn't blame them, if their reaction went something like this:
> 
> _"Damn, talk about 'no good deed going unpunished', eh?
> 
> To hell with this AMVER crap, and all these yachties calling for Mommy on their Sat phones when their engines quit, and the legions of American ambulance chasers eager to sue for damages to a boat that had already been consigned to abandonment...
> 
> Who needs that sh_t?"_
> 
> Anyway, looks like we'll be seeing another YouTube rescue posted soon - a Beneteau 391 is floating around out there somewhere N of Bermuda:
> 
> Cruise Diva: Norwegian Gem Rescues Storm Tossed North Atlantic Sailors


This looks like the YachtWorld listing for the Beneteau named Sanctuary:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...rency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=29984&url=










Anyone want to help go find her?

Regards,
Brad


----------



## tommays

Its already become common on land to start charging for rescues in places you kind of sort of really should not be 

Even on land the odds for a rescue person are not fabulous


----------



## LandLocked66c

100 pages! Booyah!


----------



## JonEisberg

Bene505 said:


> This looks like the YachtWorld listing for the Beneteau named Sanctuary:
> 
> http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...rency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=29984&url=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to help go find her?
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


Assuming she's the same boat, at least according to the YW listing, she appears a bit lightly equipped for a passage to Bermuda this time of the year...

Perhaps they added a SSB and some other nice-to-have gear for such a passage, but there's still no sign of stuff like radar, which one typically finds on most boats making such a trip... Perhaps the biggest liability in this instance might have been the apparent lack of an inner forestay/ability to fly a staysail or storm jib, something that sure might be nice to have when heading to Bermuda at the tail end of hurricane season... The furled jib looks a bit weird to my eye, almost like it might have suffered damage, and furled up again...

Be interesting to know where the liferaft had been stowed, I'm guessing in the usual spot on deck under the boom... There is mention of "waves breaking over the bow", and to me that points out one of the big vulnerabilities of many of today's modern designs - namely, how easily green water can sweep those sculpted, delicately faceted Euro-style decks which simply _blend_ from deck into coachroof, with very little "barrier" in the form of a more distinct vertical surface to break up or inhibit the force of water sweeping the decks... The dodger is also gone, wonder if it was simply lowered and stowed, or carried away by a boarding wave...

Hmmm, would also be interesting to know how those hull portlights fared throughout this one - there _was_ mention of "taking on water", after all... (grin)


----------



## svHyLyte

DougSabbag said:


> ...And again I ask YOU: How would YOU FEEL if you were the man in the water about using a lifeboat, or not? Stop the rationalizations and logic to explain why it is OK to leave the man in the water, and just answer how YOU WOULD FEEL if you were in the ocean, drowning, about deploying a lifeboat to get you.


Having endured being knocked off the foredeck of a yacht in the middle of the night some 50 miles off of Oceanside and then floating around for 2+ hours before I was near miraculously picked up by another boat in the same race, I know exactly how it feels to be slowly freezing to death in the water at sea. I also know that one's reasoning in such circumstances is completely irrational as one thinks only about one's own survival.

Having served 14 months in Viet Nam in the mid 1960's I also know exactly what is feels like to have men suffering and dying and yet also knowing that sending others out to try and "save" them would certainly have cost many and quite likely more lives. Fortunately, I was not the commander that had to make that decision tho' my CO did and tho' I despaired the decision as did he even more so, it was the right one to make.

You are alive and pursuing your particular dream. I suggest you should be grateful and leave it at that. The pettiness revealed by your continued nattering ill serves you.


----------



## emoney

I've got a feeling that's not the same boat. Canvas looks quite a bit different, and I'm sure there are a few of these around. Somebody's gonna end up with her more than likely though, in either case.


----------



## emoney

svHyLyte said:


> Having endured being knocked off the foredeck of a yacht in the middle of the night some 50 miles off of Oceanside and then floating around for 2+ hours before I was near miraculously picked up by another boat in the same race, I know exactly how it feels to be slowly freezing to death in the water at sea. I also know that one's reasoning in such circumstances is completely irrational as one thinks only about one's own survival.
> 
> Having served 14 months in Viet Nam in the mid 1960's I also know exactly what is feels like to have men suffering and dying and yet also knowing that sending others out to try and "save" them would certainly have cost many and quite likely more lives. Fortunately, I was not the commander that had to make that decision tho' my CO did and tho' I despaired the decision as did he even more so, it was the right one to make.
> 
> You are alive and pursuing your particular dream. I suggest you should be grateful and leave it at that. The petiteness revealed by your continued nattering ill serves you.


Well, you might be older than dirt, but this right here might be one of the best entries in this thread!


----------



## AdamLein

The canvas on the two Sanctuaries look different to me. Black on the one in the rescue, blue on the one on YW. YW boat has a dodger and the mainsail cover fastens before the mast. YW boat has blue UV strip on the jib, but furled jib looks white in the rescue photo.


----------



## n0w0rries

I think anybody would feel the same way Doug felt when he was drowning. Why aren't they doing more to save me? What makes you a man is keeping it to yourself. 

I'd like to see a reality TV show called PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Here's the pilot episode: We see the KJ somewhere in the mid atlantic. There's a plank, and Doug is at the end of it. The Captain is standing next to the host, holding a notebook. "Ok Doug, here's the Captain that saved your life, pulling you from these very waters, but evidently you don't feel he did a good enough job. So now you have a choice, you either thank the captain, both for our cameras, and on the internet via this notebook, or you jump into the water. We apologize the weather is nicer today than it was the day he found you, but we wanted some good helicopter footage for the show. So what's it going to be? PUT UP OR SHUT UP?"


----------



## sailingfool

svHyLyte said:


> .....
> You are alive and pursuing your particular dream. I suggest you should be grateful and leave it at that. The petiteness revealed by your continued nattering ill serves you.


Not to nit-pick your otherwise prime quality commentary, but I believe the word you wanted in this sentence is "pettiness" coming from:

pet·ty 
1. Of small importance; trivial: a petty grievance.
2. Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views.
3. *Marked by meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters.*
4. Secondary in importance or rank; subordinate. See Synonyms at trivial.
5. Law Variant of petit.

Meaning 3 would seem to so perfectly complete your thought. Amen.


----------



## svHyLyte

sailingfool said:


> Not to nit-pick your otherwise prime quality commentary, but I believe the word you wanted in this sentence is "pettiness" coming from:
> 
> pet·ty
> 1. Of small importance; trivial: a petty grievance.
> 2. Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views.
> 3. *Marked by meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters.*
> 4. Secondary in importance or rank; subordinate. See Synonyms at trivial.
> 5. Law Variant of petit.
> 
> Meaning 3 would seem to so perfectly complete your thought. Amen.


You are correct of course. A failure to adequately re-read before posting. I shall make the correction.


----------



## AdamLein

svHyLyte said:


> You are correct of course. A failure to adequately re-read before posting. I shall make the correction.


Unless you meant to describe Doug as small and delicate, in which case it's okay to leave as is


----------



## smackdaddy

h20man said:


> The youtube video that I saw had no comments...
> 
> I had understood that the owners had not been notified... If you have contact info please let them know..


Looks like someone let them know on the Youtube page:

Celebrity Century Rescue 2011 - YouTube


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

svHyLyte said:


> Having endured being knocked off the foredeck of a yacht in the middle of the night some 50 miles off of Oceanside and then floating around for 2+ hours before I was near miraculously picked up by another boat in the same race, I know exactly how it feels to be slowly freezing to death in the water at sea. I also know that one's reasoning in such circumstances is completely irrational as one thinks only about one's own survival.
> 
> Having served 14 months in Viet Nam in the mid 1960's I also know exactly what is feels like to have men suffering and dying and yet also knowing that sending others out to try and "save" them would certainly have cost many and quite likely more lives. Fortunately, I was not the commander that had to make that decision tho' my CO did and tho' I despaired the decision as did he even more so, it was the right one to make.
> 
> You are alive and pursuing your particular dream. I suggest you should be grateful and leave it at that. The pettiness revealed by your continued nattering ill serves you.


Very good observations.

It is, indeed, sad to see a clearly intelligent person like Doug revert to the kind of behavior he is exposing here, accusing his rescuers of not being 'human' even though they saved him from certain death after he made (by his own account) questionable decisions. And even after one of them (no less than the Captain of the Kim Jacobs himself) went into the water himself to rescue him. I can see absolutely no fault in the actions of the captain of the Kim Jacobs, if anything, he took too much risk for himself.

I know Doug will strenuously deny it but there is a pretty simple psychological reason for his behavior. Doug is clearly a man with cojones, as evidenced by, among other indications, the very fact that he published a very self-critical and honest account of his actions here. This is certainly a Good Thing, in particularly for endeavors like blue-water sailing. However, the downside is that when he found himself in a situation where he had to rely on others to save not only his life but also that of his wife (who, as he stated, was dependent on him, at least as far as sailing abilities are concerned), it created a deep psychological scar in him. He is now compensating by putting down those that he had to rely on for his survival. Confronted with the undeniable fact that he was helpless and that others had the power to rescue him, his mind constructs that here must be something very wrong with them. Thus the obviously (to others) wrong conclusion that they must be somehow 'inhuman.'

At this stage, he will, no doubt, deny all this and most likely accuse me of 'talking psychobabble,' telling me to 'FO,' or even threaten violence, as he has done in response to many other rational arguments before. We should understand that this is all part of his current mental structure and an (unconscious) attempt to demonstrate that he has not lost his virility despite this traumatic experience in which he found himself helpless and entirely dependent on others. Likely for the first time in his life, as he has overcome great difficulties earlier by his own means.

The process of transcending this state can take months or years. At this point, we should not judge Doug too harshly, he just will have to go through this traumatic process. I hope that Doug will eventually make it.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Doug, the Carver's galley is looking NICE! I see you chose granite again!


----------



## GeorgeB

Despite all the bickering and insinuation going on, this thread still raises some interesting and important points to ponder. Forgive me if I’m going too far back in time but I’d like to make a couple of observations.

A couple of weeks ago, when we were putting away our dinghy for the season, MrsB and myself took a dinghy ride to the surrounding marinas to burn off some excess gasoline. We came across a couple of cruising ketches (including a sister of “Skoll”) with stern port lights. Got a good look up close. The frames are a heavy bronze construction and the ports themselves were a heavy Lexan. From what I could see, there was an equally massive bronze frame in the interior. I couldn’t see evidence of a hinge so I surmise that they are fixed. These port lights were very. Very heavy duty and much stronger looking than the aluminum framed hatch covers found on most forepeaks.

In one of the previous postings, there was a link to some document that described the tanker’s systems and hardware. The tanker had a steel towing cable on the stern – 3 inch diameter and 250 feet (70 meters) long. Not sure how practical it would be in towing other ships, let alone a sailboat or lifeboat. My dad’s destroyer once had the opportunity to tow a disabled sailboat to Gitmo. Granted, they were in a high state of readiness (final preparation to deploy to the Korean war) and their small ship was only 2,200 tons with a transom less than twenty feet above the waterline. My suspicion is a Liberian flagged vessel manned by hodgepodge of nationalities isn’t going to be very competent in rescues at sea despite their good intentions.

If I ever have my druthers in who would rescue my sorry a** at sea it would be a fellow yachtsman, preferably a racer. Bar none, the best small boat handlers are those who do it all the time. After that, it would be the USCG, USN, any cruise liner (how frequently do you think they rescue passengers who have fallen off?). Followed by any US flagged vessel (Jones act – competent U.S. trained officers and manned by union crews!). Last of all, any foreign-flagged ship. I’ll let you guys know how this works out for me. 

Doug, I have a question for you regarding computers. I’m having a heck of a time finding one that runs on 12V. The ones I’ve seen all run on 18V, and I would like not to have to resort to a transformer or “converter”. Do you have any suggestions?


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Very good observations.
> 
> It is, indeed, sad to see a clearly intelligent person like Doug revert to the kind of behavior he is exposing here, accusing his rescuers of not being 'human' even though they saved him from certain death after he made (by his own account) questionable decisions. And even after one of them (no less than the Captain of the Kim Jacobs himself) went into the water himself to rescue him. I can see absolutely no fault in the actions of the captain of the Kim Jacobs, if anything, he took too much risk for himself.
> 
> I know Doug will strenuously deny it but there is a pretty simple psychological reason for his behavior. Doug is clearly a man with cojones, as evidenced by, among other indications, the very fact that he published a very self-critical and honest account of his actions here. This is certainly a Good Thing, in particularly for endeavors like blue-water sailing. However, the downside is that when he found himself in a situation where he had to rely on others to save not only his life but also that of his wife (who, as he stated, was dependent on him, at least as far as sailing abilities are concerned), it created a deep psychological scar in him. He is now compensating by putting down those that he had to rely on for his survival. Confronted with the undeniable fact that he was helpless and that others had the power to rescue him, his mind constructs that here must be something very wrong with them. Thus the obviously (to others) wrong conclusion that they must be somehow 'inhuman.'
> 
> At this stage, he will, no doubt, deny all this and most likely accuse me of 'talking psychobabble,' telling me to 'FO,' or even threaten violence, as he has done in response to many other rational arguments before. We should understand that this is all part of his current mental structure and an (unconscious) attempt to demonstrate that he has not lost his virility despite this traumatic experience in which he found himself helpless and entirely dependent on others. Likely for the first time in his life, as he has overcome great difficulties earlier by his own means.
> 
> The process of transcending this state can take months or years. At this point, we should not judge Doug too harshly, he just will have to go through this traumatic process. I hope that Doug will eventually make it.


Interesting.

I guess the way I look at it is the manner in which a "Type A" person _really_ behaves in such a situation. For example, if the victim turns down the outstretched hand because the rescuer was "doing it all wrong" up to that point, then tells the rescuer how to "do it right" and waits for his next go-round - you have a true-to-the-bone Type A. No doubt. However, I think we can all agree that that's very rare. In most cases the victim gratefully grabs that hand when it gets within reach, regardless of how it got there. There's really nothing left to control at that point.

But then we come to the _discussion_ of those events...a different world altogether.

In the case of the victim that grabs the hand when offered, outsiders typically want that victim to only be grateful in discussing the events - not critical...as the latter implies ungraciousness. Yet those outsiders rarely apply that same rule to themselves. Their critique is "constructive" - where the victim's is "ungracious". Such is that nature of discussion...the exercise of proving oneself "right". It's really more about the environment than the actions.

Therefore, I think you really have to weigh Doug's critique of the rescue within the context of this thread - which has, as these threads always do, turned into a pretty detailed critique of Doug's actions/inactions by those that don't/can't have all the facts. He's simply doing what we're all doing - critiquing. He just has WAY more invested in his viewpoint than any of us possibly can have in ours.

So, it's really kind of a no-win if you think about it...except for those of us who get to learn from the various comments and viewpoints. There are just too many variables for a simple "right" to be proven.

And all of the above is precisely why you're right that Doug has a serious set of stones to be willing to enter such an environment with such candor.

Personally, I've got no problem cutting the guy some slack. And I think it's a testament both to him and to SN that he's still around fielding comments. All in all, the critiques, from all sides, have been pretty reasonable.


----------



## sailingfool

LandLocked66c said:


> Doug, the Carver's galley is looking NICE! I see you chose granite again!


No way you would get a galley like this in the 28 footer, this picture must be the galley from a Carver 32. Your bad. Probably close though.


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> Jon,
> 
> As I keep bringing up, how would YOU feel if you were floating around / nearly drowning, for over THREE HOURS while people were on their deck standing next to TWO RESCUE LIFEBOATS?
> 
> Stop telling me how wonderful these people are, and tell us how YOU WOULD FEEL as you sunk, and only regained the surface after you vomited and expelled the water from your body; only to do that again, and again, and again, for over 3 hours?
> 
> How would you feel after that experience about using or not using any rescue life boats for MOB cases if you were drowning?
> 
> Simple question Jon.


You know what I would be feeling? How stupid I was to have left a perfectly good boat and jumped into the middle of the freakin Atlantic Ocean- that's what!


----------



## casey1999

h20man said:


> Amazingly... even with the opened hatches etc, the boat managed to sail itself to Mauii....
> 
> from the story:
> *Maui firefighters responded to a sailboat that run aground on the reef off "Baby Beach" in Spreckelsville.
> 
> Officials say around 9:30 Thursday night, a fisherman reported a large sailboat coming in out of the dark right in front of his lines.
> 
> Firefighters made their way to the boat, investigated and found no one on board.
> 
> The 48ft. "Quantum Leap" got disabled earlier in October 600 miles northwest of Hilo on its way from the west coast.
> 
> The three men on board were rescued by a passing cruise ship.​*


Does this boat have a keel? Looks like none- did it get ripped off? Going to be hard to get the boat off the shore. That is a lee shore with typical 25-30 knot winds and large ground sweel running this time of year. Along with a shallow corral reef running 1 mile off shore.


----------



## LandLocked66c

sailingfool said:


> No way you would get a galley like this in the 28 footer, this picture must be the galley from a Carver 32. Your bad. Probably close though.


You will also notice the LARGE port. There is a screen in place for those nice off shore excursions when you need that little bit of extra air flow down below... Some say ridiculous, I say life is too short to not enjoy the niceties!


----------



## casey1999

We are turning into a bunch of panzies. No wonder why this country has so many problems. You go out and get yourself in trouble and when someone voulunteers to save you, costing them many thousands of dollars, you complain about it. Think about the early explores, the people who sailed oceans for the first time, the people who fought wars over the last 300 years, the people who built this country with their blood, sweat, and lives.
Quit complaining.


----------



## smackdaddy

casey1999 said:


> We are turning into a bunch of panzies. No wonder why this country has so many problems. You go out and get yourself in trouble and when someone voulunteers to save you, costing them many thousands of dollars, you complain about it. Think about the early explores, the people who sailed oceans for the first time, the people who fought wars over the last 300 years, the people who built this country with their blood, sweat, and lives.
> Quit complaining.


+1.

Now go salvage that big steel boat ya pansy. Then give it to MC. Two birds - one stone.


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> +1.
> 
> Now go salvage that big steel boat ya pansy. Then give it to MC. Two birds - one stone.


What steel boat ya talking about? The one aground here in Hawaii looks like aluminum to me. I was out sailing this past friday. If I had known where it was (before going aground) I would have sailed over and towed her into Kahului harbor, only about 10 miles away. I am about 100 miles away so would have taken me a day to get to her. Now I can not do much for the boat- it will take some major equipment or a blow torch.

Maybe the boat has a chance. Notice the difference in help the power boat received as compared to what MC received during the grounding of "Maybe Tomorrow".
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/524901.html?showlayout=0


----------



## Bene505

Doug, please take any criticisms of you lightly. Not make captains have ventured onto an online forum to discuss dramatic events. You may be a little off with your perception of the crew on the ship, or you may be exactly right. For me, I'm just glad you are here at all, both alive and posting here for all to learn. And I've learned a lot from you.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> We are turning into a bunch of panzies. No wonder why this country has so many problems. You go out and get yourself in trouble and when someone voulunteers to save you, costing them many thousands of dollars, you complain about it. Think about the early explores, the people who sailed oceans for the first time, the people who fought wars over the last 300 years, the people who built this country with their blood, sweat, and lives.
> Quit complaining.


I am not complaining. We are discussing if it is valid to not use a lifeboat when you have one, to save a MOB.

As for the people who built this country, they complained so much, they started a rebellion. And should I die needlessly to honor the previous "greatest generation"?

Many of the people who "sailed oceans for the first time", were Shanghied, i.e., conscripted into the sailor job against their will.

The Conquistadores, ("early explorers"), killed thousands of natives in order to steal from them.

I really don't think your romantisized view of these people in any way "works" the way you're trying to use them.

Are you calling me a panzy because I think it is appropriate to use a rescue lifeboat to rescue a person? REALLY?!

Perhaps you should "suck it up" yourself and get rid of your automatic transmission, ABS brakes, front wheel disc brakes, fuel injection, stop utilizing modern medical advances, including dentists, cateract surgury, and burn wood for heat, take cold showers, catch or grow your own dinner, make your own clothes, throw out your TV remote control, GPS, cell phone, ATM card(s), and get back to the "good old days", like those real men lived.

Oh, and feel free to kill any natives whose property you desire, and rebel against the government instead of paying your taxes.......

Sure, those were "the days"..........


----------



## DougSabbag

SVAuspicious said:


> Then I am missing your point somehow.
> 
> You said at one point something to the effect that the Master told you (perhaps during the calm water exercise on the way into port) that he was concerned about being able to retrieve the lifeboat in the conditions extant at the time of your rescue.
> 
> Since you repeat your position that the boat should have been deployed it would seem that you believe that once aboard the lifeboat you and the crew of the boat could have been safely recovered even if the lifeboat itself could not.
> 
> So I'm left with two candidate conclusions:
> 
> 1. You would have a lifeboat crew (three to five people, people just like you) risk their lives to come after one person, you.
> 
> 2. You think the risk to lives of the life boat crew was not significant and therefore the only reason for not deploying the lifeboat was concern over the economic loss of the lifeboat.
> 
> I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you are not uncaring about the lives of others. That led me to consider the policy pressures the Master might have been under. What else might I conclude? Help me out here.


I replied to someones' statement that the crew in a rescue lifeboat would be exposed to the same danger of death as the MOB, by pointing out that is not true.

And yes, there has been a lot of discussion on the "rules", (your term: policy pressures), which might have been what the KJ was following and using to rationalize taking pictures instead of deploying a lifeboat.

Though the crew in a lifeboat would be more exposed to discomforts and danger than staying on deck, they would by no means have been so exposed as to be statistically liable to be hurt. Another words, had they entered and deployed a lifeboat, they would have been just fine; even accepting that retrieving the lifeboat might include towing it instead of hoisting it up to the deck.

But, according to the rules, those on deck get to decide if the amount of "exposure" exceeds the amount they should accept within their standard job description.

And on that point I can't argue; it IS up to them if they want to do anything at all beyond their job descriptions.

But, what YOU have not answered is how would YOU FEEL if you were the MOB about deploying a rescue lifeboat ?


----------



## chef2sail

This thread which had so much good and information has deteriorated into catcalling, anger, disjointed outbustss and no longer stays on its topic.....end it mercifully


Dave


----------



## DougSabbag

LandLocked66c said:


> Doug, the Carver's galley is looking NICE! I see you chose granite again!


Pretty funny.

Foot note: we launched the Carver, Triumph Jr., today, and she is in Boston, in the marina she will spend the winter at.

Good to be onboard again, even if she is a stinkpot.

As far as the deep analysis about why I think they should have deployed a lifeboat, it seems a lot simpler to me: Lifeboats are made, purchased, and installed on boats to save people who are in the water. You only have to USE THEM.

But instead of really answering my open question of how you would feel about whether or not to use one, if you are the MOB, everyone seems to be walking around that by basically saying to just suck it up..... OK, but will you suck it up about port lights in the hull.... granite counters..... no radar on a Beneteau..... no...? And if you won't suck it up about those little / petty "issues" in life, then do you really think YOU would suck it up if you were the MOB and you were looking at a nice clean pair of rescue lifeboats on deck as you sank and managed to float, again, and again, and again....

No, you men have exhibited at least as picky / finicky / selective / demanding / etc., attitudes as me, if not a lot more. So, even the Viet Vet would want the lifeboat deployed...... BTW, there weren't any Viet Cong shooting at the KJ to keep them on deck. That sure was an apple to oranges comparison.

But, as long as you guys are enjoying calling me a panzy, or unthankful, or whatever....... just remember all of this if you find yourself a MOB, as you look up at a lifeboat, not being deployed.


----------



## DougSabbag

AdamLein said:


> Unless you meant to describe Doug as small and delicate, in which case it's okay to leave as is


Please come on over here (away from your internet protection) and say that.

Please.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> But instead of really answering my open question of how you would feel about whether or not to use one, if you are the MOB, everyone seems to be walking around that by basically saying to just suck it up..... OK, but will you suck it up about port lights in the hull.... granite counters..... *no radar on a Beneteau.....* no...?


I'm presuming you might be alluding to my comment posted earlier, re the recently abandoned yacht SANCTUARY:



> Assuming she's the same boat, at least according to the YW listing, she appears a bit lightly equipped for a passage to Bermuda this time of the year...
> 
> Perhaps they added a SSB and some other nice-to-have gear for such a passage, but there's still no sign of stuff like radar, which one typically finds on most boats making such a trip... Perhaps the biggest liability in this instance might have been the apparent lack of an inner forestay/ability to fly a staysail or storm jib, something that sure might be nice to have when heading to Bermuda at the tail end of hurricane season...


Just to clarify this relatively minor point...

My remark was not intended to be a _judgement_, but should be viewed simply as an _observation_... There is no reason why one cannot sail to Bermuda without radar, of course. Nice to have, but certainly not necessary...

However, the overwhelming percentage of yachts that sail south via Bermuda in the fall ARE likely to be equipped with radar - it's simply a reflection of the extent of additional gear typically added to most boats making such a trip, is all... My observation was that the boat - given its appearance as a relatively "stock" boat with minimal apparent additional offshore gear - _*might*_ have been lacking other gear which might have been beneficial in their situation...

Just a hunch, but a boat heading to Bermuda with no radar might also be lacking such items as a storm trysail, or a drag device, and so forth... That's all I was suggesting, we'll likely never know, of course...


----------



## DougSabbag

GeorgeB said:


> Despite all the bickering and insinuation going on, this thread still raises some interesting and important points to ponder. Forgive me if I'm going too far back in time but I'd like to make a couple of observations.
> 
> A couple of weeks ago, when we were putting away our dinghy for the season, MrsB and myself took a dinghy ride to the surrounding marinas to burn off some excess gasoline. We came across a couple of cruising ketches (including a sister of "Skoll") with stern port lights. Got a good look up close. The frames are a heavy bronze construction and the ports themselves were a heavy Lexan. From what I could see, there was an equally massive bronze frame in the interior. I couldn't see evidence of a hinge so I surmise that they are fixed. These port lights were very. Very heavy duty and much stronger looking than the aluminum framed hatch covers found on most forepeaks.
> 
> In one of the previous postings, there was a link to some document that described the tanker's systems and hardware. The tanker had a steel towing cable on the stern - 3 inch diameter and 250 feet (70 meters) long. Not sure how practical it would be in towing other ships, let alone a sailboat or lifeboat. My dad's destroyer once had the opportunity to tow a disabled sailboat to Gitmo. Granted, they were in a high state of readiness (final preparation to deploy to the Korean war) and their small ship was only 2,200 tons with a transom less than twenty feet above the waterline. My suspicion is a Liberian flagged vessel manned by hodgepodge of nationalities isn't going to be very competent in rescues at sea despite their good intentions.
> 
> If I ever have my druthers in who would rescue my sorry a** at sea it would be a fellow yachtsman, preferably a racer. Bar none, the best small boat handlers are those who do it all the time. After that, it would be the USCG, USN, any cruise liner (how frequently do you think they rescue passengers who have fallen off?). Followed by any US flagged vessel (Jones act - competent U.S. trained officers and manned by union crews!). Last of all, any foreign-flagged ship. I'll let you guys know how this works out for me.
> 
> Doug, I have a question for you regarding computers. I'm having a heck of a time finding one that runs on 12V. The ones I've seen all run on 18V, and I would like not to have to resort to a transformer or "converter". Do you have any suggestions?


This link leads to one of the brands of 12v computers: 
T2 Fanless Dual Core Intel Atom Slim PC

They offer numerous models / configurations.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> I'm presuming you might be alluding to my comment posted earlier, re the recently abandoned yacht SANCTUARY:
> 
> Just to clarify this relatively minor point...
> 
> My remark was not intended to be a _judgement_, but should be viewed simply as an _observation_... There is no reason why one cannot sail to Bermuda without radar, of course. Nice to have, but certainly not necessary...
> 
> However, the overwhelming percentage of yachts that sail south via Bermuda in the fall ARE likely to be equipped with radar - it's simply a reflection of the extent of additional gear typically added to most boats making such a trip, is all... My observation was that the boat - given its appearance as a relatively "stock" boat with minimal apparent additional offshore gear - _*might*_ have been lacking other gear which might have been beneficial in their situation...
> 
> Just a hunch, but a boat heading to Bermuda with no radar might also be lacking such items as a storm trysail, or a drag device, and so forth... That's all I was suggesting, we'll likely never know, of course...


And in that same "just to clarify" mode, I referenced this lack of radar interest of yours, (I am not arguing about the validity of owning one / I owned one too), as an example of NOT just sucking it up.

I referenced that to exhibit that my interest in USING a lifeboat if it is available is no more of a "petty" point than bringing up the concept that someone sailing to Bermuda should have a radar.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> Please come on over here (away from your internet protection) and say that.


I don't think it would make sense anymore, taken out of context.


----------



## DougSabbag

AdamLein said:


> I don't think it would make sense anymore, taken out of context.


I agree; it doesn't make any sense at all.


----------



## Minnewaska

I will answer Doug's question about how I would feel if I were the MOB. 

At 90 days after the incident, I would probably feel angry. 

Probably about a year later I would not and would understand how lucky I really was. Those sailors were primarily hired and trained to run hoists, grease engines and haul cargo in a steel tub across oceans, not save lives. People drive past disabled cars every day. The fact that ordinary citizens of the world volunteer to stop is a cut above our lives ashore.

There is a premise made that Triumph would have been fine if they never came. In time, that analysis may not be so firm either. With hysterical crew, sleeping would have become even more challenged, decision making more strained and the chain of failures likely would have increased not stabilized. Admittedly, that's easy to say from a warm and dry living room chair, but I think has some merit.

I feel that every day on this side of the grass is a gift.


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> But, what YOU have not answered is how would YOU FEEL if you were the MOB about deploying a rescue lifeboat ?


I thought your question was directed at Jon Eisberg and not a general one.

In the water there is no question in my mind that my FEELINGS (your word) would be clear: GET ME OUT OF HERE.

The scenario would evolve in one of two ways: 1. I'd be dead, in which case my feelings and opinions aren't relevant or 2. I'd be rescued.

In the latter case I would certainly be frustrated, as you clearly are. I have been in command however and I understand that there are strategic pressures as well as tactical ones. I would be motivated to understand what those pressures might have been.

If you are moved to explore with AMVER and Ernst Jacob Group what training is in place, what policies are in place, and what guidance is disseminated I hope you will report back.

No matter the drift this thread has experienced, I continue to salute you for sharing your story. I don't have to agree with you on every point in order to respect you for your contribution to community knowledge.


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> I am not complaining. We are discussing if it is valid to not use a lifeboat when you have one, to save a MOB.
> 
> As for the people who built this country, they complained so much, they started a rebellion. And should I die needlessly to honor the previous "greatest generation"?
> 
> Many of the people who "sailed oceans for the first time", were Shanghied, i.e., conscripted into the sailor job against their will.
> 
> The Conquistadores, ("early explorers"), killed thousands of natives in order to steal from them.
> 
> I really don't think your romantisized view of these people in any way "works" the way you're trying to use them.
> 
> Are you calling me a panzy because I think it is appropriate to use a rescue lifeboat to rescue a person? REALLY?!
> 
> Perhaps you should "suck it up" yourself and get rid of your automatic transmission, ABS brakes, front wheel disc brakes, fuel injection, stop utilizing modern medical advances, including dentists, cateract surgury, and burn wood for heat, take cold showers, catch or grow your own dinner, make your own clothes, throw out your TV remote control, GPS, cell phone, ATM card(s), and get back to the "good old days", like those real men lived.
> 
> Oh, and feel free to kill any natives whose property you desire, and rebel against the government instead of paying your taxes.......
> 
> Sure, those were "the days"..........


Doug,
You misunderstand me. I am not talking about embracing technology- man has been doing that for a million years now. What I am refering to is entitlements. Everyone today is entiltled to somthing. You feel you are entitled to a rescue that is done in the way you desire. Why did you not deploy your life raft instead of blaming the KJ for not deploying their life boat? You might have been in a better situation then.

"Ask not what your rescuer can do for you, but what you can do for your rescuer" AL


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> You misunderstand me. I am not talking about embracing technology- man has been doing that for a million years now. What I am refering to is entitlements. Everyone today is entiltled to somthing. You feel you are entitled to a rescue that is done in the way you desire. Why did you not deploy your life raft instead of blaming the KJ for not deploying their life boat? You might have been in a better situation then.
> 
> "Ask not what your rescuer can do for you, but what you can do for your rescuer" AL


Re the crew of the SANCTUARY, they might have considerably lessened the risk to themselves, and made it easier for the rescuers, had they used the inflatable on their foredeck to shuttle between them and the rescue boat...










There is a lengthy thread on this rescue over on Cruisers Forum... Sounds like they may have actually been heading to Europe, via the Azores...

Here's a post from a woman whose sister was aboard:



> The captain of the GEM explained to my sister that the rescue was as difficult as in the movie: A perfect storm. Had they not been able to secure the rescue boat when they did, all would have been abandonned. (5 from the rescue team and 5 from the Sanctuary: total of 10 people). Also had the distress call gone out an hour later, The Gem would not have attempted the rescue.
> Upon reboarding the Gem, one rescue member collapsed from exhaustion.


And, from an passenger aboard the NORWEGIAN GEM:



> I was the one posting the video on youtube. I have more pics I will try to update the video later on.
> 
> Has for the sea condition, we passed near them at around 8 am that morning. My cabin was on deck 5 mid-ship and when I woke up the weather outside was heavy rain, wind from SSW at 45 knots and waves at around 20 feet. Some waves came splashing into our window. The weather improved at the time of the rescue. Afterwards it got really really bad, wind turn north at 60 knots. At around 7 pm I was on a bar overlooking the pool on deck 13 when the ship knock back like it hit something, then a big splash of water came flying over the pool deck. It must have been one hell of a huge wave.


Finally, a Google translation from an account posted in French by the SANCTUARY's skipper himself:



> Google translation:
> Hello Dear marine,
> 
> I am the owner of VSF and the boat which sank this past weekend. I just want to give some details of the wreck before you fall into too much speculation because I know many of you love well go in there.
> 
> All of all, it is true that the ship was under the engine, it has always been on the run in genoa for more than two days, with sales up oscillating between 40 and 60 knots with waves of 20 to 40 'and with the added bonus of moonless nights so no need to tell you that the climate was not an all inclusive cruise.
> 
> Here we are faced with an act of bravery of the captain who Cumulative performance over 44 years at sea, skipper diploma of Master Licen United States, it deserves a medal of bravery for which was able to achieve in such conditions. He took the right decisions at the right time and kept his cool throughout, it's simple he saved the lives of four people in addition to his own.
> 
> During the big wave, he recorded a speed of 17 kn in the surf and more famous wave has reached the opposite direction (ie c is a side opposite to the wind) so creating bcp of damage in the boat. Subsequently, I will avoid the details of the horror that Regan inside the boat.
> 
> C is starting the engine to recharge the skip felt a burning smell and then close the engine illico to avoid a potential fire.
> 
> And I even talking about the night that followed with strong winds with thunderstorms then the one who said that would put a handkerchief in front and that feels good and although it is better to be small in Cree ... your handkerchief, my dear!
> 
> In short, if it would have been this wave pretty well everything was on board and the boat sped to Bermuda to take refuge and could proceed. But having no voltage on board, have the engine, a major water leak, the skip took the best has Decison of the world because you know the boat is plastic and can be replaced but not human life. ...
> 
> Thereafter before all its facts and knowing that another great depression they fall on it in the Saturday evening (weather via Iridium received by me) decided to skip the contact the Coast Guard for evacuation knowing that the raft was torn by the big wave. Fortunately, the Norwegians went no further because in the words of the captain of this ship cruising on the evening of Saturday he recorded winds of 60 of up to 80 kn (he compared it a Perfect Storm) and is any clear that even under sail, the crew would have perished.
> 
> So please have a little SYMPATI to these people and try not Bébitte. Put yourself just 2 minutes to live this nightmare and imagine for 48 hours without eating and drinking almost nothing) and you will understand.
> 
> VSF organizing escorts for over 17 years and had never seen so many depressions and sea and knowing that will continue to do so because as said Yves, that answers a need, all will come out of even more strong.
> 
> At the hour we write this, Sanctuary must have sunk as he took the water and the crew managed to evacuate until the arrival of the ship cruising but with another big storm and unable to evacuate the water and well he had to sink to the deepest of the Atlantic.
> 
> PS: I was outside the country so I will not respond to comments unless you can see nonsense written.
> 
> Sincerely
> Guy
> VSF


----------



## tempest

JonEisberg said:


> Re the crew of the SANCTUARY, they might have considerably lessened the risk to themselves, and made it easier for the rescuers, had they used the inflatable on their foredeck to shuttle between them and the rescue boat...


I'm not seeing that Jon. I don't think the risk would be "considerably" less
Since they'd have to head to the bow to deploy the raft in 40 knot winds. then execute all those boardings and unboardings. That's a considerable amount of effort for an exhausted crew. 
Who's doing the shuttling?

Other than the one guy that slipped, this looked like a text-book rescue.
I'm not sure you could improve upon the results mucking around with the dinghy...


----------



## DougSabbag

SVAuspicious said:


> I thought your question was directed at Jon Eisberg and not a general one.
> 
> In the water there is no question in my mind that my FEELINGS (your word) would be clear: GET ME OUT OF HERE.
> 
> The scenario would evolve in one of two ways: 1. I'd be dead, in which case my feelings and opinions aren't relevant or 2. I'd be rescued.
> 
> In the latter case I would certainly be frustrated, as you clearly are. I have been in command however and I understand that there are strategic pressures as well as tactical ones. I would be motivated to understand what those pressures might have been.
> 
> If you are moved to explore with AMVER and Ernst Jacob Group what training is in place, what policies are in place, and what guidance is disseminated I hope you will report back.
> 
> No matter the drift this thread has experienced, I continue to salute you for sharing your story. I don't have to agree with you on every point in order to respect you for your contribution to community knowledge.


"GET ME OUT OF HERE." Yes, of course anyone would be feeling that way as the MOB.

But then you switch back to the "command" view.....? Does that offset the "GET ME OUT OF HERE." / my life depends on your actions reality?
No it does not. Instead it rationalizes a decision which effectively leaves the MOB sinking in the ocean.

All the "be thankful you're alive and shut up" comments disregard the reality that the MOB (no matter how many errors were made to find himself in that position), was looking at 2 rescue life boats sitting on the deck; and as future MOBs yourselves, (may God forbid), all of you would also be thinking, and SCREAMING: "GET ME OUT OF HERE." i.e., USE that lifeboat!!!

Sure, as time goes on I won't be so vocal about the incongruity of having a life boat and not using it, but similar to the ongoing never ending deeply seated animosity of the Vietnam Vets against the US Government / military, wherein given any prodding many would, even today, leep into a long disertation on how they were screwed by such and such.

Now, many of you are saying how sad that state of being is, and how the vet really should "move on and shut up"; however, haven't the results and damages of the Vietnam War had a deep sea changing impact on America?

So, instead of America just sweeping it all under the rug, we looked at it and learned from it, and gained from our errors which might well keep us from falling into that deep hole again.

So, I won't just shut up and move on. If you ask me, anytime a person is overboard and someone is there with a life boat, in anything resembling reasonable conditions, (which of course would vary from person to person, but I would say, as the MOB, just less than a hurricane), the lifeboat should be deployed and the person rescued.... ASAP.

Then the focus can shift to getting the people from the lifeboat onto the deck. Which is a much better position to be in than treading water.

And if you really argue against this, remember what YOU will be saying when you are a MOB: GET ME OUT OF HERE.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> You misunderstand me. I am not talking about embracing technology- man has been doing that for a million years now. What I am refering to is entitlements. Everyone today is entiltled to somthing. You feel you are entitled to a rescue that is done in the way you desire. Why did you not deploy your life raft instead of blaming the KJ for not deploying their life boat? You might have been in a better situation then.
> 
> "Ask not what your rescuer can do for you, but what you can do for your rescuer" AL


"entitled". Interesting point. Is a person pushing the entitled thing too far to ask to be saved from drowning? Hmmmmm. Answer: No, this is basic humanity.

Save your fellow man from drowning if you can. USE your life boat(s), your lines, and even yourself, to get them out of the water.

And as far as the twisting of Kennedy's inaugural speech line, there sure wasn't much I could do for the rescuer after all that had happened placed me in the water.

Yes, all that I had done wrong, all the errors, misunderstandings, etc.
Nevertheless, whether it was from setting sail in the first place, continuing after a major engine issue, losing the crews' confidence, calling for assistance, choosing the wrong PFD, not having the Boston Whaler plug available, not deploying my own 4 person life pod, and finally jumping overboard, there I was, sinking, gasping for air. It is at that point, HOWEVER you get there, that you too will be screaming: GET ME OUT OF HERE.

Which you will not be inclined to subvert or resign yourself to dying because of whatever it was you did, or didn't do, which put you in the ocean.

You're not the rescuer / Captain, you are the MOB, and you want / need to be saved. This is not a case of pushing the: I am entitled, demand, it is a basic human will and desire to live. Not to die. To see another day. We all (well, there are some suicidal people), have a strong will to live. You can't offset that with some sort of logic that the command / Captain / rules / state that you are SOL.

So, if you are ever in command and someone is overboard, don't just take pictures, deploy whatever you have to get them. Even if you think they made mistakes. Because letting them die is too high a punishment, and too inhumane for good people to do.


----------



## JonEisberg

Tempest said:


> I'm not seeing that Jon. I don't think the risk would be "considerably" less
> Since they'd have to head to the bow to deploy the raft in 40 knot winds. then execute all those boardings and unboardings. That's a considerable amount of effort for an exhausted crew.
> Who's doing the shuttling?
> 
> Other than the one guy that slipped, this looked like a text-book rescue.
> I'm not sure you could improve upon the results mucking around with the dinghy...


We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose...

The potential for a violent coming together of two boats weighing several tons each in such a confused seaway, posing an extreme risk to crew attempting to jump from one to another, is something to be avoided at all costs when an alternative exists, seems to me...

First thing I'd want to do is to stabilize the boat as much as possible, either by heaving-to, or forereaching... There was some mention that the CG had instructed them to lower all sail for the rescue, but that makes no sense to me, I'd say the hell with that - unless the rescuers insisted upon it, of course... But I would argue as strenuously as possible in favor of the stability of heaving-to, and attempting to park the boat...

Then get the tender in the water, and prepare to tether it so that it would trail downwind from the stern... Get 2 or 3 of the crew in the tender, and simply let it drift back a boat length or more astern, and let the rescuers then make their approach for the pick up...

Rinse, and repeat, for the remaining crew members...

Here's more from Cruiser's Forum, the skipper has now posted over there... I'd sure be curious to know precisely what sort of "structural damage to the hull" that boat apparently suffered...



> Re: Crew of SV 'Sanctuary' Abandon Ship
> We left Sandy Hook on Tuesday (October 25) afternoon, after having checked that the weather conditions would be favourable for our passage to St Maarten.
> 
> After a first night of navigating in good conditions, the wind changed to 30 kn SW winds and forced us to change our direct course to handle the state of the sea. By Thursday early evening, the winds increased to 45 - 50 kn, with breaking seas and we experienced three knock downs which ripped our life raft off the deck, created structural damage to the hull and caused diesel fuel leak from one of our reserve tanks.
> 
> The boat at this time was starting to take on water that we managed to keep under control. On Friday, we experienced an electrical short in the engine compartment while starting the engine with the objective of recharging our electrical batteries.
> 
> Our situation was now that our batteries were low which meant that our navigational aids would soon not be functional and our satellite phone was not fully charged.
> 
> In the night of Friday to Saturday we established a watch to both navigate and manually pump water from the boat.
> Easterly winds increased from 15 to 30 kn in confused seas - this was the indication of another storm.
> 
> I made the decision to request assistance since we would have been unable to survive another storm and the lives of my crew was my first priority.
> 
> The US Coast Guards were contacted Saturday morning and they immediately responded. They provided us with a 15 minutes update of the status of help. Within an hour they had confirmed that there was a vessel within the area that would help and that they were sending a Hercules airplane to locate us and organize the rescue with the other vessel.
> 
> I would like to thank the US Coast Guards for their exceptional efficiency and professionalism.
> We would also like to thank the Norwegian cruise line - Captain Hakan Svedung who took the decision to delay his navigation schedule to divert course to rescue us.
> 
> His entire crew, particularly his rescue team who took great risks in dangerous sea conditions.
> 
> We experienced exceptional hospitality from the Norwegian Cruise Line staff and will forever be grateful to them.
> 
> To end, I would like to thank my crew that demonstrated tremendous courage and admirable spirit. We all understood that our lives were in danger but at no time, did any of them panic or challenge my decisions. I am honoured to have been their captain for this incredible experience.
> 
> Captain Thierry Simon
> s/v Sanctuary


----------



## tempest

Yes Jon, I'll agree to disagree. Your points are well taken but To me, there's also a risk of the raft flipping over or getting swamped by a wave and putting 3 people in the water, or the tether letting loose and having to chase down two vessels. I'm not saying it couldn't or wouldn't work, I just don't see it as " considerably" less risky. It's a lot of strength, agility and finesse to expect of an exhausted crew. 

The height of the door to the rescue pod matched up pretty well with the height of the deck on the sailboat. It's not like the rubber raft is the most stable platform to transfer to and from with live ballast in a pitching sea. The dinghy dock at Cane Garden Bay can be harrowing for boats and people.. 

You could see what Captain Thierry thinks if you ask him what the structural damage was.


----------



## DougSabbag

I feel sorry, (in advance) that you guys are now going to start asking Captain Thierry if he thinks doing such and such would have been better than what he did. 

Assuming your logic with these questions, (in your minds is), that you will "learn" from these "what ifs", I think you really are kidding yourselves. You might as well take notes and when you face an "issue" you can refer to your notes, or, I am sure your steal trap minds will think back to the sailnet.com thread and react differently in that moment of life or death..... sure you will.

In reality, things won't be the same, and you'll know that, and therefore react with whatever works, (at least what you think will work), in that second.

But, if life continues to throw the curve balls she most often does, it is a crap shoot overall, and you might be surprised to find a line hooked onto your PFD; or find that something suddenly doesn't work; or find a hungry shark; or, well, you get the picture.... the many facets of YOUR emergency will allmost definetly be different from "ours", and only in your planning phase, (perhaps before you even leave the dock), can you try to apply these experiences into your plans.

But, go ahead and ask the good man if he thinks your ideas would have worked better.....


----------



## DougSabbag

"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley."

You really are kidding yourselves if you don't believe that completely. Trying to pre-play out every single situation and pre-plan which gambit to employ, is a reflection of mans' conceit.

Your tether could break.
Your harness could fail.
Your cleat could fail.
Your dinghy / raft / life pod could be swept off of the deck.
Your rig could fall and take you overboard with it.
Your engine piston ring (any one of them) could break; even a new one.
Your engine bearing, (anyone of them), could "spin out", and fail.
Your boat could catch fire; from any of a thousand different sources.
Your flare could be a dud.
Your SSB could fail.
You could be surprised by that submerged container.
A submarine could knock you into little pieces, and leave the area.
A whale could do the same.....
A rogue wave could wipe you out.
Lightening could hit you.
You could have a heart attack, apendicitus attack, brain aneurism, suffer a stroke, go blind.
You could be thrown across the cockpit and break your neck.

And that is only a partial list of the many, many, many things which could happen, most of which you can not be prepared for, or at least you can't be prepared for all of them.

And invairably, the one you are not prepared for, is the one which will happen.

So go ahead and ask the survivors if your idea(s) would have avoided their catastrophes, but, know that all you are accomplishing is resolving a historical issue, not the one you will face.


----------



## DougSabbag

Here is an example of how you folks have devoured my story... I'll take a swipe at this paragraph from the S/V Sanctuary:

"After a first night of navigating in good conditions, the wind changed to 30 kn SW winds and forced us to change our direct course to handle the state of the sea. By Thursday early evening, the winds increased to 45 – 50 kn, with breaking seas and we experienced three knock downs which ripped our life raft off the deck, created structural damage to the hull and caused diesel fuel leak from one of our reserve tanks."

1. On "checking the weather", apparently they didn't check with a good source.
2. "Experienced 3 knock downs... 45 - 50 kn winds"; apparently they had too much canvas up for the conditions, and didn't learn that even from the first knock down.
3. "ripped our life raft off of the deck"; apparently it was not truely well secured.
4. "structural damage to the hull", apparently they didn't completely test the hulls' structural integrity, I understand that you can Xray it.....

See how easy it is to do the Monday morning QB dance?  And do you see how absolutely fruitless it is? And can you imagine how much the Captain of the Sanctuary would not want to entertain these "methinks" from the peanut gallery????


----------



## DougSabbag

Oh this is so much fun! No wonder you dudes took turns doing it to me!

Here is some more!

"On Friday, we experienced an electrical short in the engine compartment while starting the engine with the objective of recharging our electrical batteries.

Our situation was now that our batteries were low which meant that our navigational aids would soon not be functional and our satellite phone was not fully charged."

1. If they had solar panels and, or, a generator, their reliance on the motor for electricity would have been alleviated.
2. If they (like the TRiumph), had 2 sets of house batteries, they also could have gone further without running out of power.
3. Apparently there was something not checked on their engine which led to an "electrical short". I replaced the entire engine wiring harness on the Triumph.
4. We had 2 sets of sat phone batteries..... 

So guys, are you going to confront that Captain with your "methinks" / MM QB ideas??
There is a wide array of latitude to work with! I've provided some very viable starting points, but I am sure your relentless minds can come up with many more.

Have fun!


----------



## DougSabbag

continued fun....

"Easterly winds increased from 15 to 30 kn in confused seas - this was the indication of another storm."

Did he monitor the barometric pressure????


AND.... nobody has commented on the fact that in their "rescue" a life boat WAS DEPLOYED even with considerably more wave and wind "danger" to contend with.

The lifeboat sure did make their extraction a lot smoother, didn't it?!

Gee, do you think lifeboat USAGE should be a mandatory training exercise if you are in the AMVER program? OR is it just fine to leave the lifeboat deployment as a "whatever you're feeling at that moment" response. 

Now, before you answer remember you are a MOB...............


----------



## LandLocked66c

Nope, no second guessing. This says it all!



> We experienced exceptional hospitality from the Norwegian Cruise Line staff and will forever be grateful to them.


----------



## dmcMaine

Doug, now you're just being petty.

I'm sorry, but in all three stories, yours, the Sanctuary, and the Quantum, rescues were effected with no loss of life. In my book that is three resounding successes, regardless of methodology, or any mistakes made.

I may not be much of a sailor, but I was a Sailor and the Navy at least taught me that much.


----------



## LandLocked66c

JonEisberg said:


> I'd sure be curious to know precisely what sort of "structural damage to the hull" that boat apparently suffered...


The shock of the sea waves caused structural damage to the hull and possibly delaminating the fiberglass.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> First thing I'd want to do is to stabilize the boat as much as possible, either by heaving-to, or forereaching... There was some mention that the CG had instructed them to lower all sail for the rescue, but that makes no sense to me, I'd say the hell with that - unless the rescuers insisted upon it, of course... But I would argue as strenuously as possible in favor of the stability of heaving-to, and attempting to park the boat...
> 
> Then get the tender in the water, and prepare to tether it so that it would trail downwind from the stern... Get 2 or 3 of the crew in the tender, and simply let it drift back a boat length or more astern, and let the rescuers then make their approach for the pick up...


Let's set aside for a moment the precarious-looking tie-down of the tender in the picture above.

The idea of heaving-to is good. The improvement in boat motion really does have to be experienced to be believed. I haven't launched the tender while hove to but the idea of getting the dinghy over the side while protected from the wind by the jib is appealing. I'll give it a try next I'm out in conditions to give it a fair test.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

DougSabbag said:


> Here is an example of how you folks have devoured my story... I'll take a swipe at this paragraph from the S/V Sanctuary:
> 
> "After a first night of navigating in good conditions, the wind changed to 30 kn SW winds and forced us to change our direct course to handle the state of the sea. By Thursday early evening, the winds increased to 45 - 50 kn, with breaking seas and we experienced three knock downs which ripped our life raft off the deck, created structural damage to the hull and caused diesel fuel leak from one of our reserve tanks."
> 
> 1. On "checking the weather", apparently they didn't check with a good source.
> 2. "Experienced 3 knock downs... 45 - 50 kn winds"; apparently they had too much canvas up for the conditions, and didn't learn that even from the first knock down.
> 3. "ripped our life raft off of the deck"; apparently it was not truely well secured.
> 4. "structural damage to the hull", apparently they didn't completely test the hulls' structural integrity, I understand that you can Xray it.....
> 
> *See how easy it is to do the Monday morning QB dance?  And do you see how absolutely fruitless it is? And can you imagine how much the Captain of the Sanctuary would not want to entertain these "methinks" from the peanut gallery????*


Yes, Doug, you are right, at least in the text that I boldened.

Now replace 'Captain of the Sanctuary" with "Captain of the Kim Jacobs" and realize that you are the most vocal member of the peanut gallery.

Doug, you have been in a very difficult situation in which you felt completely helpness and found yourself entirely dependent on strangers. Even more aggravating, you could not protect your wife who depended on you. This is a traumatic experience for many male victims. I explained earlier why you feel the need to criticize your rescuers, even though (as evidenced by the above sentence) you realize perfectly well that such criticism is not justified. What you are experiencing is a dissociation of your mental processes into mutually contradictory states.

The need for seeking professional help has been brought up before by others, but at this stage your behavior indicates a fast progression of your mental trauma, rather than an improvement. I strongly suggest you see a mental health professional. It may nothing more than a few consultations to get you back on track.


----------



## casey1999

casey1999 said:


> What steel boat ya talking about? The one aground here in Hawaii looks like aluminum to me. I was out sailing this past friday. If I had known where it was (before going aground) I would have sailed over and towed her into Kahului harbor, only about 10 miles away. I am about 100 miles away so would have taken me a day to get to her. Now I can not do much for the boat- it will take some major equipment or a blow torch.
> 
> Maybe the boat has a chance. Notice the difference in help the power boat received as compared to what MC received during the grounding of "Maybe Tomorrow".
> Sinking boat recovered as large sailboat runs aground - Mauinews.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Visitor's Information - The Maui News


.


----------



## Minnewaska

Training exercises are often conducted by showing the class an example and having them "methinks" what could have been done differently. Not fair to do it directly to the original victim, but not without value overall.


----------



## Minnewaska

I've been trying to contemplate a scenario to put the launching of the rescue pod in context. 

Say you respond to a distress call 1000 miles offshore and it's only you, your spouse and you two teenage children aboard. You make an effort to rescue that doesn't work and causes the victims more trouble. You have a rescue/dinghy/etc that you could launch to go get them. However, you feel like it would risk the life of your spouse or child to attempt it. Remember, you are in heavy seas 1000 miles offshore and alone. If it doesn't work, you will now have to rescue your family as well.

Do you ask them to launch it? Should the KJ captain feel differently about his crew?


----------



## LandLocked66c

Inserting a "methinks" for good measure!


----------



## JonEisberg

Lots more posted by the skipper of SANCTUARY&#8230; This wasn't kroozing as pictured on the covers of CRUISING WORLD, that's for sure:



> For those of you who are interested in the detailed story of our ''adventure'', here it is:
> 
> This text is extract from the letter I wrote to the owner of Sanctuary, the day we arrived in NYC onboard Norwegian Gem.
> 
> We arrived this morning in New York City, NY, onboard the Norwegian Gem, the ship that saved us from certain death.
> 
> We started from Sandy Hook on Tuesday, October 25 with a favorable weather forecast for the next few days (NE wind 10-15 kn) which allowed us to cross the Gulf Stream in direct route to St. Maarten, NA.
> 
> After a pleasant first night, a wind SW 30 KN forced us to diverge from our direct route, given the wind and the sea conditions. The next day, we were hit by a severe depression with winds of 40 kn and more. Running before the wind with genoa rolled up to 85%.
> 
> During the night of Thursday to Friday, we experienced winds up to 60 KN with rough, huge seas. I took the wheel all night because I was the only one who could handle the breaking waves. The crew were on 2 hours watch, to inform me of the waves coming from behind. It was a night of new moon, no visibility.
> 
> Around 23:00, we were hit by a huge breaking wave, twice as big as the others. It came from port, while all others were coming from starboard. It hit hard and the boat was capsized, the mast in the water. I had water at least two feet above me and I was torn from the wheel. I was attached and I found myself on the stern, against the outboard motor. When the waters went away, the boat righted herself and the mast was still standing up. The boat continued on, driven by fierce winds. Eric's portable GPS recorded boat speeds up to 17.6 KN ...
> 
> Inside the ship, it was horror. Eric who was sleeping in the saloon, went through the saloon table and ended up against the fridge on the other side of the boat. The other two teammates who were sleeping were also thrown violently. All cabinets were emptied and there was stock all over the floors, including glass and debris of all kinds.
> 
> We realized that there was also a leak of diesel spare reservoir that had emptied into the bidge. We also realized that the boat was taking on water.
> 
> We were subsequently struck by two lightning storms. With hyper violent winds. We also were hit by two other big breaking waves, one of which ripped-off the "life raft". The shock of the sea waves caused structural damage to the hull and possibly delaminating the fiberglass. Inside the boat, in André's cabin, the cabinet was smashed and could not open anymore. To my surprise we survived - boat and crew - this apocalyptic night.
> 
> The next day, the wind was calmer, but the sea was still very confused, with a nasty cross swell, residual of the storm. We made an inventory of damages to the boat. I tried to contact you with the Iridium sat phone and I hit your mailbox again, where I left you a message. We set our course to Bermuda in order to stop and repair. It was unthinkable to go to St. Maarten, NA in these conditions. We were at that time 357 nautical miles North of Bermuda.
> 
> On the evening of Friday, around 18:00, we started the engine to recharge the batteries. I immediately felt a burning smell and smoke coming from the engine compartment. We stopped the engine and made an investigation of the engine compartment. We believe that there was an electrical short with possible wire melt down and blown fuse. Impossible to start the engine any more...
> 
> An Easterly wind rose and we made direct route to Bermuda. As it was impossible to recharge the batteries, it was necessary to reduce our electrical power consumption. We then established shifts for steering and other shifts to pump manually the boat that was taking on water.
> 
> On the morning of Saturday, the wind came from the SW 30-35 kn. It was impossible to sail to Bermuda anymore. Our batteries were very low and a new storm was beginning. The Iridium phone was charged at 50%. I decided to contact the USCG and request assistance. I also activated the DSC on the VHF. The Norwegian Gem cruise ship told me later that she never received the distress signal...
> 
> The United States Coast Guard sent a Hercules aircraft on our position and found a ship that was cruising at 50 NM from us. We established shifts for pumping the boat manually every two hours to prevent the water from rising above the floor.
> 
> There was diesel all over the boat and it was very dangerous for slipping on floors.
> 
> The Norwegian Gem agreed to divert her course and came to us for assistance. The Hercules airplane of the United States Coast Guard circled above us and made a radio technical liaison between all parties. When we saw the ship, we were contacted by VHF and we began to plan the rescue maneuver in a strong wind and rough seas with waves of 10-15 feet. A rescue boat was launched and she came close to the boat. The transfer of the crew was extremely difficult and dangerous. There have been several violent impacts between the two boats.
> 
> We went on board the rescue boat with few belongings. We had prepared our passports and a bag of clothes.
> 
> The approach maneuver back to the cruise ship was extremely difficult and dangerous. Several collisions occured between the rescue boat and the cruise ship while we were hoisted.
> 
> The officers of the cruise ship took care of us and we all went to the infirmary where we were examined by doctors. We were offered cabins and were able to shower and feed. For more than three days, we had almost nothing to eat and drank little, given the state of the sea and the sailboat's condition.
> 
> The Norwegian Gem has resumed her voyage to New York City. The next day, we cleared customs, met the NYC press and celebrated with the cruise ship officers and the rescue team that saved our lives.
> 
> Captain Thierry Simon.


OK, here's some of what I take away from this event&#8230;

The captain sounds highly professional, to me. Once things deteriorated beyond a certain point, sounds like he had little option to bail out, the safety of his crew was his first priority, of course. I have little doubt he made the right call under those circumstances&#8230;

The real lesson in this one, however, is the reminder of the risk of such a voyage in a boat not necessarily well-suited for such a passage&#8230; SANCTUARY sounds like a fairly lightly-equipped coastal cruiser, seems pretty apparent she lacked some of the gear one would prefer to have for such a passage&#8230;

Delivery skippers are often asked to do more with less, comes with the territory&#8230; Captain Simon explains further, what the deal was with this trip:



> You also have to understand that Sanctuary was not my boat. The boat belongs to a Charter Company that operates on Lake Champlain in summer and in the Caribbean during winter.
> As a professional Captain, I was hired to deliver the boat from Lake Champlain, NY to St-Maarten, with paying guests onboard who wanted to acquire offshore experience.
> 
> I think they got a lot for their money...
> 
> But, maybe only professional delivery Captains will understand that, in this type of business, you are dealing with boats that may not come as per your standards and specifications. You take them as they are and do the best you can with the equipment available. Also, the level of knowledge and experience of my paying guests had to do with my decisions. Their safety was my priority.
> 
> Captain Thierry Simon.


My hat is definitely tipped to skippers like Captain Simon, who have the skills, patience, and willingness to assume the responsibility of undertaking such a passage, on such a boat, with paying customers of unknown abilities or suitability for sailing offshore&#8230; But that sort of work is certainly not for me&#8230;

The loss of SANCTUARY certainly reminds us of the risk of the route south via Bermuda in late fall, in anything less than a much larger, faster, fully-crewed offshore yacht&#8230; Don Street has me firmly convinced, a departure from the Chesapeake Entrance, or Beaufort, is the safer bet this time of the year&#8230; Forecasts are at best reliable for 48-72 hours from departure, I'd much rather take the option that should get me ACROSS the Stream in that time frame, as opposed to the one that might have me APPROACHING the vicinity of the North Wall of the Stream at the end of a reasonably reliable window&#8230; Bermuda is a Gale Magnet this time of the year, I'd prefer to give it as much of a miss as possible&#8230;

Sounds like Mr. Simon definitely did the best with what he had, but I'll bet when their speedo registered 17+ knots, he might have been wishing he might have had a series drogue or some form of drag device at his disposal&#8230;. If there was arrow in the quiver that might have made all the difference, that could have been it - along with being aboard a boat that might have been able to heave-to in such conditions, as well&#8230; With the sailplan that's visible in the pics, getting that boat properly and fully hove-to would have been a challenge, for sure&#8230;

Finally, life aboard that boat must have been truly hellacious with the additional problem of the diesel leak as described... I'm guessing, since it was described as an "auxiliary" tank, they might have had some additional bladders aboard, or similar... I believe I mentioned recently how much I HATE carrying additional fuel aboard in anything other than dedicated fuel tankage, it can be a HUGE risk offshore... Only one thing more slippery than diesel fuel spilled on a boat, and you're looking at it... (grin)










Always a big roll of the dice heading into the North Atlantic in the late fall, but even a bigger one without some of the offshore Nice-to-Haves&#8230;


----------



## LandLocked66c

So what do these aux tanks look like?


----------



## smackdaddy

A good correlation to the various expectations of rescue in this thread. This is an excerpt from US Sailing's _Wingnuts_ incident report - in response to criticism of the CG by many who felt they should have sent divers under the boat to search for the victims:



> The United States Coast Guard mission is to "protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests - in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security." They list maritime safety first of their major roles. When they receive a distress call, they rely on standard procedures to use available assets to save lives and not put personnel into unacceptable danger.
> 
> One rule is that a Coast Guard swimmer who is part of a helicopter search team is not permitted to dive under hulls of overturned or submerged vessels. It is too dangerous for the swimmer...
> 
> ...Within minutes Sec SSM, having notified District command, requested a helicopter launch but were told that due to lightning the launch would be delayed by an estimate of an hour.


Lots of great stuff in that report (starting on page 44) regarding the expectations/mentality of the CG regarding rescue.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> I feel sorry, (in advance) that you guys are now going to start asking Captain Thierry if he thinks doing such and such would have been better than what he did.
> 
> Assuming your logic with these questions, (in your minds is), that you will "learn" from these "what ifs", I think you really are kidding yourselves. You might as well take notes and when you face an "issue" you can refer to your notes, or, I am sure your steal trap minds will think back to the sailnet.com thread and react differently in that moment of life or death..... sure you will.
> 
> In reality, things won't be the same, and you'll know that, and therefore react with whatever works, (at least what you think will work), in that second.
> 
> But, if life continues to throw the curve balls she most often does, it is a crap shoot overall, and you might be surprised to find a line hooked onto your PFD; or find that something suddenly doesn't work; or find a hungry shark; or, well, you get the picture.... the many facets of YOUR emergency will allmost definetly be different from "ours", and only in your planning phase, (perhaps before you even leave the dock), can you try to apply these experiences into your plans.
> 
> But, go ahead and ask the good man if he thinks your ideas would have worked better.....


Okay dude, no need to be so jerky. Jeez.

I actually do have a question (along the same lines as Jon's above) that I'd like to ask the guy - and that is did they have a JSD on board? Did they use any kind of sea anchor/drogue? If not why not? If so, did it not work?

The things they complain about seem to be alleviated by the use of a JSD (or similar) - at least according to the marketing language and testimonials. I want to know if that's true or not based on more experience. And if this skipper didn't have one - or chose not to use one he had - that gives me some info with which to evaluate it's importance and utility.

There is a big difference between questions/hypothesizing like the above - and accusations of "stupidity". You seem to be losing that perspective.


----------



## Dean101

smackdaddy said:


> There is a big difference between questions/hypothesizing like the above - and accusations of "stupidity".


I totally agree with you Smackdaddy. I think there is much to be learned by questioning whether or not a different technique or action could help or hurt in any given situation. I certainly don't believe that thinking about alternatives for an hour or so then putting the conclusions in the back of ones head will help in a future emergency. However, for those that truely want to learn from Doug's experience, thinking about alternatives can open the mind to new ideas and concepts. That is the basis of innovation.

An open mind is willing to try new ideas. Forgive me for not recalling the name of the author but one person here recently suggested that he/she would try to launch a dingy while hove-to in less than favorable conditions. That suggests to me that they are willing to learn. As I recall, that action was not taken by the crew of the boat mentioned. But because different people, who agreed to disagree, had a civil dialogue with apparently open minds, we will hopefully get to learn from their test dinghy launch.

Doug, while following this thread I have made a sincere attempt to disregard those posts which seemed to be antagonistic and instigative by several authors, including yourself. I continue to applaude you for giving everyone here the opportunity to see what can happen when out of sight of land and things go south. It takes a big man to willingly submit himself to such scutiny as you have received here but I do wish that you would realize that some of us ask questions simply for your opinion and thoughts on what difference trying something else might have made, not to be abusive.

Unlike all of us, you were there. Some of us (certainly not all) are asking you to elaborate your opinions in retrospect, not questioning your decisions and the actions you took. I understand that some questions can be difficult to pose without seeming critical or judgemental, but I'm fairly sure that much of the mud slinging in this thread has come from taking things out of context. I really hope that as this thread contintues, ALL parties would contribute in a constructive manner.

If it were me drowning, yes, I would want my rescuer to try every means at their disposal to try to save me. If I saw lifeboats, I would want to see them getting wet immediately. Lessons learned could be discussed over tea at a later date. There is an ongoing question as to WHY the lifeboats were not used and I think that without input from the captain of the KJ, we will probably never know. I'm very sure that single question, if nothing else, will haunt you for a long time to come. I do hope that in some way you will be able to put that ghost to rest.

Congratulations on your new boat and I wish you luck in finding one with a big pole sticking out of it to replace her!

p.s. I've found the dissertations on the use of granite as countertops in a sailing vessel to be rather comical! I'm actually surprised nobody has asked after the thread count on your bedsheets...:laugher I'm sure your choice of cotton or flannel has some negative affect on the sailing characteristics of a 50' yacht and might have contributed to her mishaps. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay so I asked the other skipper over on CF about the JSD as I said I'd do:



smackdaddy said:


> Based on your experience - would a Jordan Series Drogue (or similar) have helped this particular boat in those conditions?
> 
> I've never been in conditions anywhere near that bad - so I am always trying to research tactics that could be used...just to prepare. It seems to me that a 45' breaking wave is going to do some serious damage to virtually any boat - but I'd like to know what you think.
> 
> Very glad you guys are safe. Sounds like you made a good call.
> 
> PS - How was the buffet and bar on the Gem? Heh-heh.


And here is his response:



Captain_Orion said:


> I never used a Jordan Series Drogue, so I can't comment on that.
> However, I believe in speed and manoeuvrability during a storm. Speed gives you manoeuvrability to present quickly the stern of your vessel to the breaking wave. The down side of this is you are covering a lot of distance, not necessarily in the right direction...
> The buffet and bar on the Gem were awesome! Their sense of hospitality is exceptional.


And my response:



smackdaddy said:


> Cool. Thanks Cap. I bet after two days of being bashed around at the wheel and eating/drinking only spindrift, lobster bisque and a nice single malt whiskey were kind of a treat.
> 
> Glad you guys are safe. This was quite a tale.
> 
> After reading everything I've read on them, I do think I'm going to get the JSD. Just gives us another option. I guess the idea of slowing to 2 knots, not having to steer, and staying below sure sounds like bisque and whiskey to me.
> 
> (Of course, then that 45' breaker will come along and poop us. So whaddayagonnado?)


Like I said, I believe in the JSD (after SailingDog's obsessive touting of them and some serious analysis with the other salts around here). This captain didn't have one, didn't use one, hand-steered downwind in huge waves (his preference) with boat speeds over 17 knots, got knocked down 3 times, sustained serious damage, and had to get off the boat.

Would the JSD have changed that outcome? According to the testimonials it could have. Remember Jeanne Socrates rounding Cape Horn on _Nereida_?

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship/48237-heavy-weather-sailing-5.html#post683829

The JSD helped tremendously when deployed during the first knockdown. No big troubles thereafter - despite some significant damage and a huge wet mess below.

Would the JSD have been THE answer in the case of _Sanctuary_? Who knows? But I'm willing to give it a shot if I ever find myself in that situation.

But, back to the above posts about hammering someone, I'm certainly not going to call any sailor an idiot (at least not any _real_ sailor). But I am going to question what happened - and I am going to question whether outcomes could have been different based on decisions/equipment/techniques like the above. If _that_ gets under someone's skin - too bad. I'm here to learn.


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> Okay dude, no need to be so jerky. Jeez.
> 
> I actually do have a question (along the same lines as Jon's above) that I'd like to ask the guy - and that is did they have a JSD on board? Did they use any kind of sea anchor/drogue? If not why not? If so, did it not work?
> 
> The things they complain about seem to be alleviated by the use of a JSD (or similar) - at least according to the marketing language and testimonials. I want to know if that's true or not based on more experience. And if this skipper didn't have one - or chose not to use one he had - that gives me some info with which to evaluate it's importance and utility.
> 
> There is a big difference between questions/hypothesizing like the above - and accusations of "stupidity". You seem to be losing that perspective.


There is a fine line, (maybe not that fine), between asking a good question, as you are apparently formatting for them, and simply posting what or how YOU would have done such and such. The latter is nothing more than a person exhibiting their superiority, and rationalizing why this would never happen to them because they would never do what the man on the spot did.

So, the latter sucks, per the "recipient" of any MMQB posting.

The former, a true question, is usually welcomed.


----------



## DougSabbag

dmcMaine said:


> Doug, now you're just being petty.
> 
> I'm sorry, but in all three stories, yours, the Sanctuary, and the Quantum, rescues were effected with no loss of life. In my book that is three resounding successes, regardless of methodology, or any mistakes made.
> 
> I may not be much of a sailor, but I was a Sailor and the Navy at least taught me that much.


What you have missed is the fact that in the "rescue" of the Triumph crew, first the Triumph was squished with the crew onboard, (barely escaped a violent death there), then, one of the Triumph crew was allowed to flounder and drown for over 3 hours wherein the "rescuers" took pictures but did not deploy a lifeboat, again, quite different from the other 2 rescues.

So, in the case of the Triumph rescue, the crew of the Triumph survived IN SPITE of the actions of the Kim Jacob.

Granted the net result was the same. Everyone lived.


----------



## DougSabbag

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Yes, Doug, you are right, at least in the text that I boldened.
> 
> Now replace 'Captain of the Sanctuary" with "Captain of the Kim Jacobs" and realize that you are the most vocal member of the peanut gallery.
> 
> Doug, you have been in a very difficult situation in which you felt completely helpness and found yourself entirely dependent on strangers. Even more aggravating, you could not protect your wife who depended on you. This is a traumatic experience for many male victims. I explained earlier why you feel the need to criticize your rescuers, even though (as evidenced by the above sentence) you realize perfectly well that such criticism is not justified. What you are experiencing is a dissociation of your mental processes into mutually contradictory states.
> 
> The need for seeking professional help has been brought up before by others, but at this stage your behavior indicates a fast progression of your mental trauma, rather than an improvement. I strongly suggest you see a mental health professional. It may nothing more than a few consultations to get you back on track.


Well, better yet, I suggest that YOU drown for over 3 hours while your rescuer takes pictures instead of deploying a life boat. Then please tell us (if you manage to get to a life bouy before the hypothermia took over completely), how thankful you are that your rescuer did not deploy either of their lifeboats, not to mention after they squished your boat with you and your wife onboard.

If you looked at the other 2 rescues, we did not see the rescuer violently smashing the vessel they were rescuing, and they DID deploy lifeboats (in much more wind) and retrieved the crews smoothly.

Now I am not dwelling on the smashing of the Triumph, but the unacceptable part of their rescue of us was not deploying a lifeboat. A million hours of therapy would not change that reality.

Am I losing it about this? No. I am working every day on our recently qcquired boat, while living, laughing and loving as much as ever before.

But, as much as you guys keep telling me to just be thankful and shut up, after barely living through it, I can not shut up and be thankful, at least not when talking about this experience. As I mentioned though, I am not talking about this all that much during my life these days.

Thank you for your good intentions.

PS I did "protect my wife", at least as much as possible, since I wrapped a line from the KJ around her and pushed her overboard while the 2 boats were still close enough for what happened to happen; i.e., they pulled her up, onto their deck within 5 minutes. So, if nothing else was done correctly, at least we followed the old maxim: women and children first.


----------



## DougSabbag

Minnewaska said:


> I've been trying to contemplate a scenario to put the launching of the rescue pod in context.
> 
> Say you respond to a distress call 1000 miles offshore and it's only you, your spouse and you two teenage children aboard. You make an effort to rescue that doesn't work and causes the victims more trouble. You have a rescue/dinghy/etc that you could launch to go get them. However, you feel like it would risk the life of your spouse or child to attempt it. Remember, you are in heavy seas 1000 miles offshore and alone. If it doesn't work, you will now have to rescue your family as well.
> 
> Do you ask them to launch it? Should the KJ captain feel differently about his crew?


I would launch the rescue boat and come and get you. As I mentioned, once the person who is drowning is in a boat, then the life or death threat is greatly reduced, and you have just bought a lot more time to get the rescue life boat back to the mother vessel, and then get the people transferred.

How about taking your scenario a step further..... would you sit there for over 3 hours and just WATCH the person drown?? REALLY?


----------



## DougSabbag

Guys.... THANK YOU for posting all the imformation on the Sanctuary. 

And my hat is off to the heroic rescuing crew! They deployed their rescue boat in much worse conditions, (at night too!?), instead of just throwing life bouys into the wind, toward the crew they were trying to save.

I have to wonder why the huge difference between the 2 rescuers' actions?


----------



## Minnewaska

DougSabbag said:


> I would launch the rescue boat and come and get you. As I mentioned, once the person who is drowning is in a boat, then the life or death threat is greatly reduced, and you have just bought a lot more time to get the rescue life boat back to the mother vessel, and then get the people transferred.


That's commemdable and I would hope you were there if I were in this predicament. Given that your answer focused on the victim (and I understand why it would) I will repeat that the scenario requires you to launch the rescue boat into conditions that you believe would risk the life of your family. It's not you going, you have to send your family out. The perspective isn't from the victim's point of view, nor specific to your conditions, and I didn't intend the question to be strictly to you.



> How about taking your scenario a step further..... would you sit there for over 3 hours and just WATCH the person drown?? REALLY?


Now Doug, I didn't say that I would, if I were on the KJ. However, to take my scenario further, it requires my premise. The conditions are such that I feel the launch would risk the lives of my family. In other words, the choice is between my wife or 16 year old daughter and the victim. Even if I go, the risk is that I leave them alone on our boat in the middle of the ocean.

I'm simply trying to test the morals that a rescue should always be launched with whatever means available, no matter what. I have to admit that I would struggle with my scenario. I'm sure I would, however, continue to try to maneuver our vessel to be able to get a lifeline to the victim for as long as it took and would pray every minute that we were able in time. That may or may not take hours.


----------



## sailingfool

DougSabbag said:


> .....
> I have to wonder why the huge difference between the 2 rescuers' actions?


Given that none of us, including you, have any substantive understanding about the differing characteristics of the equipment on the two different boats, used in two different circumstances, with two crews of differing skills and training, any comments a SNer can offer in response to your rhetorical questions, would be just like all of your commentary about KJ shouldas-and-couldas...pure unknowing speculation.


----------



## DougSabbag

Minnewaska said:


> That's commemdable and I would hope you were there if I were in this predicament. Given that your answer focused on the victim (and I understand why it would) I will repeat that the scenario requires you to launch the rescue boat into conditions that you believe would risk the life of your family. It's not you going, you have to send your family out. The perspective isn't from the victim's point of view, nor specific to your conditions, and I didn't intend the question to be strictly to you.
> 
> Now Doug, I didn't say that I would, if I were on the KJ. However, to take my scenario further, it requires my premise. The conditions are such that I feel the launch would risk the lives of my family. In other words, the choice is between my wife or 16 year old daughter and the victim. Even if I go, the risk is that I leave them alone on our boat in the middle of the ocean.
> 
> I'm simply trying to test the morals that a rescue should always be launched with whatever means available, no matter what. I have to admit that I would struggle with my scenario. I'm sure I would, however, continue to try to maneuver our vessel to be able to get a lifeline to the victim for as long as it took and would pray every minute that we were able in time. That may or may not take hours.


I would go myself because my wife would not be anywhere near as physically capable to get the person out of the water into a life boat. There is no other way to play that "scenario" you are painting.

What you realized as you were responding to the image of watching someone drown for over 3 hours is that you could not do that either.


----------



## DougSabbag

sailingfool said:


> Given that none of us, including you, have any substantive understanding about the differing characteristics of the equipment on the two different boats, used in two different circumstances, with two crews of differing skills and training, any comments a SNer can offer in response to your rhetorical questions, would be just like all of your commentary about KJ shouldas-and-couldas...pure unknowing speculation.


No, whether to deploy a lifeboat or not, is not unknowing speculation.... as I mentioned before, when I asked the Captain of the KJ why they couldn't have deployed, retrieved me, then towed the lifeboat from their stern, he did not tell me they couldn't it do it, he said "we are not the coast guard"..... That is not unknowing speculation.


----------



## DougSabbag

What to learn from this is if you are asking for assistance, ask your rescuer before they arrive, will you deploy a lifeboat if we are in the ocean?

If they answer no, then decline their assistance. Because they could easily bring a lot more damage up to and including death, to your world.

Those other two rescues which have been posted here exhibited rescuers who deployed lifeboats in worse conditions, at night. And as has been noted, those rescues went very smoothly.

Were those rescuers the Coast Guard? No they were not, but they still deployed their lifeboat.

So, a good barometer of the attitude of your "rescuer" is to ask that straight up question, before they arrive at your location.

Sure, everyone has the option to go that extra mile, or not, but if you know right up front that your "rescuer" is not inclined to do that, then belay that request. Take it from the guy who floundered and sank for over 3 hours in the broad daylight, while looking at 2 rescue lifeboats on their deck; you really don't want to be involved with a half hearted rescuer.
They are easily much more dangerous trying to "rescue" you than if they stay far away from you.

It is "full monty" or not at all. Regardless of their Coast Guard affiliation.


----------



## smackdaddy

Doug, you keep saying that you "survived IN SPITE of the KJ". That is the most patently ridiculous, egocentric, and disrespectful thing I've heard in a long time.

Until you understand this fact it's very, very hard to take anything you say seriously. And it's very easy to "methinks" your foibles - because you yourself invite it. 

On this point of "survival in spite of..." I can empirically and unequivocally say you are wrong.


----------



## casey1999

Owner plans to remove boat from Maui beach - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com

FYI, Update above on the Maui boat aground.


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> Doug, you keep saying that you "survived IN SPITE of the KJ". That is the most patently ridiculous, egocentric, and disrespectful thing I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Until you understand this fact it's very, very hard to take anything you say seriously. And it's very easy to "methinks" your foibles - because you yourself invite it.
> 
> On this point of "survival in spite of..." I can empirically and unequivocally say you are wrong.


Let's see..... first they squished the Triumph with us onboard.
Amazingly we avoided being squished, by inches.

Then they, (unlike the other 2 rescues people posted here), watched me flounder around for over 3 hours instead of deploying a life boat.

If they had not even arrived at all, the Triumph would not have been squished and my wife and I would not have even gotten wet.

So, which part of the "in spite of" don't you agree with?


----------



## n0w0rries

DougSabbag said:


> Let's see..... first they squished the Triumph with us onboard.
> Amazingly we avoided being squished, by inches.
> 
> Then they, (unlike the other 2 rescues people posted here), watched me flounder around for over 3 hours instead of deploying a life boat.
> 
> If they had not even arrived at all, the Triumph would not have been squished and my wife and I would not have even gotten wet.
> 
> So, which part of the "in spite of" don't you agree with?


The part where you're back on land on the internet instead of dead. They wouldn't have arrived at all if you didn't ask for help because you could not handle the situation anymore and didn't want to die.


----------



## MikeWhy

DougSabbag said:


> How about taking your scenario a step further..... would you sit there for over 3 hours and just WATCH the person drown?? REALLY?


Say I went into the water myself, experimentally, and found it untenable. I had as many problems as the victim in the tough seas. My daughter is a better swimmer than I, but I choose to not put her in harm's way any more than I already have. In fact, I go further and forbid her to do so. "You're a plucky fellow," says I to self. "Your luck will see you through, or it won't."

What next? Do I stay on station to recover my ropes and equipment? Or do I stay on station to do what can, to the limit that I'm willing to extend?


----------



## DougSabbag

MikeWhy said:


> Say I went into the water myself, experimentally, and found it untenable. I had as many problems as the victim in the tough seas. My daughter is a better swimmer than I, but I choose to not put her in harm's way any more than I already have. In fact, I go further and forbid her to do so. "You're a plucky fellow," says I to self. "Your luck will see you through, or it won't."
> 
> What next? Do I stay on station to recover my ropes and equipment? Or do I stay on station to do what can, to the limit that I'm willing to extend?


Use the lifeboat, don't go into the water, and get the person who is in the water out of the water, ASAP.


----------



## DougSabbag

n0w0rries said:


> The part where you're back on land on the internet instead of dead. They wouldn't have arrived at all if you didn't ask for help because you could not handle the situation anymore and didn't want to die.


You have apparently "missed" the first few pages of this thread.

"....because you could not handle the situation anymore and didn't want to die" was NOT why they were there.

So, again, the part after they arrived is where everything went down hill quickly. Unlike the other rescues which have been posted here.

But, considering you haven't caught the initial few pages of this thread therefore you don't know why the KJ was summoned, and what a mistake that was.

For the 100th time, I should not have called for assistance.


----------



## Minnewaska

The boat is disabled and filling with water, presumably from a deck penetration. I did not read where that cause was certain. Crew is unwilling to continue and, therefore, a significant distraction at the least. The decision making ability of the Captain was already impaired, as courageously detailed. Without rescue, it is most likely that sleep deprivation would have become more acute, crew stress would have become more acute and decision making capability would have only deteriorated further.

The chain would not have broken, it would have gotten worse. There were not enough resources aboard to deal with the situation. One man, with a broken boat and crew member and impaired decision making is not enough.

The rescue itself was executed poorly and included a torturous ordeal. I highly suspect the same ultimate torture, sans the lifebuoy, if they didn't come. This would be very hard to accept at this stage.

I wish the crew of the Triumph a long and happy life together.


----------



## sailingfool

My opinion is that this thread has repeated itself many times now and if the admin can, they should end its (and our) agony.


----------



## Squidd

DougSabbag said:


> You have apparently "missed" the first few pages of this thread.


I read all the pages..



> "....because you could not handle the situation anymore and didn't want to die" was NOT why they were there...


Umm, yes it was.. you called them effectively saying "I can't do anything to save myself, PLEASE come rescue me by any means possible"... at least that's what a "Mayday, I'm abandoning ship" means to me...



> ...For the 100th time, I should not have called for assistance.


If that's the case, then for the 100th time..stop blaming the KJ for the loss of your boat...because the fact is you DID call them for "asistance"...Suck it up and be grateful you and your spouse are alive...


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> Let's see..... first they squished the Triumph with us onboard.
> Amazingly we avoided being squished, by inches.
> 
> Then they, (unlike the other 2 rescues people posted here), watched me flounder around for over 3 hours instead of deploying a life boat.
> 
> If they had not even arrived at all, the Triumph would not have been squished and my wife and I would not have even gotten wet.
> 
> So, which part of the "in spite of" don't you agree with?


The boat doesn't matter in this equation at all. Not at all. _You_ had abandoned her at that point. Whether they destroyed her or not has no bearing on anything. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that it was a good thing they crushed her if it meant that she sank faster and didn't become a hazard to others.

Remember, _you_ asked to be taken off the boat _you_ abandoned. Don't blame others for what happened to her thereafter.

The ONLY responsibility the KJ people had was to get both of you on that ship - preferably alive. They did that. Despite a great many obstacles. And at the end of the day, the timeline of those events doesn't matter either. At all.

See, unless you swam home yourself, I stick by my assertion that your "in spite of" stance is patently false and ridiculously egocentric. It's ludicrous.

You are wrong, Doug. The KJ saved you. Period.

You've been through a hell of a lot Doug. It was a seriously rough ordeal. But you have a huge blind spot on this part of your past. I wish you and your wife nothing but a wonderful future. How about your start focusing more on that.


----------



## emoney

Smack....you're gonna give yourself angina. It's fruitless at this point.


----------



## smackdaddy

emoney said:


> Smack....you're gonna give yourself agina. It's fruitless at this point.


You left off the "v". Heh-heh.

Look when things get utterly ridiculous, I get motivated.


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> The boat doesn't matter in this equation at all. Not at all. _You_ had abandoned her at that point. Whether they destroyed her or not has no bearing on anything. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that it was a good thing they crushed her if it meant that she sank faster and didn't become a hazard to others.
> 
> Remember, _you_ asked to be taken off the boat _you_ abandoned. Don't blame others for what happened to her thereafter.
> 
> The ONLY responsibility the KJ people had was to get both of you on that ship - preferably alive. They did that. Despite a great many obstacles. And at the end of the day, the timeline of those events doesn't matter either. At all.
> 
> See, unless you swam home yourself, I stick by my assertion that your "in spite of" stance is patently false and ridiculously egocentric. It's ludicrous.
> 
> You are wrong, Doug. The KJ saved you. Period.
> 
> You've been through a hell of a lot Doug. It was a seriously rough ordeal. But you have a huge blind spot on this part of your past. I wish you and your wife nothing but a wonderful future. How about your start focusing more on that.


"The boat doesn't matter"..... BUT we were still onboard. Squishing / smashing and violently destroying her WITH PEOPLE ONBOARD is not a good step in a rescue. LUCKILY we were still alive to be "rescued".

Which equates to the "in spite of" part of my earlier posting.

Then, UNLIKE the other rescues posted here, when the portion of the rescue was at the extraction phase, after we just barely avoided being squished, the KJ did not deploy a lifeboat. What was their plan on getting us?

In my case, while slowly losing my strength from hypothermia, while swimming in 10 foot waves, while not properly equipped, their "plan" was to throw life bouys (into the wind!!!) in my general vicinity.

Which again equates to the "in spite of" part of my earlier posting.

Neither step in their rescue process was appropriate. In fact both were quite life threatening. We could easily have been squished like bugs on a windshield, or simply sunk below the waves, while being photographed by 24 men on their deck.

Granted I made the error of calling them, but as erroneous as that was, that does not, or should not, mean that we now deserved to be squished or drowned. Unless you are saying that once you call for assistance your chances of living are automatically reduced?

I thought calling for assistance was supposed to be a step toward a lowering of the exposure to death at sea. In our case when they became involved in our world, our exposure went meteorically UP.

Thus, we lived in spite of their actions.


----------



## DougSabbag

Squidd said:


> I read all the pages..
> 
> Umm, yes it was.. you called them effectively saying "I can't do anything to save myself, PLEASE come rescue me by any means possible"... at least that's what a "Mayday, I'm abandoning ship" means to me...
> 
> If that's the case, then for the 100th time..stop blaming the KJ for the loss of your boat...because the fact is you DID call them for "asistance"...Suck it up and be grateful you and your spouse are alive...


I am not blaming them AT ALL for the loss of the Triumph.

I am pointing out that their actions increased not decreased our chances of dying that day.

So, as I have stated earlier, if an AMVER member is not willing to expose themselves to the dangers in deploying a lifeboat to extract people, then they should not participate at all.

I have "sucked it up" in that I declined a lawyer's interest in suing them for their negligient actions. That lawyer is a well known marine attorney who has represented and dealt in global marine cases. He was going to take this on a contingency basis..... that is how confident he was.

But, apparenty YOU know better.


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> You left off the "v". Heh-heh.
> 
> Look when things get utterly ridiculous, I get motivated.


So SmackDaddy, are you saying you are going to give yourself a Vagina?


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> "The boat doesn't matter"..... BUT we were still onboard. Squishing / smashing and violently destroying her WITH PEOPLE ONBOARD is not a good step in a rescue. LUCKILY we were still alive to be "rescued".
> 
> Which equates to the "in spite of" part of my earlier posting.
> 
> Then, UNLIKE the other rescues posted here, when the portion of the rescue was at the extraction phase, after we just barely avoided being squished, the KJ did not deploy a lifeboat. What was their plan on getting us?
> 
> In my case, while slowly losing my strength from hypothermia, while swimming in 10 foot waves, while not properly equipped, their "plan" was to throw life bouys (into the wind!!!) in my general vicinity.
> 
> Which again equates to the "in spite of" part of my earlier posting.
> 
> Neither step in their rescue process was appropriate. In fact both were quite life threatening. We could easily have been squished like bugs on a windshield, or simply sunk below the waves, while being photographed by 24 men on their deck.
> 
> Granted I made the error of calling them, but as erroneous as that was, that does not, or should not, mean that we now deserved to be squished or drowned. Unless you are saying that once you call for assistance your chances of living are automatically reduced?
> 
> I thought calling for assistance was supposed to be a step toward a lowering of the exposure to death at sea. In our case when they became involved in our world, our exposure went meteorically UP.
> 
> Thus, we lived in spite of their actions.


Fail.

You can keep typing the above kind of "me-thinks" crap until you're blue in the face. And you're still empirically and unequivocally wrong.

As long as you and your wife stepped off the KJ onto safe, dry land, the KJ saved you...period.


----------



## hellosailor

This debate should bring up a point that I haven't seen addressed yet. That is:

Are AMVER member vessels, and their officers or crew, given any formal training in rescue and assistance? And if so, is that simply focused on other commercial vessels, or what?

My impression is that the system is designed to direct any available vessel to respond, and that it does not offer or require any formal training on members, so that the "qualifications" of an AMVER responder are simply "I'm the only one out here, take it or leave it". If that's the way the system works, and it is that or nothing...that's the choice. Perhaps there is a way to incentivize the shipping industry and raise the standard, and perhaps that's something which would be worth promoting.

Lawsuits aren't always the best incentive, but they can be used to start funding programs, if no better (and more positive) incentive can be found.


----------



## smackdaddy

hellosailor said:


> This debate should bring up a point that I haven't seen addressed yet. That is:
> 
> Are AMVER member vessels, and their officers or crew, given any formal training in rescue and assistance? And if so, is that simply focused on other commercial vessels, or what?
> 
> My impression is that the system is designed to direct any available vessel to respond, and that it does not offer or require any formal training on members, so that the "qualifications" of an AMVER responder are simply "I'm the only one out here, take it or leave it". If that's the way the system works, and it is that or nothing...that's the choice. Perhaps there is a way to incentivize the shipping industry and raise the standard, and perhaps that's something which would be worth promoting.
> 
> Lawsuits aren't always the best incentive, but they can be used to start funding programs, if no better (and more positive) incentive can be found.


I suppose that depends on the type and quantity of training you're talking about - as well as how its administered and managed. The more involved it gets, the more serious difficulties you run into (legal, logistical, political, budgetary, supervision, etc.).

I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least some basic training material/process provided to AMVER participants.

I could easily see something like this doing two things:

1. It would dissuade mariners from participating for fear of litigation and for the obvious fact that all this regulation/time actually hurts their bottom line. They'd just opt out - which would kill the _honor-bound_ tradition of assisting other sailors in distress, and would increase the dangers by increasing the holes in the safety net.

2. It would introduce a new calculus to the sinking (yet still very particular) skipper to evaluate the merits of the only ship in range of getting there in time based on their AMVER Rescue Score. Like that's going to matter when water is pouring over your coamings.

Regardless, I don't see Doug's case as having any merit in kicking all this off in the shipping community through litigation. After all, it was a 100% successful rescue.

On the other hand, Doug has mentioned that the CG wasn't happy with the sloppy process of that rescue. Since they heard it all first hand while it was going down, ideally they're motivated to do something to improve that process. And, if not, maybe some encouragement from the sailing community would help light a fire. Much better than litigation.

Doug, how do we start that conversation with the CG?


----------



## hellosailor

smackdaddy, while the USCG might be motivated...

They're broke. No funding, juggling balls in the air in order to try keeping assets in operation and explaining to new recruits that when their pay doesn't meet the rent, they're welcome to sleep in the closet.

So putting forward an initiative of any kind? Someone would really need to want that very badly before they would be able to pursue it. 

Input from the sailing community in general? Well, like input on the subject of cargo cubes going overboard all the time. How's that been working out? Right. No incentive to change.


----------



## SVAuspicious

DougSabbag said:


> I have "sucked it up" in that I declined a lawyer's interest in suing them for their negligient actions. That lawyer is a well known marine attorney who has represented and dealt in global marine cases. He was going to take this on a contingency basis..... that is how confident he was.


I agree that you have sucked it up by declining to participate in our too litigious society (my conclusion). I think your characterization of negligence on the part of the KJ crew is a conclusion on your part that has not been proved.



hellosailor said:


> Are AMVER member vessels, and their officers or crew, given any formal training in rescue and assistance? And if so, is that simply focused on other commercial vessels, or what?


Not just AMVER ships, but any deck or engineering officer licensed by an IMO signatory will have passed STCW 95. That includes the operation of life saving and rescue equipment. See Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping .


----------



## sailingfool

smackdaddy said:


> ...
> Doug, how do we start that conversation with the CG?


Given that Triumph's failure to properly manage their drogue was a critical cause of subsequent events, perhaps your effort should focus on having the USCG develop "How to cooperate in your own rescue" training for US vessels heading offshore. Naturally you can make this training mandatory, and expensive while you are at it. (Maybe throw in some training on how to prerpare for going offshore...opps, lets not go there...)

After you have trained US sailors on being competent rescuees, then you can entertain training for the mariners of the world on being competent rescuers...good luck on that.


----------



## smackdaddy

Great point, fool. That actually makes a lot of sense.


----------



## LandLocked66c

sailingfool said:


> Given that Triumph's failure to properly manage their drogue was a critical cause of subsequent events, perhaps your effort should focus on having the USCG develop "How to cooperate in your own rescue" training for US vessels heading offshore. Naturally you can make this training mandatory, and expensive while you are at it. (Maybe throw in some training on how to prerpare for going offshore...opps, lets not go there...)
> 
> After you have trained US sailors on being competent rescuees, then you can entertain training for the mariners of the world on being competent rescuers...good luck on that.


LOL, now that's a good one! Well played sir!!


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> Fail.
> 
> You can keep typing the above kind of "me-thinks" crap until you're blue in the face. And you're still empirically and unequivocally wrong.
> 
> As long as you and your wife stepped off the KJ onto safe, dry land, the KJ saved you...period.


Yes, they "saved us" AFTER they squished our boat with us on it.
And inspite of not deploying a lifeboat to extract us in a safe manner.

What did they "save us" from??

We had 2 broken stays, and a broken oil cooler. WOW, thank God they came along to smash the boat with us onboard while we were barely clingling to life under those conditions.

Gee, if they hadn't smashed the boat, I would have temporarily fixed the minor issues and sailed back to Boston.

But, because they destroyed the Triumph, with us onboard, that drove us into the ocean, AFTER we narrowly avoided being squished too, and then I got to experience drowning! Cool. Thank God for the KJ.

So, I guess you don't want to admit that there are some boundaries which still exist even if you call for assistance, huh? For instance the rescuer does not suddenly have a carte blanche right to kill you, and or, just stand by watching you drown after they destroy your vessel.

By your reasoning, once we called for assistance, they had the perfect right to kill us?! But, because we managed to avoid being squished, and we managed to make it to their deck via the least "dangerous" methods from their point of view, i.e., swim around and reach a life bouy, then they are exonerated from any and all dangerous actions to our lives?

God forbid you ever have to call for assistance and someone with the KJs limited intentions comes to your aid. By limited I am referencing their avoidance of deploying a lifeboat, UNLIKE THE OTHER RESCUES POSTED HERE, wherein those rescuers deployed a lifeboat in much more difficult (DANGEROUS) conditions. AND, by deploying a lifeboat, those other rescues did not have to squish / smash / destroy the vessel with their crews onboard.

A rescuer does NOT have a carte blanche / get out of jail free card to kill you.

Either they should be fully committed to rescuing you with their equipment for doing so, or I would choose to decline their "rescuing actions" completely.

So, God forbid, if you ever call for assistance, you just might remember the KJ's actions, and if you are clear headed enough, and aren't actually already sinking, you just might ask them if they intend to deploy a life boat to extract you.

If they say no, just relax and we'll get you, say no thank you. Or else I have to assume you WANT to INCREASE your dangerous predicament?!

We did NOT want to increase our predicament. Pardon me for not knowing once I call for assistance they have the right to kill us; either proactively, (squishing / smashing the boat with us onboard), or indirectly by just watching me drown for OVER THREE HOURS in DAYLIGHT.

Think about it. Will you ask a rescuer of YOU if they will deploy a lifeboat now that you have heard what happens if they won't ????


----------



## Maine Sail

DougSabbag said:


> Yes, they "saved us" AFTER they squished our boat with us on it.
> And inspite of not deploying a lifeboat to extract us in a safe manner.
> 
> What did they "save us" from??
> 
> We had 2 broken stays, and a broken oil cooler. WOW, thank God they came along to smash the boat with us onboard while we were barely clingling to life under those conditions.
> 
> Gee, if they hadn't smashed the boat, I would have temporarily fixed the minor issues and sailed back to Boston.
> 
> But, because they destroyed the Triumph, with us onboard, that drove us into the ocean, AFTER we narrowly avoided being squished too, and then I got to experience drowning! Cool. Thank God for the KJ.
> 
> So, I guess you don't want to admit that there are some boundaries which still exist even if you call for assistance, huh? For instance the rescuer does not suddenly have a carte blanche right to kill you, and or, just stand by watching you drown after they destroy your vessel.
> 
> By your reasoning, once we called for assistance, they had the perfect right to kill us?! But, because we managed to avoid being squished, and we managed to make it to their deck via the least "dangerous" methods from their point of view, i.e., swim around and reach a life bouy, then they are exonerated from any and all dangerous actions to our lives?
> 
> God forbid you ever have to call for assistance and someone with the KJs limited intentions comes to your aid. By limited I am referencing their avoidance of deploying a lifeboat, UNLIKE THE OTHER RESCUES POSTED HERE, wherein those rescuers deployed a lifeboat in much more difficult (DANGEROUS) conditions. AND, by deploying a lifeboat, those other rescues did not have to squish / smash / destroy the vessel with their crews onboard.
> 
> A rescuer does NOT have a carte blanche / get out of jail free card to kill you.
> 
> Either they should be fully committed to rescuing you with their equipment for doing so, or I would choose to decline their "rescuing actions" completely.
> 
> So, God forbid, if you ever call for assistance, you just might remember the KJ's actions, and if you are clear headed enough, and aren't actually already sinking, you just might ask them if they intend to deploy a life boat to extract you.
> 
> If they say no, just relax and we'll get you, say no thank you. Or else I have to assume you WANT to INCREASE your dangerous predicament?!
> 
> We did NOT want to increase our predicament. Pardon me for not knowing once I call for assistance they have the right to kill us; either proactively, (squishing / smashing the boat with us onboard), or indirectly by just watching me drown for OVER THREE HOURS in DAYLIGHT.
> 
> Think about it. Will you ask a rescuer of YOU if they will deploy a lifeboat now that you have heard what happens if they won't ????


My vote for rudest & most obnoxious post of the decade on SN...


----------



## Maine Sail

sailingfool said:


> *Given that Triumph's failure to properly manage their drogue was a critical cause of subsequent events*, perhaps your effort should focus on having the USCG develop "How to cooperate in your own rescue" training for US vessels heading offshore. Naturally you can make this training mandatory, and expensive while you are at it. (Maybe throw in some training on how to prerpare for going offshore...opps, lets not go there...)
> 
> *After you have trained US sailors on being competent rescuees, then you can entertain training for the mariners of the world on being competent rescuers*...good luck on that.


Bingo! We have a winner...


----------



## DougSabbag

sailingfool said:


> Given that Triumph's failure to properly manage their drogue was a critical cause of subsequent events, perhaps your effort should focus on having the USCG develop "How to cooperate in your own rescue" training for US vessels heading offshore. Naturally you can make this training mandatory, and expensive while you are at it. (Maybe throw in some training on how to prerpare for going offshore...opps, lets not go there...)
> 
> After you have trained US sailors on being competent rescuees, then you can entertain training for the mariners of the world on being competent rescuers...good luck on that.


How should I have "managed my drogue" (which by the way wasn't a drogue), "properly"?

Didn't you read earlier where I described that the KJs intent conveyed to me via Sat phone was to capture the sea anchor / parachute with a grappling hook, then use that rode to pull us to their stern?

And where I described that on their second pass to hook the parachute, by the time it became apparent that they were actually going to intersect the rode it was too late to run to the bow and accompish cutting or releasing the rode; unless I wanted to be SQUISHED like a bug!?

AGAIN, had the KJ (like the OTHER RESCUES POSTED HERE), deployed a lifeboat to extract us, the VIOLENT actions which ensued, would not have occurred.

THAT WAS THE CRITICAL CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

DougSabbag said:


> Yes, they "saved us" AFTER they squished our boat with us on it.
> And inspite of not deploying a lifeboat to extract us in a safe manner.
> 
> What did they "save us" from??
> 
> We had 2 broken stays, and a broken oil cooler. WOW, thank God they came along to smash the boat with us onboard while we were barely clingling to life under those conditions.
> 
> Gee, if they hadn't smashed the boat, I would have temporarily fixed the minor issues and sailed back to Boston.
> 
> But, because they destroyed the Triumph, with us onboard, that drove us into the ocean, AFTER we narrowly avoided being squished too, and then I got to experience drowning! Cool. Thank God for the KJ.
> 
> So, I guess you don't want to admit that there are some boundaries which still exist even if you call for assistance, huh? For instance the rescuer does not suddenly have a carte blanche right to kill you, and or, just stand by watching you drown after they destroy your vessel.
> 
> By your reasoning, once we called for assistance, they had the perfect right to kill us?! But, because we managed to avoid being squished, and we managed to make it to their deck via the least "dangerous" methods from their point of view, i.e., swim around and reach a life bouy, then they are exonerated from any and all dangerous actions to our lives?
> 
> God forbid you ever have to call for assistance and someone with the KJs limited intentions comes to your aid. By limited I am referencing their avoidance of deploying a lifeboat, UNLIKE THE OTHER RESCUES POSTED HERE, wherein those rescuers deployed a lifeboat in much more difficult (DANGEROUS) conditions. AND, by deploying a lifeboat, those other rescues did not have to squish / smash / destroy the vessel with their crews onboard.
> 
> A rescuer does NOT have a carte blanche / get out of jail free card to kill you.
> 
> Either they should be fully committed to rescuing you with their equipment for doing so, or I would choose to decline their "rescuing actions" completely.
> 
> So, God forbid, if you ever call for assistance, you just might remember the KJ's actions, and if you are clear headed enough, and aren't actually already sinking, you just might ask them if they intend to deploy a life boat to extract you.
> 
> If they say no, just relax and we'll get you, say no thank you. Or else I have to assume you WANT to INCREASE your dangerous predicament?!
> 
> We did NOT want to increase our predicament. Pardon me for not knowing once I call for assistance they have the right to kill us; either proactively, (squishing / smashing the boat with us onboard), or indirectly by just watching me drown for OVER THREE HOURS in DAYLIGHT.
> 
> Think about it. Will you ask a rescuer of YOU if they will deploy a lifeboat now that you have heard what happens if they won't ????


Doug. You are disintegrating.

I really don't want to go into an analysis of your mental state here and I don't think you want me to do that either.

I urge you to see a mental health professional.


----------



## DougSabbag

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Doug. You are disintegrating.
> 
> I really don't want to go into an analysis of your mental state here and I don't think you want me to do that either.
> 
> I urge you to see a mental health professional.


Now that is pretty funny! It is good that someone is introducing some levity to this thread. 

Granted, the Red Sox season ended horribly, AND the Patriots are likewise dissapointing, but even through those painful experiences, Evelyn and I are holding up well.

Last night was our first night onboard the Triumph Jr. ! I still have a lot of little things to do today to "tighten up" the liveaboard loose ends....
While Evelyn was taking a shower, I had to be a human circuit breaker reset mechanism for the water pump. I replaced the original water pump with a stronger one, which requires more amperage than the original circuit breaker for that circuit.

And a few other little issues that come with buying a "salvage" boat. Great purchase price, but not exactly "turn key".

In a couple of weeks I am sure we can look back on this and laugh.

Please don't worry about my mental state; it is as good (or bad) as it ever was.


----------



## DougSabbag

Maine Sail said:


> My vote for rudest & most obnoxious post of the decade on SN...


Rude and obnoxious????? Really?

Well, we'll just see how YOU feel if you ever call for assistance and the "rescuer" chooses not to deploy a lifeboat to get you and your crew.

We'll see how YOU feel as your "rescurer" smashes / destroys your boat with YOU ONBOARD.

We'll see how YOU feel if you manage to live after being watched drowning for over THREE HOURS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT BY TWO DOZEN MEN.

Considering you have not experienced that, and yet feel qualified to fault me for pointing out THEIR half hearted committment to "rescuing" people, i.e., wouldn't use a lifeboat to transfer people from a 50 foot sailboat to their 900 foot oil tanker, then YOU are the rude and obnoxious one here.


----------



## DougSabbag

hellosailor said:


> This debate should bring up a point that I haven't seen addressed yet. That is:
> 
> Are AMVER member vessels, and their officers or crew, given any formal training in rescue and assistance? And if so, is that simply focused on other commercial vessels, or what?
> 
> My impression is that the system is designed to direct any available vessel to respond, and that it does not offer or require any formal training on members, so that the "qualifications" of an AMVER responder are simply "I'm the only one out here, take it or leave it". If that's the way the system works, and it is that or nothing...that's the choice. Perhaps there is a way to incentivize the shipping industry and raise the standard, and perhaps that's something which would be worth promoting.
> 
> Lawsuits aren't always the best incentive, but they can be used to start funding programs, if no better (and more positive) incentive can be found.


Now THIS is speaking to the VALID POINT!

As far as I know, an AMVER participant is, as you so accurately called it: the only one there. There is not specific training, or equipment required to participate.

So, unless that is ever upgraded / improved, the crew being rescued, really should ask the rescuer if they intend to deploy a lifeboat to extract them.

Otherwise, just say no thank you.

The CG said that they would love to initiate rescue training for AMVER participants, but they feared losing more than would be gained considering the CG does not have the funding to provide all of that for free.

Is this America's sole responsibility is another good question.... Most, (including me), would say no, this is a global / human responsibility.

Of course some here would say once you leave the dock it is ALL your responsibility, and whatever happens after that is on you. Which does have some merit, but only to a point.

I would like to draw the line where if you do volunteer to rescue people, you will also agree to utilize ALL available equipment.

The KJ DOES test the deployment of their lifeboat(s) on a regular basis. And that is per PORT regulations; nothing to do with AMVER, or the CG.

AMVER would do well to require USING the lifeboats, as long as the conditions are within some realistic parameters, at the very least.

The other rescues posted here were accomplished in much worse sea conditions, and at NIGHT TOO, but went as smoothly as can be imagined BECAUSE they DID deploy their lifeboats.

Imagine how many would have died from the S/V Sanctuary if they had been inspired into swimming around in the water, at night, in those conditions.

Apparently THEIR rescuer realized that, and acted accordingly. Regardless of whether anyone could fault them for being there in the first place, and or for not having checked the weather while enroute, (as WE DID VIA SAT PHONE, and then changed course to avoid the 2 storms which came our way).

There are many dynamics involved in the International Waters, when a "pleasure craft" is in distress. 
But, from my experience, there is almost ZERO way to safely, smoothly extract people from a small boat to a huge one without using a lifeboat.

There must be an intervening vessel to transport the crew being saved to the saviors' vessel.

Anything short of that had better have a damn good reason not to.


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> I suppose that depends on the type and quantity of training you're talking about - as well as how its administered and managed. The more involved it gets, the more serious difficulties you run into (legal, logistical, political, budgetary, supervision, etc.).
> 
> I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least some basic training material/process provided to AMVER participants.
> 
> I could easily see something like this doing two things:
> 
> 1. It would dissuade mariners from participating for fear of litigation and for the obvious fact that all this regulation/time actually hurts their bottom line. They'd just opt out - which would kill the _honor-bound_ tradition of assisting other sailors in distress, and would increase the dangers by increasing the holes in the safety net.
> 
> 2. It would introduce a new calculus to the sinking (yet still very particular) skipper to evaluate the merits of the only ship in range of getting there in time based on their AMVER Rescue Score. Like that's going to matter when water is pouring over your coamings.
> 
> Regardless, I don't see Doug's case as having any merit in kicking all this off in the shipping community through litigation. After all, it was a 100% successful rescue.
> 
> On the other hand, Doug has mentioned that the CG wasn't happy with the sloppy process of that rescue. Since they heard it all first hand while it was going down, ideally they're motivated to do something to improve that process. And, if not, maybe some encouragement from the sailing community would help light a fire. Much better than litigation.
> 
> Doug, how do we start that conversation with the CG?


SmackDaddy..... I just found this posting. Surprisingly, here you aren't calling me names for pointing out what I have been pointing out.

Actually, there could be numerous paths toward that goal. But, initially there is a big question which relates to the International condition. Why is it only America's responsibility to accomplish an improvement in the rescuing process of a pleasure craft?

Most, (including me), would think it would be more appropriate to have an international entity driving this bus. The United Nations? Or, some international maritime group.

Back to the "numerous paths".

I could write the story of the KJ meeting the Triumph and submit that to the various sailing / cruising publications; and then follow those up with calling upon the various international maritime groups asking for a dialogue to discuss upgrading or improving the AMVER participants' rescue training.

Or, I could call my uncle, (George Mitchell), an ex-Senator you might have heard of.... the man who accomplished the IRA / UK negotiations / peace settlements. And see if he would initiate something with his contacts.
But, that would be asking a lot of Georgie, who is really enjoying his well earned retirement.

Or, WE (sailors) could somehow band together to utilize our numbers and speak as one louder voice.....

But, learning from the current OWS (occupy wall street) protesters failure, we would have to already have resolved EXACTLY WHAT we are asking for in order to have any hope of success.

So, SmackDaddy, do we, (not just you and me, but the greater SN we), care enough to do anything besides taking care of ourselves?

This flys in the face of the already rumbling "this was really your fault" statements wherein those people would most likely snicker and walk away.


----------



## DougSabbag

Whatever could be initiated in order to accomplish any improvements to AMVER would require the same amount (if not more) of *relentless effort *which is what kept me fighting for hours to stay afloat.

Likewise, the same relentless effort in answering / responding to YOU FOLKS no matter how distasteful some have been is what we would have to be prepared to accept.

You might not like me, some even think I am losing my mind, but it is that relentless characteristic which wins the day. Do you have that spirit too?


----------



## dmcMaine

Something to think about... the AMVER program doesn't have anything to do with training. It is simply a voluntery coordination program.

From their site Amver.com - Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue System - Participating in Amver:


> •Amver participants are under no greater obligation to render assistance during an emergency than a vessel which is not participating. On the contrary, ships unfavorably located on the Amver plot may be released from their obligation to otherwise respond by SAR mission coordinators.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Man! I'm tired...


----------



## smackdaddy

Siiiiiiggggghhhhhh.

Doug, look, I'm really trying to stay in your corner - but you're thinking/saying some really whacky stuff here. Let's break it all down.

It starts off great...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*


Okay, at least we're making some progress. If you could just type this and stop - you'd be golden.

But then we have the whacky qualifiers...



DougSabbag said:


> ...AFTER they squished our boat with us on it.


Again, the boat doesn't matter. No reason to bring that up. You decided to abandon it - and asked the KJ to take you and your wife off it. Therefore, it has no bearing on anything after that decision/request.

In any case, boats break/are crushed all the time when brought along side big ships (have you not seen the rescue videos posted earlier?). Based on these similar videos, it's not like the KJ did anything egregiously wrong here. It happens.

Regardless, the boat was not the point. So don't bring it up anymore. Let's focus on the bottom line...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*


Next...



DougSabbag said:


> And inspite of not deploying a lifeboat to extract us in a safe manner.


Doesn't matter. This is not your call. This is the KJ skipper's call. And his calculus is far more involved than yours at that point. Regardless, that skipper and crew got you and your wife onto the deck of the KJ and got you both home safe and uninjured. Hence...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> What did they "save us" from??


Precisely what _you_ requested them to save you and your wife from. It seems the answer to that is the boat. But only you know that for sure. It was your call that started it all - not theirs. But think about this for a moment as you read your next offering...



DougSabbag said:


> We had 2 broken stays, and a broken oil cooler. WOW, thank God they came along to smash the boat with us onboard while we were barely clingling to life under those conditions.
> 
> Gee, if they hadn't smashed the boat, I would have temporarily fixed the minor issues and sailed back to Boston.


So is this an indictment of them or you? Are you now blaming the KJ for saying yes to your request to pull you off your perfectly reparable boat? Seriously?

Dude, think about this for a minute. This is crazy. YOU asked them to take you off that boat. Furthermore, THEY didn't ask you why - then make a determination of whether that list of reasons merited a rescue or not.

If you really, honestly think this way - then I have to agree with Mast. You need to get some counseling. In the mean time, keep repeating this statement...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> But, because they destroyed the Triumph, with us onboard, that drove us into the ocean, AFTER we narrowly avoided being squished too, and then I got to experience drowning! Cool. *Thank God for the KJ.*


Ahh, but you keep conveniently leaving off the end of the story. They pulled you out of that ocean. Remember the boat doesn't matter anymore after the abandonment call. So stay focused on the important stuff.



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> So, I guess you don't want to admit that there are some boundaries which still exist even if you call for assistance, huh? For instance the rescuer does not suddenly have a carte blanche right to kill you, and or, just stand by watching you drown after they destroy your vessel.


Well, let's evaluate each "boundary". "Destroy your vessel"? The vessel doesn't matter in this analysis as we've discussed. It's off the table. "Watching you drown"? Had you actually drown, this point would have greater significance. As it is, in the end, they didn't watch you drown. They pulled you out of the sea - after even sending the skipper into the water to try to save you. "Carte blanche to kill you"? Yes, you are right, this is a boundary that should not be crossed in a rescue situation. Thankfully, the KJ did not cross this boundary. 1 for 3, which brings us back to...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> By your reasoning, once we called for assistance, they had the perfect right to kill us?!


No of course not. I think I answered that one above. You are absolutely right in calling this a "boundary". It's your other assertions that are ridiculous.



DougSabbag said:


> But, because we managed to avoid being squished, and *we managed to make it to their deck* via the least "dangerous" methods from their point of view, i.e., swim around and reach a life bouy, then they are exonerated from any and all dangerous actions to our lives?


Wow. How did you and your wife get on that deck again? YOU made it to THEIR deck? Doug, think about what you're saying here. That's ridiculous. Here's what really happened...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> God forbid you ever have to call for assistance and someone with the KJs limited intentions comes to your aid.


Agreed. I hope and pray I never, ever have to go through what you did. And you and your wife have my absolute respect for having survived it. However, if it does ever happen to me and my family, I certainly hope and pray for the same 100% successful outcome you guys had. That's as good as a rescue can get. Then I too can say...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> By limited I am referencing their avoidance of deploying a lifeboat, UNLIKE THE OTHER RESCUES POSTED HERE, wherein those rescuers deployed a lifeboat in much more difficult (DANGEROUS) conditions. AND, by deploying a lifeboat, those other rescues did not have to squish / smash / destroy the vessel with their crews onboard.


You keep focusing on a very small number of rescues. I've also seen many rescue videos (which I've posted in various threads around here) where the boat is alongside the ship (cruise/merchant/etc.). Those boats are dismasted. Those boats are crushed. And the victims have even slammed the side of the ship pretty hard while being raised. It's never pretty - and definitely dangerous. But, those ships' skippers also chose to use this method - and the method proved ultimately successful.



DougSabbag said:


> A rescuer does NOT have a carte blanche / get out of jail free card to kill you.


Absolutely true. Thank goodness this wasn't the case in your rescue. In fact, it was quite the opposite.



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> Either they should be fully committed to rescuing you with their equipment for doing so, or I would choose to decline their "rescuing actions" completely.


Good luck with that. My hunch is that statement is extremely conditional. In other words, since you now regret calling for assistance in light of what you now apparently see as fairly minimal danger, that's an easy statement to make. However, if the boat is going under within minutes and a ship is right there for you...it's hard for me to believe that you're going to spend the time reviewing the skipper's rescue plan - then tell him to steam on if you don't like it...you'll just take your chances and swim home, thank you.

Sorry, this one doesn't fly.



DougSabbag said:


> So, God forbid, if you ever call for assistance, you just might remember the KJ's actions, and if you are clear headed enough, and aren't actually already sinking, you just might ask them if they intend to deploy a life boat to extract you.


This one sounds more reasonable. Agree 100%. Because, from the videos I mentioned above and your harrowing account of your rescue, if there is time I might very well ask the skipper about the options in such a situation.



DougSabbag said:


> If they say no, just relax and we'll get you, say no thank you. Or else I have to assume you WANT to INCREASE your dangerous predicament?!


Well, if you think about it, the only way a rescuer is going to _increase_ my danger in the predicament is if the predicament is not really that dangerous in the first place.

In any case, once that rescue begins, they are in the driver's seat. As long as they get me and my loved ones back to safety - I'm going to be grateful.

Sure, like you, I'll "me-thinks" the process...especially if it was ugly. But I won't be taking up a misguided crusade against my saviors...especially with the most positive outcome possible in a rescue...100%.

I'll just say...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> We did NOT want to increase our predicament. Pardon me for not knowing once I call for assistance they have the right to kill us; either proactively, (squishing / smashing the boat with us onboard), or indirectly by just watching me drown for OVER THREE HOURS in DAYLIGHT.


Again, none of those qualifiers matter. You're simply Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking the process, bitterly whining that "they didn't do things the way they should have". Yet, it is precisely because of the KJ that you actually can whine about that process. Remember...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*





DougSabbag said:


> Think about it. Will you ask a rescuer of YOU if they will deploy a lifeboat now that you have heard what happens if they won't ????


I have no idea what I'll do in a similar circumstance. But I absolutely DO know that you've _not_ convinced me that this is inherently the best solution in a rescue.

The only conclusion I've come to in all this is very simple. Repeat after you...



DougSabbag said:


> *Yes, they "saved us"*


Just remember, if you really want to write a book about all this - you should pay close attention to the response of your readers here.

Bottom line: You're wrong. No one is convinced of your construct. So you may need to re-think your plot line...and your title:



> *"True Triumph: Saved By The Kim Jacobs"*
> -An epic tale of two men's refusal to give up in the face of certain death. Both enter the very real danger of a furious sea thousands of miles from land, one by accident, one intentionally. And, miraculously, despite harrowing conditions, numerous mistakes, and unbelievable challenges, both come back home to their families.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> Whatever could be initiated in order to accomplish any improvements to AMVER would require the same amount (if not more) of *relentless effort *which is what kept me fighting for hours to stay afloat.
> 
> Likewise, the same relentless effort in answering / responding to YOU FOLKS no matter how distasteful some have been is what we would have to be prepared to accept.
> 
> You might not like me, some even think I am losing my mind, but it is that relentless characteristic which wins the day. Do you have that spirit too?


I actually think Fool's suggestion above is brilliant. And I think you would be the perfect person to launch such an awareness and training program. I'm totally serious here.

*A training program for sailors/cruisers on how to prepare for and be rescued by ship at sea.*

This would be the ideal direction for you, Doug. Seriously. And it would help a lot of people out there.

Contact Gary Jobson at ASA and see about writing a curriculum for such training. Maybe it could even be added to the ASA courses.

Definitely worth a shot.


----------



## Minnewaska

DougSabbag said:


> ......Gee, if they hadn't smashed the boat, I would have temporarily fixed the minor issues and sailed back to Boston........


There is no way to conclude this from any rendition of this ordeal. Crew is stressed, decision making is stressed and a rescue was requested. I can't see how these fundamental problems would have improved or changed due to extracting the crew with a rescue vessel. The Triumph is still abandon.

You can argue that you wish you had not called at all, but it's illogical to argue that a more professional or successful rescue would have allowed you to sail back to Boston.


----------



## dmcMaine

smackdaddy said:


> I actually think Fool's suggestion above is brilliant. And I think you would be the perfect person to launch such an awareness and training program. I'm totally serious here.
> 
> *A training program for sailors/cruisers on how to prepare for and be rescued by ship at sea.*
> 
> This would be the ideal direction for you, Doug. Seriously. And it would help a lot of people out there.
> 
> Contact Gary Jobson at ASA and see about writing a curriculum for such training. Maybe it could even be added to the ASA courses.
> 
> Definitely worth a shot.


This is actually a very good idea. In my time as a naval aircrewman, I can say without a doubt that "being rescued" training was some of the best, and most enlightening, and in many ways "fun", training we received. From underwater crash egress, rapid survival suit donning, liferaft training, how to make yourself seen by searchers, what to expect from different types of rescuers, long-term survival, the whole shebang. Some of it isn't applicable ("use the wing as a launch platform for your raft"). Other parts very much are. (e.g. taking extra care to not become fouled in lines/gear, and how to clear yourself when you are)

I think it is very easy to focus too much on "how to stay out of trouble", and spend far too little time on "how to survive trouble when it happens". If nothing else, a course like this gets the students asking the right kinds of questions.

YMMV of course.


----------



## sailingfool

DougSabbag said:


> ....
> Likewise, the same relentless effort in answering / responding to YOU FOLKS no matter how distasteful some have been is what we would have to be prepared to accept... but it is that relentless characteristic which wins the day. Do you have that spirit too?


Relentless, relentless...chutzpah? Relentless!


----------



## Ninefingers

smackdaddy said:


> I actually think Fool's suggestion above is brilliant. And I think you would be the perfect person to launch such an awareness and training program. I'm totally serious here.
> 
> *A training program for sailors/cruisers on how to prepare for and be rescued by ship at sea.*
> 
> This would be the ideal direction for you, Doug. Seriously. And it would help a lot of people out there.
> 
> Contact Gary Jobson at ASA and see about writing a curriculum for such training. Maybe it could even be added to the ASA courses.
> 
> Definitely worth a shot.


It's great idea. It wouldn't take much to put together a 20 page manual that could be on every boat.

When things go South, and a rescue attempt at sea is pretty "South" already, communication is vital. And I think any rescuer would tell you that they would rather not eat up precious time trying to get the victim on the same page as it were.

Sailors should know too, that not all rescuers are created equal. A cruise ship is going to have, for obvious reasons, a far better trained rescue squad than a cargo ship, who probably only deploy the liferaft in training to satisfy the cg. Even then, the captain of the cruise ship said he would abandon the rescue had he arrived 2 hours later.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Yes, they "saved us" AFTER they squished our boat with us on it.
> And inspite of not deploying a lifeboat to extract us in a safe manner.
> 
> What did they "save us" from??
> 
> We had 2 broken stays, and a broken oil cooler. WOW, thank God they came along to smash the boat with us onboard while we were barely clingling to life under those conditions.
> 
> *Gee, if they hadn't smashed the boat, I would have temporarily fixed the minor issues and sailed back to Boston.*
> 
> But, because they destroyed the Triumph, with us onboard, that drove us into the ocean, AFTER we narrowly avoided being squished too, and then I got to experience drowning! Cool. Thank God for the KJ.
> 
> So, I guess you don't want to admit that there are some boundaries which still exist even if you call for assistance, huh? For instance the rescuer does not suddenly have a carte blanche right to kill you, and or, just stand by watching you drown after they destroy your vessel.
> 
> By your reasoning, once we called for assistance, they had the perfect right to kill us?! But, because we managed to avoid being squished, and we managed to make it to their deck via the least "dangerous" methods from their point of view, i.e., swim around and reach a life bouy, then they are exonerated from any and all dangerous actions to our lives?
> 
> We did NOT want to increase our predicament. Pardon me for not knowing once I call for assistance they have the right to kill us; either proactively, (squishing / smashing the boat with us onboard), or indirectly by just watching me drown for OVER THREE HOURS in DAYLIGHT.


This is delusional, you appear to have completely lost the plot...

So, your decision to abandon TRIUMPH was made simply because available assistance from the KIM JACOB made it so _convenient_ to do so? Otherwise, if there had been no AMVER vessels in the area to _assist_ you, you would have effected your own repairs, and be on your merry way back to Boston?

You had made the decision to abandon your vessel _BEFORE_ the KJ arrived on scene... What, you thought they were gonna send a team of mechanics with a portable welding setup onboard to repair your oil cooler, re-weld your chainplate, and perhaps lend you a jar of freakin' Grey Poupon, as well?

Sorry, Doug - but I doubt anyone here is gonna buy your claim that you would have managed a self-rescue if only TRIUMPH had not been _destroyed_ by the KJ... You were asking to be taken off that boat, pure and simple...


----------



## tommays

As best i can interpret the last 1000 posts it really comes down to your wife was well past her comfort level and it was a big part of pushing the button BUT the button was pushed 

Making it home or not is just Monday morning stuff at this point as we will never know if a larger chain of failures would have kept unfolding on the way back to the east coast


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> This is delusional, you appear to have completely lost the plot...
> 
> So, your decision to abandon TRIUMPH was made simply because available assistance from the KIM JACOB made it so _convenient_ to do so? Otherwise, if there had been no AMVER vessels in the area to _assist_ you, you would have effected your own repairs, and be on your merry way back to Boston?
> 
> You had made the decision to abandon your vessel _BEFORE_ the KJ arrived on scene... What, you thought they were gonna send a team of mechanics with a portable welding setup onboard to repair your oil cooler, re-weld your chainplate, and perhaps lend you a jar of freakin' Grey Poupon, as well?
> 
> Sorry, Doug - but I doubt anyone here is gonna buy your claim that you would have managed a self-rescue if only TRIUMPH had not been _destroyed_ by the KJ... You were asking to be taken off that boat, pure and simple...


Yeah, but what do you think of Sailingfool's rescue training program for sailors? It's genius.

And I honestly do think Doug would be a good fit to spearhead it.


----------



## djodenda

Seems like things have run their course here. If we quit posting to it, then it will fade into the background. 

Nothing more to see here.

Just my opinion.


----------



## casey1999

sailingfool said:


> Given that Triumph's failure to properly manage their drogue was a critical cause of subsequent events, perhaps your effort should focus on having the USCG develop "How to cooperate in your own rescue" training for US vessels heading offshore. Naturally you can make this training mandatory, and expensive while you are at it. (Maybe throw in some training on how to prerpare for going offshore...opps, lets not go there...)
> 
> After you have trained US sailors on being competent rescuees, then you can entertain training for the mariners of the world on being competent rescuers...good luck on that.


I think you are on to somthing good. If we as sailors train and educate ourselves in at sea rescue, then, if we do need a rescue, we can effectively communicate with the rescue captain to try to make a workable plan that fits the capabilities of both the rescuer and rescuee.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, but what do you think of Sailingfool's rescue training program for sailors? It's genius.
> 
> And I honestly do think Doug would be a good fit to spearhead it.


Actually, a fair amount of literature already exists out there on the subject, all one has to do is look for it&#8230; Most of this stuff seems like pretty basic seamanship to me, a rescue is likely to involve a heavy dose of improvisation anyway, much of this seems like simple common sense - like making the transfer of crew to the ship via liferaft or tender, for example, as opposed to taking the extreme risk of bringing a boat weighing 20 or more tons alongside the hull of a 900' ship in 10-15' seas&#8230;

Probably just me, but I'd rather see the focus remain on how to best avoid having to be rescued at sea, to begin with&#8230;

I just arrived this morning in Hampton, VA, and find myself sitting in the midst of he Caribbean 1500 fleet waiting to depart on Wednesday. Just watched the crew on a new Beneteau attempt to maneuver into their slip, the guy definitely should have sprung for the joystick docking system&#8230; Rarely does one see such totally clueless boathandling on a boat of that size, anyone watching would be forced to conclude it was his first time ever handling a boat&#8230;UFB, if it weren't for his bow thruster, the clown would STILL be trying to get the freakin' thing in between the pilings&#8230;

Absolutely boggles the mind, that these people are heading off for Tortola&#8230; The Carib 1500 will take anyone's money, I suppose - but this boat and crew sure look like a potential recipe for disaster, to me&#8230;


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, a fair amount of literature already exists out there on the subject, all one has to do is look for it&#8230; Most of this stuff seems like pretty basic seamanship to me, a rescue is likely to involve a heavy dose of improvisation anyway, much of this seems like simple common sense&#8230;


It may be common sense to you - but not for most of us who are newer to the game. What are some good resources for this?

As for the Carib 1500 - there's always the _Rule 62_.


----------



## Ninefingers

I tried looking for it. Nothing exists as far as I can tell. 
I think some knowledge is better than none. I always brief new guests on my boat on what I will do if someone falls overboard. I'd rather they know that I won't be picking them up like a water skier, and things won't happen as fast as they would like. Panicking does no one any good. 

So when the helicopter is lowering a basket, should I jump in the water?


----------



## GeorgeB

Canadian or American helicopter? If American, you will follow the instructions of the rescue swimmer. He/she(?) will direct you when it is safe to leave the boat/raft and will assist you getting into the basket.


----------



## casey1999

Ninefingers said:


> I tried looking for it. Nothing exists as far as I can tell.
> I think some knowledge is better than none. I always brief new guests on my boat on what I will do if someone falls overboard. I'd rather they know that I won't be picking them up like a water skier, and things won't happen as fast as they would like. Panicking does no one any good.
> 
> So when the helicopter is lowering a basket, should I jump in the water?


I tell my guest if they fall overboard, to relax, the Surface to Air Recovery Plane is on stand-by.

Fulton surface-to-air recovery system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reading the article above on the testing of the unit "Fulton first used instrumented dummies as he prepared for a live pickup. He next used a pig, as pigs have nervous systems close to humans. Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 mph (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured but in a disoriented state. Once it recovered, it attacked the crew.[1]"

Guess the pig was a little upset.


----------



## Minnewaska

djodenda said:


> Seems like things have run their course here. If we quit posting to it, then it will fade into the background.
> 
> Nothing more to see here.
> 
> Just my opinion.


I never understood the need to post this, unless the thread's content violates forum rules. Threads are easy to skip and even easier to unsubscribe.


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, now that you are a bonafide ocean racer, you might want to take the Safety at Sea seminar and get your certificate so you can do “real” ocean racing (i.e. Cat 1). The seminars cover a wide variety of subjects from weather, communications, to damage control and medical emergencies. Although they did not specifically talk about protocol when being rescued by a Liberian registered tanker, we did get to “play” with deploying a life raft and fire off flares and such. And, they will cover your favorite subject – drogues!


----------



## casey1999

casey1999 said:


> I tell my guest if they fall overboard, to relax, the Surface to Air Recovery Plane is on stand-by.
> 
> Fulton surface-to-air recovery system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Reading the article above on the testing of the unit "Fulton first used instrumented dummies as he prepared for a live pickup. He next used a pig, as pigs have nervous systems close to humans. Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 mph (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured but in a disoriented state. Once it recovered, it attacked the crew.[1]"
> 
> Guess the pig was a little upset.


Thinking about it, the pig did the same thing as Doug! Only the pig did not request to get "rescued".


----------



## Minnewaska

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, now that you are a bonafide ocean racer, you might want to take the Safety at Sea seminar and get your certificate so you can do "real" ocean racing (i.e. Cat 1). The seminars cover a wide variety of subjects from weather, communications, to damage control and medical emergencies. Although they did not specifically talk about protocol when being rescued by a Liberian registered tanker, we did get to "play" with deploying a life raft and fire off flares and such. And, they will cover your favorite subject - drogues!


I highly recommend the course. I thought about offering this suggestion as well, but as you point out, it doesn't really cover procedure for transfermg crew to a commercial vessel. It does reference the AMVR program. An Officer with the USCG presented the section on rescue, when I took it, and did a great job of explaining their capabilities, as limited as they are outside of 200 or so miles. He provided some great advice on when to call as well. He said call anytime and not worry about being a burden. They will sort out what an appropriate response should be.


----------



## smackdaddy

Deal. I'll get that done this winter. One step closer to Cat 1 racing!


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> It may be common sense to you - but not for most of us who are newer to the game. What are some good resources for this?


Sorry, can't recall a single particular source...

Seems to me one of the Brits - Peter Bruce, perhaps? - wrote something fairly comprehensive about rescue... And I believe Steve Dashew may have, as well... A search of the archives of a publication like OCEAN NAVIGATOR might produce something worthwhile...

But certainly much of the popular literature re at sea rescues contain a great deal of anecdotal and cautionary advice from well-documented disasters... I'd especially recommend Tony Farrington's RESCUE IN THE PACIFIC re the Queen's Birthday Storm, and Rob Mundle's book about the Sydney-Hobart disaster, two that come to mind...

Then, of course, are the legendary examples of Self-Rescue, which were the order of the day before EPIRPBs and Iridium AAA/OnStar road service at sea... Shackleton will forever be in a class by himself, but the accounts of the Smeetons and John Guzzwell surviving their pitchpoling in the Southern Ocean, and Hal and Margaret Roth's shipwreck near Cape Horn truly put some of today's seemingly casual abandonments in their proper perspective...


----------



## LandLocked66c

Smack has the MOB drill down I'd say...


----------



## smackdaddy

LandLocked66c said:


> Smack has the MOB drill down I'd say...


Actually that's a POB - predicated by a move known as "The Punk Chunk".


----------



## LandLocked66c

Proper PFD donned and no lifeboat needed, I assume?


----------



## bljones

Looking at that picture, I just have one question- Is that granite behind the Smacktanic ?


----------



## smackdaddy

LandLocked66c said:


> Proper PFD donned and no lifeboat needed, I assume?


Lifeboat? I think there was a noodle floating around there somewhere. That's all he was getting from me.

And, bl, granite???? Dude, that's just a grungy genoa! Clean your glasses, man!


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> Lifeboat? I think there was a noodle floating around there somewhere. That's all he was getting from me.


So you and the KJ Captain are related then?


----------



## casey1999

Owner has plans to move boat - Mauinews.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Visitor's Information - The Maui News

Looks like the man will eventually get his boat back!


----------



## DougSabbag

Yes, they saved us from their destruction of our boat. You are absolutely correct, I should not have called for assistance.
Saying the destruction of our boat is not an issue is ludicrous when you include the fact that we were ONBOARD. Why don't I come over and destroy your boat with you onboard, then I will throw you a lifebouy. After (if) you make it to my deck, (assuming we restrain you from punching me), I will expect to hear a loud sincere THANK YOU.
Because, I "saved you" ! 
Granted you had not asked to be saved, but what the Hell, since the KJ was so nice in saving me, I think I should pass that act of love onto you too. Don't mention it! No problem.  

Remember the earlier metaphor I wrote? Suppose you are driving a car and after having a flat tire, or blown engine, you call for AAA? And the truck comes up behind you but doesn't stop; it runs over your car with you in it. Then, to avoid being squished, you jump out of your car, but right into traffic on the highway, (I95). The truck driver doesn't do anything but take pictures of you while you scamper amongst the cars until you manage to make it back to the median.
Then, of course, you "thank him"..........

Oh, I know, I should have checked the tires or the oil in the engine before driving, so that the request for assistance would never have happened. 

But, according to your logic, no matter how screwed up the assistance is, I MUST thank them as long as I live through it. Even when the assistance was truly, clearly, the most violent deadly action of the day. And that didn't require MM QBing; that only took running from their anchor housing as it smashed down our deck to see that.

So, if a AAA responder comes to your assistance and plows into your rear, throwing you into the next planet, don't forget to thank him. He did have only the best of intentions.


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
It boils down to was the damage intentional? If the AAA truck runs into the back of me because of equipment failure (bad brakes say) or the driver has a heart attack just before the accident- I cannot really blame AAA- things happen. If it was intentional that is somthing else.

What KJ did was not intentional.

There are many examples of boats getting damaged during rescues. This is not intentional. Give me one real life example of a AAA driver doing as you describe.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> It boils down to was the damage intentional? If the AAA truck runs into the back of me because of equipment failure (bad brakes say) or the driver has a heart attack just before the accident- I cannot really blame AAA- things happen. If it was intentional that is somthing else.
> 
> What KJ did was not intentional.
> 
> There are many examples of boats getting damaged during rescues. This is not intentional. Give me one real life example of a AAA driver doing as you describe.


Regardless of WHY he did it, if he did that to you, would you thank him?


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> It boils down to was the damage intentional? If the AAA truck runs into the back of me because of equipment failure (bad brakes say) or the driver has a heart attack just before the accident- I cannot really blame AAA- things happen. If it was intentional that is somthing else.
> 
> What KJ did was not intentional.
> 
> There are many examples of boats getting damaged during rescues. This is not intentional. Give me one real life example of a AAA driver doing as you describe.


And.... yes, in the rescues which do not employ life boats to transfer the people, frequently there are many violent reactions, including deaths.

So..... do you think that using life boats should be the preferred method of extraction?


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> Regardless of WHY he did it, if he did that to you, would you thank him?


Sure would. I would thank him for the effort. I would feel especially bad if someone got hurt while trying to help me and would feel deep compassion for their injury or loss because there damage was in effect done by me.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Where'd that DAMN horse go???


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Sure would. I would thank him for the effort. I would feel especially bad if someone got hurt while trying to help me and would feel deep compassion for their injury or loss because there damage was in effect done by me.


Well, your insurance company wouldn't feel the same way.


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> And.... yes, in the rescues which do not employ life boats to transfer the people, frequently there are many violent reactions, including deaths.
> 
> So..... do you think that using life boats should be the preferred method of extraction?


The preferred method of extraction is the one that puts me and my crew alive with all extremities attached on the deck of the rescue ship. I do not care how it is done and if I am ever in that situation- I will not care what happens to my boat- the boat is a material thing that can easily be replaced.


----------



## DougSabbag

LandLocked66c said:


> Where'd that DAMN horse go???


He is in the ocean since his owner sank his trailer. Why don't you throw him a life bouy? Then take some pictures of what happens.....


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> Well, your insurance company wouldn't feel the same way.


I think you are refering to the damage done to my car by the tow truck in the situation you describe.

Well the total value of the 4 cars/trucks I own is $5,000 or $1,250 each (each vehicle is at least 20 years old). So the loss of my car is not an issue, and btw, I only carry liability on the cars. No loss to insurance company in the case you describe.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> The preferred method of extraction is the one that puts me and my crew alive with all extremities attached on the deck of the rescue ship. I do not care how it is done and if I am ever in that situation- I will not care what happens to my boat- the boat is a material thing that can easily be replaced.


You sure as Hell WILL care what happens to your boat while you are ONBOARD. Just because you dodged a bullet does not make it fine that one was shot at you.
While you are onboard, your boat is still very important to your life.
Though AFTER you are extracted you don't care anymore.
That IS an important distinction.


----------



## LandLocked66c

DougSabbag said:


> He is in the ocean since his owner sank his trailer. Why don't you throw him a life bouy? Then take some pictures of what happens.....


That's all that was found unfortunately...


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> He is in the ocean since his owner sank his trailer. Why don't you throw him a life bouy? Then take some pictures of what happens.....


WTF---these stories keep getting more bazzare-- 
Just can't wait for the book and movie to come out on Doug's adventures!


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> I think you are refering to the damage done to my car by the tow truck in the situation you describe.
> 
> Well the total value of the 4 cars/trucks I own is $5,000 or $1,250 each (each vehicle is at least 20 years old). So the loss of my car is not an issue, and btw, I only carry liability on the cars. No loss to insurance company in the case you describe.


Regardless of the value of your vehicle(s), when you are in one of them, they are a lot more valuable.


----------



## Minnewaska

Is this a breakthrough on the disconnect here? Were you calling the USCG?AMVR for assistance in repairing your vehicle like the AAA truck? I don't think the program is designed for that, nor do I recall you had any other intention than to abandon your vessel.

I seems like the facts are being twisted now. Was is abandon or repair?


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> You sure as Hell WILL care what happens to your boat while you are ONBOARD. Just because you dodged a bullet does not make it fine that one was shot at you.
> While you are onboard, your boat is still very important to your life.
> Though AFTER you are extracted you don't care anymore.
> That IS an important distinction.


Doug, I really would not care as long as I was alive. Actually, what happened to you could be a good thing as you did live, and in a book or a movie all the danger and excitement of your boat getting destroyed with you on it could make it a top seller.

Take lemons and make lemonade. You seem like a good buisnessman- take advantage of the situation. Maybe you could be a guest speaker at the Safety at Sea Seminars.


----------



## DougSabbag

Minnewaska said:


> Is this a breakthrough on the disconnect here? Were you calling the USCG?AMVR for assistance in repairing your vehicle like the AAA truck? I don't think the program is designed for that, nor do I recall you had any other intention than to abandon your vessel.
> 
> I seems like the facts are being twisted now. Was is abandon or repair?


Initially, on July 26th, I called them and discussed whatever assistance could be provided; not extraction. The next day we agreed to be extracted.
(reluctantly).


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> But, according to your logic, no matter how screwed up the assistance is, I MUST thank them as long as I live through it. Even when the assistance was truly, clearly, the most violent deadly action of the day.


Basically, yes. They saved you both from the situation you asked them to save you from. The fact that it wasn't pretty is relatively inconsequential in relation to that.

You and your wife are alive. You should thank the KJ for that.

Here are some similar rescues that are a bit messy...(from my *"Beyond the Edge"* thread):





Did the guy criticize his rescuers for his banging around on the way up - even in _moderate_ seas? I doubt it.





Did the skipper of the Baccus hammer the skipper/crew of the ship for destroying the rigging and mast of his _abandoned vessel_ while people were still on the boat - and for pulling them off in the midst of that whipping steel? I doubt it.





Did the skipper of this abandoned vessel hammer the skipper/crew of the ship for crushing it? I doubt it.

See? It's never really very pretty. The point is, as long as you have a 100% positive outcome in a rescue, any critique (especially hysterical, hyperbolic, and wrongheaded critique) comes off as seriously petty.

Whether you _thank_ the KJ or not is up to you. I'm just more concerned that you stop spewing crap and _*acknowledge the reality of the fact that the KJ saved you.*_ Period.

Now - what do you think about creating that training course Sailingfool mentioned? You really should get on that. It would do you good.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug, I really would not care as long as I was alive. Actually, what happened to you could be a good thing as you did live, and in a book or a movie all the danger and excitement of your boat getting destroyed with you on it could make it a top seller.
> 
> Take lemons and make lemonade. You seem like a good buisnessman- take advantage of the situation. Maybe you could be a guest speaker at the Safety at Sea Seminars.


As your vehicle is being smashed with you in it / on it, you WOULD CARE.
Unless you are suicidal.
Perhaps after the whole scene is done, you might not give a damn.

I am going to make a clean boat now....


----------



## DougSabbag

smackdaddy said:


> Basically, yes. They saved you both from the situation you asked them to save you from. The fact that it wasn't pretty is relatively inconsequential in relation to that.
> 
> You and your wife are alive. You should thank the KJ for that.
> 
> Here are some other rescues that are a bit messy...(from my *"Beyond the Edge"* thread):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the guy criticize his rescuers for his banging around on the way up - even in _moderate_ seas? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the skipper of the Baccus hammer the skipper/crew of the ship for destroying the rigging and mast of his _abandoned vessel_ while people were still on the boat - and for pulling them off in the midst of that whipping steel? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the skipper of this abandoned vessel hammer the skipper/crew of the ship for crushing it? I doubt it.
> 
> See? It's never really very pretty. The point is, as long as you have a 100% positive outcome in a rescue, any critique (especially hysterical, hyperbolic, and wrongheaded critique) comes off as seriously petty.
> 
> Now - what do you think about creating that training course Sailingfool mentioned. You really should get on that. It would do you good.


You did not reply to my earlier post to you where I saved you............


----------



## casey1999

DougSabbag said:


> As your vehicle is being smashed with you in it / on it, you WOULD CARE.
> Unless you are suicidal.
> Perhaps after the whole scene is done, you might not give a damn.
> 
> I am going to make a clean boat now....


I have been in some major car accidents (where I was not at fault). In many cases the car was totaled. I did not care during the accident, or after what happened to the car. I was just happy everyone walked away with only minor injuries. In fact the condition of the car was the last thing on my mind. And I was actually happy the car absorbed the impact (as designed) and got totaled not me. In all cases I was not even upset with the other driver, even though they were at fault- they did not do what they did on purpose.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Come here you stupid horse!


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> You did not reply to my earlier post to you where I saved you............


Thanks.


----------



## Minnewaska

DougSabbag said:


> Initially, on July 26th, I called them and discussed whatever assistance could be provided; not extraction. The next day we agreed to be extracted.
> (reluctantly).


I understand. Your saying that you eventually, albeit reluctantly, agreed to allow them to make their effort to extract you and you had decided at that point to abandon Triumph. Sailing back to Boston was not an option, due to your decision, prior to the destruction of the vessel.

You're angry. I get it. Beyond being angry at KJ, you are angry at yourself for having abandon her. KJ is just a more likely to get a tougher beating at this stage. Your turn may come, be prepared for it. No beating is worse than the self-inflicted.

I hope the anger has not been directed at your wife for contributing to the situation. That would be much more unfortunate that laying this at the KJ's doorstep.

Peace.


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> Just because you dodged a bullet does not make it fine that one was shot at you.


Doug, are you seriously comparing somebody rescuing you at sea to somebody shooting a gun at you?


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's another example of the fact that rescues are dangerous business:






Do you think they hammered the captain of the ship for accidentally crushing the stern of the cat, and almost them, during the rescue? I doubt it.

Could it have been done better (e.g. - with the dinghy)? Probably. But, as you can see over and over again, this stuff is ugly. And ship's crew do seem to take pictures a lot.


----------



## smackdaddy

And another...






Do we need any more?


----------



## casey1999

Doug, 
Did you consider asking KJ to tow your SV back to Canada, or do you think that would have been too much to ask?


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> Here's another example of the fact that rescues are dangerous business:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think they hammered the captain of the ship for accidentally crushing the stern of the cat, and almost them, during the rescue? I doubt it.
> 
> Could it have been done better (e.g. - with the dinghy)? Probably. But, as you can see over and over again, this stuff is ugly. And ship's crew do seem to take pictures a lot.


Never did like them cats- can't trust em in a storm.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> And another...
> 
> ........
> 
> Do we need any more?


Seems like crew taking photos is standard operating procedure. Best that we all mentally prepare for that potential as much as we might prepare for needing to be rescued.


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> And another...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need any more?


Smack,
What did he have in the bags he was so concerned about- a drug runner?


----------



## casey1999

Minnewaska said:


> Seems like crew taking photos is standard operating procedure. Best that we all mentally prepare for that potential as much as we might prepare for needing to be rescued.


Those vids are good at teaching us what to expect if we do ever need a rescue.


----------



## Bene505

In my humble opinion, if the skipper of the rescue boat intentionally smashed the sailboat then shame on him. If it was an accident, then that's that. I think it's safe to say that he was doing his best to rendezvous and not being malicious.

There is still the issue about floating in the sea for 3 hours, but the sailboat smash-up was an accident and is a moot point.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## LandLocked66c

Bene505 said:


> In my humble opinion, if the skipper of the rescue boat intentionally smashed the sailboat then shame on him. If it was an accident, then that's that. I think it's safe to say that he was doing his best to rendezvous and not being malicious.
> 
> There is still the issue about floating in the sea for 3 hours, but the sailboat smash-up was an accident and is a moot point.
> 
> Regards,
> Brad


Obviously you've never been shot at or run over by a tow truck!


----------



## Dean101

DougSabbag said:


> Regardless of WHY he did it, if he did that to you, would you thank him?


If I'm ever in that situation, they can haul my butt on board by my scrotum, just so long as I live. I may not like watching my boat destroyed but I would damn sure be happy to get home in one piece.

At any point during the time you were on board the KJ, did you ever express any feelings of appreciation? Did you cut into the captain with as much enthusiasm as you show here? Is this a point that you absolutely must make before you can put it behind you and move on?


----------



## DougSabbag

OK. You're sure that this is the way to do it, as long as people live, and when they don't that is just the way it is.
Can't be done better; can't be talked about when it isn't; and must be protected "as is" for better or for worse. Sounds just like the social security system, doesn't it?

And anyone who questions tactics is no better than a commie, or at least is exhibiting signs of mental issues......

WOW, quite the bunch here. Enjoy yourselves as much as you can. 
Bye bye.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> OK. You're sure that this is the way to do it, as long as people live, and when they don't that is just the way it is.
> Can't be done better; can't be talked about when it isn't; and must be protected "as is" for better or for worse. Sounds just like the social security system, doesn't it?
> 
> And anyone who questions tactics is no better than a commie, or at least is exhibiting signs of mental issues......
> 
> WOW, quite the bunch here. Enjoy yourselves as much as you can.
> Bye bye.


Well, that's not really the way it is from what I can see.

For example, you still haven't answered my question about what you think about Sailingfool's idea on the sailor training for rescue at sea. That's pure genius as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Oh Jeez... It's not like that Doug... WTF?


----------



## Minnewaska

I haven't seen anyone question whether it could have been done better. Only whether they would be grateful for what they received. I am going to wager that, once rescued and aboard, you were quite grateful to the crew. It wasn't until the reality of your loss and the memories of the near drowning began to haunt you, that the anger really kicked in.

Several of us have offered that we might be just as angry as you at this stage. However, it is most likely a defense mechanism for traumatic stress and the loss of all of your possessions.

While some have been unnecessarily aggressive about it, you might look back on some of this input and have a better appreciation for it down the road.

Now, living n a stinkpot, there is absolutely no way that is doing you any good. 

All the best.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm honestly very surprised Doug didn't express interest in fool's Rescue at Sea Training idea.

That's precisely the thing he wants to do, and wants all of us to do: question and improve the process. 

He'd be great at getting the ball rolling on such a program - and the whole world of sailing would benefit greatly from it.

What's not to love?


----------



## blt2ski

smackdaddy said:


> I'm honestly very surprised Doug didn't express interest in fool's Rescue at Sea Training idea.
> 
> That's precisely the thing he wants to do, and wants all of us to do: question and improve the process.
> 
> He'd be great at getting the ball rolling on such a program - and the whole world of sailing would benefit greatly from it.
> 
> *What's not to love?*


He will not be able to tell people to "F off" in a forum that last I read, was not to have folks swearing or attacking others. Hence why he will not say he likes "Fools" idea or not. I have not personally read his thought, nor am I going to hunt for it, and if I have read it, forgot what it said.

Personally, be it my boat was destroyed, or as one says one should do, ie scuttle the boat for positive if you get pulled off, so it sinks, I would say Dougs boat was put to rest as it should have been with all occupants leaving the boat. Granted being destroyed was probably not the intent.......it was probably an accident....none the less it should have been scuttled on purpose.

Marty


----------



## MikeWhy

We can also talk in context of, say, the Carib 1500, about to get underway this moment. I'm thinking you would much rather have the KJ come to your rescue than me. It's unlikely you'll wreck your mast on my hull, but I'm not at all equipped to pass across a line in 40 ft seas. (Let alone pass and retrieve the waiver of liability for your signature.) The best I can do is a MOB pick up after you swim clear. Launching my dinghy in those seas seems predictably and immediately fatal.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> SmackDaddy..... I just found this posting. Surprisingly, here you aren't calling me names for pointing out what I have been pointing out.
> 
> Actually, there could be numerous paths toward that goal. But, initially there is a big question which relates to the International condition. Why is it only America's responsibility to accomplish an improvement in the rescuing process of a pleasure craft?
> 
> Most, (including me), would think it would be more appropriate to have an international entity driving this bus. The United Nations? Or, some international maritime group.
> 
> Back to the "numerous paths".
> 
> I could write the story of the KJ meeting the Triumph and submit that to the various sailing / cruising publications; and then follow those up with calling upon the various international maritime groups asking for a dialogue to discuss upgrading or improving the AMVER participants' rescue training.
> 
> Or, I could call my uncle, (George Mitchell), an ex-Senator you might have heard of.... the man who accomplished the IRA / UK negotiations / peace settlements. And see if he would initiate something with his contacts.
> But, that would be asking a lot of Georgie, who is really enjoying his well earned retirement.
> 
> Or, WE (sailors) could somehow band together to utilize our numbers and speak as one louder voice.....
> 
> But, learning from the current OWS (occupy wall street) protesters failure, we would have to already have resolved EXACTLY WHAT we are asking for in order to have any hope of success.
> 
> So, SmackDaddy, do we, (not just you and me, but the greater SN we), care enough to do anything besides taking care of ourselves?
> 
> This flys in the face of the already rumbling "this was really your fault" statements wherein those people would most likely snicker and walk away.


Okay Doug, I'm taking you up on this. I'm starting a new thread to get away from critiquing your specific incident and start talking about the larger issue of training.

Let's do this.


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
My own interest in this thread is that you seem to have a lot of negative feelings towards the KJ. The rest of us 99% would have appreciated what the KJ did, even if they had destroyed our own boat in the process.

What concerns me is that if you think about it, most small sailing vessels that most of us own really have no buisness in the middle of the ocean. No matter how much our small boat is prepared, equiped, and the crew trained, we are still at the mercy of the sea. It is nice to know if and when we have expired all of our last resorts in a crisis, there may be a ship like the KJ out there willing to rescue us. By being so critical of the KJ, I could see many ships in the future not be so willing to come to our aid. Stating your lawyer considered a lawsuit does not help either. 

You as a 1% may not desire to be helped by the KJ, but the rest of us 99% would welcome the KJ with open arms.


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
If you wanted what you think should be a higher quality rescue, then maybe you should purchase "Search and Rescue Insurance". I have done some seraching and see some insurance companies offer this like:
Yacht insurance from RLI Marine insurance

Does any one know what this insurance would actually cover? Why would one need it? What are the benefits? Seems rescues are always free, what benefit would the insurance have?


----------



## mitiempo

Is it just me or does anyone else notice that there are so many rescues from boats still afloat, not appearing to be sinking, and some with what appears to be totally intact rigs. The rule I remember is to "always step up to the liferaft". 

Training for rescue is good but maybe many need training "not to need rescue".

I think a boat that is still basically intact is better than a liferaft and better than abandoning all for a ship rescue.


----------



## jackdale

mitiempo said:


> Is it just me or does anyone else notice that there are so many rescues from boats still afloat, not appearing to be sinking, and some with what appears to be totally intact rigs. The rule I remember is to "always step up to the liferaft".
> 
> Training for rescue is good but maybe many need training "not to need rescue".


I think the abandon rule applies when there is no rescue ship / helicopter immediately available. At least that is my interpretation from "Fastnet - Force 10."

Some do hit the "distress button" too quickly.


----------



## JonEisberg

Looks like we might be seeing another YouTube video soon, of another example of the extreme danger of bringing a small boat alongside a ship at sea in rough weather... Sounds like one of these crewmembers is very lucky to be alive, barely avoiding being "squished" after falling in the water between the two...

The NARC fleet really got pasted this time... The delivery I'm currently on originated in eastern LI Sound, and the owner originally just assumed I'd go via Bermuda... This year seems further confirmation, Don Street's take on the passage south is right on the money - that for anything less than large, fast, fully crewed yachts, a departure from the Chesapeake or Beaufort is the only way to go...

Oleander in high-seas rescue | Bermuda News

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Gale-force-winds-play-havoc-with-sun-seeking-rallies/90467

Riot crew prevail in unruly weather | Bermuda News


----------



## JonEisberg

mitiempo said:


> Is it just me or does anyone else notice that there are so many rescues from boats still afloat, not appearing to be sinking, and some with what appears to be totally intact rigs. The rule I remember is to "always step up to the liferaft".
> 
> Training for rescue is good but maybe many need training "not to need rescue".
> 
> I think a boat that is still basically intact is better than a liferaft and better than abandoning all for a ship rescue.


Nope, it's not just you...

Here's one Armchair-Sailing Monday Morning Quarterback's first post to this thread:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...4-s-v-triumph-lost-atlantic-3.html#post757476


----------



## LandLocked66c

I don't understand? I thought they were sailing?????



> However, he said the crew elected to steer away from the recommended route and found themselves pushing against a current, burning through their fuel supply.
> 
> "By the time we got out of that area, I had about 12 to 15 gallons of reserve fuel and half a tank, not enough to complete the journey in this weather," he said.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jon,

Go take a look at this new thread where we're talking about this very thing:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/80615-rescued-sea-you-prepared.html

I'd love to have your input on it.

I'm copying your post over there since it's relevant.



JonEisberg said:


> Looks like we might be seeing another YouTube video soon, of another example of the extreme danger of bringing a small boat alongside a ship at sea in rough weather... Sounds like one of these crewmembers is very lucky to be alive, barely avoiding being "squished" after falling in the water between the two...
> 
> The NARC fleet really got pasted this time... The delivery I'm currently on originated in eastern LI Sound, and the owner originally just assumed I'd go via Bermuda... This year seems further confirmation, Don Street's take on the passage south is right on the money - that for anything less than large, fast, fully crewed yachts, a departure from the Chesapeake or Beaufort is the only way to go...
> 
> Oleander in high-seas rescue | Bermuda News
> 
> http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Gale-force-winds-play-havoc-with-sun-seeking-rallies/90467
> 
> Riot crew prevail in unruly weather | Bermuda News


----------



## cupper3

mstern said:


> Has anyone actually tried to use Traveler's Checks recently? I bought some for a family trip about 8 years ago. About half of the places refused to accept them; they said there had been too much fraud recently, and they just weren't accepting any brand of traveler's checks from anyone. Keep in mind these were Amex Traveler's Checks, and I was presenting them with photo ID, and this was in California, not some third world country. I had to return most of the checks when I got back, and I have never bought any since. For those of you who have wondered why Doug carried cash instead of Traveler's Checks, I am wondering if your recent experience with them is different than mine.


Agreed.

Five years ago I went to Europe, and like 15 years prior, I took a number of AMEX traveller's checks along.

Big mistake... you can't cash them for all the reasons stated.

I went to a bank in Germany where my cousin is the manager. You'd think it would be easy to cash the checks there, right?

Nope! Against bank policies.

He ended up withdrawing money from his OWN account, and I countersigned the checks to him. Then he had to put a 3 week hold on his own account.... bank policy.

My debit and charge cards worked everywhere, even in small back woods B&B's in 8 different countries..

Cash worked pretty good too


----------



## hellosailor

"and this was in California, not some third world country."
Well, Cali is in America and in some ways America is simply the world's largest and most recent third world country. 
Ignoring that, America NEVER HAS BEEN BIG ON TRAVELERS CHECKS. Domestic checks, foreign checks, most American merchants look at the pretty paper and say "Huh?" or tell you to take it to a bank. Always been that way. Overseas? No problems around the world with the same paper, and onceuponatime even personal checks written in US dollars _were _welcome in many places, sometimes even at a "discount" (meaning a discount is given on youtr purchase) because they were redeemable in strong US dollars.

Travelers check in America, and you claim to be American? That's what the clerk is going to say, everybody here "knows" you only use those overseas. No, sorry, that one just begs for a Monty Python routine.


----------



## cupper3

Minnewaska said:


> "None of you are accepting the basic premise, (which is very hard to understand why), that any human being deserves to be rescued, by ALL AVAILABLE MEANS."
> 
> Doug, you oversimplify this. I and all rescue agencies reject this statement.
> 
> No one is required to attempt a rescue whereby they believe the rescuer would be in excessive danger. *Naturally, the victim would feel differently, but that's the way it is*.


It was stressed to us in lifeguard training that when attempting a rescue, if the situation deteriorates, it was better to have one drowning than two. First priority to safety was oneself.

Always.


----------



## cupper3

mitiempo said:


> ...
> Fact sheet of the Kim Jacob
> Merchant Vessel - Kim Jacob
> 
> Details of lifesaving equipment is on page 7 here
> http://www.frontline.bm/pdf/mtkimjacob.pdf


That list of lifesaving equipment, along with the known pictures of the Kim Jacob, in addition to the posting by one of the crew members on here, seem to substantiate that there were no white "rescue boats" in addition to the listed life boats on board.

The skipper of the S/V Triumph has a different memory of what may have been available.

I wonder why that would be?


----------



## alan_za

mitiempo said:


> Is it just me or does anyone else notice that there are so many rescues from boats still afloat, not appearing to be sinking, and some with what appears to be totally intact rigs. The rule I remember is to "always step up to the liferaft".
> 
> Training for rescue is good but maybe many need training "not to need rescue".
> 
> I think a boat that is still basically intact is better than a liferaft and better than abandoning all for a ship rescue.


Hmm let's see would I rather fight to keep the boat afloat and get it back to port where I have to spend $'s repairing it or abandon ship and buy a brand new boat courtesy of insurance?


----------



## Minnewaska

alan_za said:


> Hmm let's see would I rather fight to keep the boat afloat and get it back to port where I have to spend $'s repairing it or abandon ship and buy a brand new boat courtesy of insurance?


It is almost impossible to insure a trans ocean voyage. If coastal, one also loses their personal belonging in the rescue. I'll pass on the insurance trade.


----------



## dmcMaine

alan_za said:


> Hmm let's see would I rather fight to keep the boat afloat and get it back to port where I have to spend $'s repairing it or abandon ship and buy a brand new boat courtesy of insurance?


I would rather make the choice that gets my crew back to shore alive. $$-be-damned.


----------



## LandLocked66c

But if you owned a Hunter? Eh?


----------



## emoney

I think a lot of the rescues come from folks panicking more than necessity. It's a big, lonely, cold sea out there and it's that "alone-ness" that causes the quick draw mayday call. Once little problems start to occur, our rationale starts to skew and we begin the "what if" journey allowing the little problems to meld into one giant one. As a whole, it's fear most of the time I'd imagine. And, I can't say as if I blame them either. There's a reason why I haven't attempted a "Big Pond Crossing": I'm too chicken.


----------



## tdw

alan_za said:


> Hmm let's see would I rather fight to keep the boat afloat and get it back to port where I have to spend $'s repairing it or abandon ship and buy a brand new boat courtesy of insurance?


Oh man ... as insurance scams go that is just effing silly. Sail out into the middle of the Atlantic, wait for a passing skyscraper to come by and then beat yourself to death scaling its sides ? FFS.

Now I've never been at sea in survival conditions but I have on a couple of occasions been bounced about enough out there to know that the noise and the motion with another ten or twenty knots added would be sufficient for me to need surplus underwear. It is scarey and I can well understand a crew deciding that crawling up that iron cliff face is preferable to spending another day or another week inside a top load washing machine.

I guess our task as skipper is to understand that maybe just maybe we will all be better off to huddle together down below and to pass on that understanding to our crew.


----------



## Rickem

I would like like to know the rules of coming across abandoned ships? If they're officially abandoned at sea, are they free for the taking?

Cheers


----------



## Minnewaska

Rickem said:


> I would like like to know the rules of coming across abandoned ships? If they're officially abandoned at sea, are they free for the taking?
> 
> Cheers


That is a very complicated question. It will depend on where you find it and the peril you were in to salvage it. You may be entitled to compensation, rather than the vessel. Depends.


----------



## Rickem

Not so much the "peril" I was in to salvage it, just the fact that I see people just abandoning ship when I've always been taught to stay with your ship unless she's no doubt to sink. 
Many, many years ago my dad had a 34 Cristcraft and she choked a bit of water, drained the battery trying to start it and lost all power to the boat. We stay adrift in some pretty heavy weather (well, at that age felt like being in a dryer) for a day and half till we could flare another boat. Nowadays, seems to me, you'll find ships floating abandoned all over. I think it's fair that if you abandon your ship afloat, she's fair game.


----------



## casey1999

Was doing a sailboat delivery from florida to virgin islands in the early 80's and we came upon a 40 foot wood commercial fishing type boat with no one aboard. Seas were very calm and very little wind so we went along side. We were a little hesitant due to the drug trafficting at the time. On board at the galley table was a half drank cup of coffee. Seems someone just vanished from the boat. We just left it as we had a boat to deliver and this boat was pretty well used, but still of some value. Always wondered what the story was with that boat.


----------



## CaptFoolhardy

casey1999 said:


> Was doing a sailboat delivery from florida to virgin islands in the early 80's and we came upon a 40 foot wood commercial fishing type boat with no one aboard. Seas were very calm and very little wind so we went along side. We were a little hesitant due to the drug trafficting at the time. On board at the galley table was a half drank cup of coffee. Seems someone just vanished from the boat. We just left it as we had a boat to deliver and this boat was pretty well used, but still of some value. Always wondered what the story was with that boat.


It has been suggested that when abandoning a boat at sea it should be scuttled so that it doesn't become a hazard to navigation. But what should be done in a case such as this? If you come across a boat abandoned at sea should you sink it? Should you just issue a securite (assuming there is boat traffic within radio range)?

Thoughts?


----------



## LandLocked66c

First grab the granite counter tops, then scuttle it!


----------



## AdamLein

CaptFoolhardy said:


> If you come across a boat abandoned at sea should you sink it? Should you just issue a securite (assuming there is boat traffic within radio range)?


First, I suggest that the probability that you will find yourself in this situation is very close to zero. It's a big ocean, after all.

I mean, it depends on the following things occurring at the same time:

- You're in a small yacht, far from land.

- You spot a small yacht adrift, downwind of your current position.

- You can somehow confirm that no-one is aboard the yacht.

- You have time to spare in your float plan to detour to examine the vessel.

- Conditions are such that you can safely leave your own vessel, board the yacht, examine it, and get back aboard your own boat.

I think all that is a bit of a stretch. So now you're faced with the decision of whether to board and scuttle the boat.... I think the situation is fishy enough, and the risk that this boat will actually prove a hazard to navigation so small, that it's not worth the effort. When communications are available to you, communicate the situation to the relevant authorities. That's it.


----------



## DougSabbag

casey1999 said:


> Doug,
> My own interest in this thread is that you seem to have a lot of negative feelings towards the KJ. The rest of us 99% would have appreciated what the KJ did, even if they had destroyed our own boat in the process.
> 
> What concerns me is that if you think about it, most small sailing vessels that most of us own really have no buisness in the middle of the ocean. No matter how much our small boat is prepared, equiped, and the crew trained, we are still at the mercy of the sea. It is nice to know if and when we have expired all of our last resorts in a crisis, there may be a ship like the KJ out there willing to rescue us. By being so critical of the KJ, I could see many ships in the future not be so willing to come to our aid. Stating your lawyer considered a lawsuit does not help either.
> 
> You as a 1% may not desire to be helped by the KJ, but the rest of us 99% would welcome the KJ with open arms.


Do you remember when nobody had seat belts? Or when crumple zones and inflating bags were not part of practically any standard car?

Back then, most people also thought these things were unneccesary "frills".

Well, the current state of extraction from a pleasure vessel to a rescue vessel / freighter / tanker, is similar to the long since gone days of no seat belts.

And I am being vocal about the relatively simple way to improve the process as opposed to accepting the current slim chances of a smooth rescue because "we shouldn't have been there", or, "we should be glad we are alive."

Yes, I appreciate being alive. But, as I keep on saying, the most deadly action which happened to us on July 27th 2011 was NOT the broken stays, or the broken oil cooler. It was being onboard a 50 foot vessel being smashed by a 900 foot tanker. Then, being allowed to flounder around in broad daylight for over 3 hours in the ocean, with my only hope for life being my ability to reach a life bouy thrown by the crew.

Anyone with a half of a brain can see that the correct method of transferring people from a 50 footer to a 900 footer is to use a rescue lifeboat.

If everyone thinks that the current "take whatever is offered and say nothing", with the associated DEATHS, is the way it should be, then please remove your seat belts, disable the inflating SRS, have a cigarette;
the next time you need an antibiotic, just say no; slather on the butter; eschew any cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); etc., etc.

But, if you are enjoying all the other advances and improvements in our world, (radar, GPS, EPIRB, depth sounder, etc), then there should also be room in your mind for an improvement to transferring people from a small to a large vessel, in the middle of the ocean.

This has zero negative implication to the KJ. But, nevertheless, it can be done MUCH better than just taking pictures and taking bets on whether or not the sailor will manage to make it to the bouy.

The "technology" IS there. It is at the very least called a RESCUE LIFE BOAT.
So, if you won't eschew CPR, then USE THE LIFE BOAT TOO. Anything else is just as stupid as not accepting CPR and leaving it up to the Gods.


----------



## casey1999

CaptFoolhardy said:


> It has been suggested that when abandoning a boat at sea it should be scuttled so that it doesn't become a hazard to navigation. But what should be done in a case such as this? If you come across a boat abandoned at sea should you sink it? Should you just issue a securite (assuming there is boat traffic within radio range)?
> 
> Thoughts?


In my case it was 1982. We were a couple hundred miles from land and only had a vhf with no boats within its roughly 30 mile range. The seas were like a lake so no problem for us to board. We definitely would not have scuttled it- not being our boat. And we were very concerned the boat may contain drugs and maybe a mother ship was nearby and seeing us on boarad may think we were trying to take their stash. We just wanted to make sure any potential crew was not injured. I would never scuttle a boat that was not mine, nor mess with it it any way. We did a visual and left asap. 
This was in the Bermuda Triangle BTW


----------



## AdamLein

casey1999 said:


> We definitely would not have scuttled it- not being our boat.





> And we were very concerned the boat may contain drugs and maybe a mother ship was nearby and seeing us on boarad may think we were trying to take their stash.





> This was in the Bermuda Triangle BTW


All very good points.


----------



## Minnewaska

An EMT will not administer CPR during conditions that would risk their life either. 

It wasn't the rescue boat that didn't come, it was the personnel. However, they do get to decide what they are and are not willing to do.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Anyone with a half of a brain can see that the correct method of transferring people from a 50 footer to a 900 footer is to use a rescue lifeboat.
> 
> ...
> 
> The "technology" IS there. It is at the very least called a RESCUE LIFE BOAT.
> So, if you won't eschew CPR, then USE THE LIFE BOAT TOO. Anything else is just as stupid as not accepting CPR and leaving it up to the Gods.


You had not just one, but TWO Rescue Life Boats at your disposal aboard TRIUMPH...

One was an unsinkable tender hanging from your stern davits. The second, or backup, was stored in a canister labeled "Winslow", or similar...

The use of either one would have posed no risk to the crew of the KJ, and their recovery would not have been an issue...


----------



## DougSabbag

Minnewaska said:


> An EMT will not administer CPR during conditions that would risk their life either.
> 
> It wasn't the rescue boat that didn't come, it was the personnel. However, they do get to decide what they are and are not willing to do.


Nothing was life threatening to deploying a life boat to the KJ crew.

They just didn't feel inclined to use it. The Captain did not say they couldn't use it, only that they are not the USCG.

Why come over and smash our boat to smitherines, just to break up the boredom of their delivery?

Either do what you voluntered to do correctly or don't do it at all.

Like an EMT using a sledgehammer to jump start your heart.... don't do it at all if you're not going to use the correct equipment which you have and train to use.

There was no valid reason to not use it, and just watch the man sinking for over 3 hours in broad daylight.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> You had not just one, but TWO Rescue Life Boats at your disposal aboard TRIUMPH...
> 
> One was an unsinkable tender hanging from your stern davits. The second, or backup, was stored in a canister labeled "Winslow", or similar...
> 
> The use of either one would have posed no risk to the crew of the KJ, and their recovery would not have been an issue...


The KJ Captain told me to just relax and they would extract us smoothly.

Then, by the time I was in the water, it was way too late for me to deploy anything except my screams for help.

And the life pod had been squished / smashed by the KJ. The "unsinkable" tender was without it's drain plug, and without any oars. And was out of my reach as I was IN THE WATER.

They had 2 fully functional rescue life boats on deck, ready to deploy to rescue a person in the water. I qualified as a person in the water needing to be rescued. However I got there. Even my wife would have deployed one to get me if they hadn't kept her in a cabin. Why wouldn't any of the 24 men taking pictures do that? Not in their job description? Didn't feel like it?
I wasn't one of their buddies?

Is this anger, no. Is this frustration, yes. Frustration that people are dying because 24 men chose to just watch a man drowning. What would have been their story to Evelyn, and the CG? We tried "everything" but couldn't get him.... "everything" except the one tried and true DESIGNED method of picking up a person from the water and bringing them to a 900 foot tanker.

And per you folks, such is life. We shouldn't have been there. The ocean is a violent reality. IF you can't deal with it stay home.

Well, again, the next time you get an infection, just take it like a man, because administering antibiotics can be dangerous, and life is tough.

Get rid of your seat belts men, the road is tough too; take it like a man.
And YOUR rule seems to be every man for himself.

Have a lovely Thanksgiving, but don't cut yourselves while carving the bird, because nobody should endanger themselves and get your possibly dangerous blood on them. Don't have a heart attack, because nobody should endanger themselves helping you.... every man for himself.

Nice Thanksgiving thought....


----------



## DougSabbag

If the KJ wasn't inclined to "recover" one of their own motorized 32 person rescue lifeboats, how inclined would they be to recover a sinking 9 foot Boston Whaler?

Gee, couldn't that be perceived as a dangerous maneuver too? Which would be a safer smoother vessel to acquire, a motorized 32 person lifeboat, able to maneuver itself, or a sinking, drifting 9 foot tender?

Within your every man for himself / don't expose yourself to any undue harm attitude, the lifeboat is the smarter, less dangerous vessel to deal with.

Happy Thanksgiving. And as Christmas is approaching, you might just forget about wrapping any presents, you don't want to expose yourselves to any paper cuts for someone else's benefit.


----------



## DougSabbag

Did you folks happen to see the story where a group of civilian bystanders rescued a man who was stuck under a BURNING pick up truck? Thank God none of you were amongst that crowd; that young man would have been burnt to death because you wouldn't want to expose yourselves to the many dangerous / life threatening conditions.

And, he shouldn't have been under a burning truck!


----------



## Minnewaska

Leaving the mother ship in the middle of the ocean in seas rough enough to be smashing a sailboat to bits and having to recover that personnel has some amount of elevated risk.


----------



## Minnewaska

DougSabbag said:


> Did you folks happen to see the story where a group of civilian bystanders rescued a man who was stuck under a BURNING pick up truck? Thank God none of you were amongst that crowd; that young man would have been burnt to death because you wouldn't want to expose yourselves to the many dangerous / life threatening conditions.
> 
> And, he shouldn't have been under a burning truck!


Be careful, I have personally rescued a drowning man.


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> Be careful, I have personally rescued a drowning man.


Damn, only another 245 such rescues, or thereabouts, and you'll be right up there with Michael Calabrese... (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> The KJ Captain told me to just relax and they would extract us smoothly.
> 
> Then, by the time I was in the water, it was way too late for me to deploy anything except my screams for help.
> 
> And the life pod had been squished / smashed by the KJ. The "unsinkable" tender was without it's drain plug, and without any oars. And was out of my reach as I was IN THE WATER.


I'm not talking about what occurred after the KJ had diverted to your location with the express purpose of destroying TRIUMPH... I'm talking about the sort of plan you might have tried to formulate in the many hours you had to prepare to attempt to leave your vessel in the safest manner possible...

It's long been obvious we're just going around in circles, now... Perhaps you missed the pic I posted several hundred posts previously of an "unsinkable" Boston Whaler... I wouldn't fret too much over using such a boat in straits as dire as abandoning ship in mid-ocean without a drain plug - which, incidentally, should never have been stored separate from the boat to begin with... Your episode is a clear reminder of why a tender's drainplug should never be taken off the boat while underway...










DougSabbag said:


> If the KJ wasn't inclined to "recover" one of their own motorized 32 person rescue lifeboats, how inclined would they be to recover a sinking 9 foot Boston Whaler?
> 
> Gee, couldn't that be perceived as a dangerous maneuver too? Which would be a safer smoother vessel to acquire, a motorized 32 person lifeboat, able to maneuver itself, or a sinking, drifting 9 foot tender?


There would have been no need to recover your tender or liferaft, it would have been abandoned along with the mother ship, and you could have been brought on deck in the same manner you were from the water...

Opinions obviously differ on this, but I'd much rather take my chances with such a maneuver from a smaller craft that doesn't have the capability of crushing you... Very low risk of that occurring during the transfer a boat like TRIUMPH to its tender or liferaft, and thence to a large ship...

Perhaps the closest I've ever come to having a crewmember seriously injured might have been while alongside a lock wall in the Welland Canal... We were upbound on a 56' motoryacht in a turbulent section of the chamber, when a smaller vessel rafted outside of us began to lose control of their lines... The forces between us and the wall, and the smaller boat, in completely flat water were scary enough, I can't imagine dealing with a similar scenario involving two boats, or one boat alongside an immovable wall, in the open ocean in 10+ foot seas... Have another look at that video of the NORWEGIAN DAWN rescue, that one guy who misjudged his leap is VERY lucky to be alive... "Methinks" such a transfer is not remotely as simple or safe as you appear to think it would be...


----------



## Minnewaska

JonEisberg said:


> Damn, only another 245 such rescues, or thereabouts, and you'll be right up there with Michael Calabrese... (grin)


I know who MC is and noted the grin, but missed the punchline.

Only trying to point out to Doug that we might disagree on the rescuer's right to decide whether to put themselves in danger, but a retort that suggests none of us would actually do so is misinformed.


----------



## dmcMaine

After 122 pages, I still would encourage Doug to see a PTSD specialist.


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> You had not just one, but TWO Rescue Life Boats at your disposal aboard TRIUMPH...
> 
> One was an unsinkable tender hanging from your stern davits. The second, or backup, was stored in a canister labeled "Winslow", or similar...
> 
> The use of either one would have posed no risk to the crew of the KJ, and their recovery would not have been an issue...


Doug,
You could also purchase this for your next yacht and have your own powered life boat. Or purchase the sail option and use it as a combination yacht/life boat and solve the problem of transfer from your yacht to your life boat.

Portland Pudgy safety dinghy, inflatable boat, or fiberglass dinghy?

From Pudgy:
"The Portland Pudgy is a new concept that is actually the proud descendant of a very old concept (after all, Captain Bligh and Shackleton used proactive lifeboats in their epic journeys). It challenges many of the assumptions we have grown accustomed to about life rafts. Life rafts have saved many lives, but tragically, many life rafts have failed. Sailors should do some hard thinking about what their options are in protecting themselves, their loved ones, and their crew.

General Safety Information
It is the captain's responsibility to examine, test, and be familiar with everything he or she plans to use in an emergency. Read this manual carefully and practice using the equipment. Before an emergency arises, install your exposure canopy and manually inflate it to thoroughly understand how it works.
Tether all important equipment to the boat.
IMPORTANT: Do not abandon ship until all attempts to control damage have been tried and the boat is definitely about to sink, explode, or be consumed by fire. Send out distress signals before abandoning ship. Common thinking is that you should stay in one place and wait to be rescued, and that it is safest to stay with your mother vessel if at all possible. If separated from mother boat, you do not have a working EPIRB, or if you are in waters where rescue is unlikely, then it is the captain's call whether to remain relatively stationary or to be pro-active with your Portland Pudgy and sail toward safety.
Abandon Ship Plan
Make a clear abandon ship plan before the need to abandon ship arises. It should be in writing, and known to all crew and passengers. It should specify procedures for deploying the Pudgy, including:
• putting the Pudgy in the water,
• boarding the Pudgy,
• keeping the Pudgy tethered to mother vessel while passengers board, and severing that connection (if necessary) once everyone is aboard the Pudgy or tethered to it,
• use of the exposure canopy and sea anchor if available.
Have periodic abandon ship drills. Practice boarding the Pudgy from your boat as well as climbing into the Pudgy from the water."

Portland Pudgy safety dinghy, inflatable boat, or fiberglass dinghy?


----------



## smackdaddy

I can categorically say that that old sailor chick is _not_ giving me a pudgy.


----------



## JonEisberg

As one can clearly see from this video of the NORWEGIAN DAWN rescue of the crew of SANCTUARY, there is very little risk posed to the crew during the retrieval of the rescue boats...

Bear in mind, it's doubtful the Captain of the KJ had the use of bow thrusters as powerful as the NORWEGIAN DAWN's to create the sort of slick he did, and the KJ's rescue boat would certainly not have had the remotely close to the sort of maneuverability afforded by the twin 360 pod drives and bow thrusters on the ND's launch used in this rescue...

Lifeboat recovered - Norwegian Gem - YouTube

Also, this one from about 3:00 onward...





!


----------



## dmcMaine

So the KJ should have radioed Norwegian Gem to swing by for a pickup?

If the KJ can't maneuver like the NG, and isn't shaped like the NG, and doesn't have the same life boats as the NG, and isn't trained like the NG, and doesn't have the same deck gear as the NG, then how can we assume it can launch and recover a life boat in 10-15 foot seas and 35kts like the NG?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

dmcMaine said:


> After 122 pages, I still would encourage Doug to see a PTSD specialist.


This has been clear for a long time. He shows many of the classic symptomatics; hostility, denial, dissociation of mental processes, unexpected (for his usual mental profile) threats of violence etc. Subconscious perception of having failed his mate and, consequently, of inferiority vs. her rescuers (in that role more powerful than him) is surely an aggravating factor (predictably denied by him), explaining his very strong, irrationally negative reactions towards them.

I am glad I am not responsible for him.


----------



## DougSabbag

I really want and hope that at least one of you will one day be drowning in the ocean and will be completely dependent upon the crew of a tanker or freighter to deploy a lifeboat, or not, to save your life.

After that happens, assuming you somehow manage to save yourself, THEN we can talk about improvements to this current system.

Until then to all of you with nifty pictures of a Boston Whaler in a lake, and all your other reasons I could not expect human beings to launch a RESCUE LIFE BOAT to RESCUE ME, well, what else can I say but what you are excpecting: [edit]

Happy Thanksgiving! And Merry Christmas to ALL.


----------



## smackdaddy

DougSabbag said:


> Happy Thanksgiving! And Merry Christmas to ALL.


Same to you and the missus Doug. You guys have a great holiday!

Are you going to be celebrating aboard?


----------



## AdamLein

DougSabbag said:


> I really want and hope that at least one of you will one day be drowning in the ocean


For what it's worth, I hope that you never again find yourself drowning in the ocean, under any circumstances.


----------



## Minnewaska

DougSabbag said:


> I really want and hope that at least one of you will one day be drowning in the ocean.....


Really? You don't mean that. Certainly not because someone disagrees with you. I don't recall anyone ever wishing you any harm or telling you to FO. Get a grip, enjoy the holidays. Maybe take a break from reliving this for a while.


----------



## h20man

smackdaddy said:


> <snip>
> Look when things get utterly ridiculous, I get motivated.


That is the attitude I want in fellow crew members.....


----------



## Jeff_H

I have removed the last three posts from this thread. While I understand that there is a lot of frustration and grief associated with this discussion, Those posts demonstrated an unacceptable level of vitriol. Whatever your feelings about the other posters on this thread, please leave the acidic tone behind. 

Jeff_H
SailNet Moderator


----------



## JonEisberg

Jeff_H said:


> I have removed the last three posts from this thread. While I understand that there is a lot of frustration and grief associated with this discussion, Those posts demonstrated an unacceptable level of vitriol. Whatever your feelings about the other posters on this thread, please leave the acidic tone behind.
> 
> Jeff_H
> SailNet Moderator


Damn you, Jeff!

Just when "Eisenwhatshisname' was ready to post a cutting riposte... (grin, bigtime)


----------



## emoney

That's all right. Most of us had an idea what you would've said anyway. I'm just glad to know there's no pent up anger or harboring of ill feelings that might present itself.


----------



## chef2sail

This thread has deteriorated, with no tangible knowledge being transferred. Time to kill the thread


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> This thread has deteriorated, with no tangible knowledge being transferred. Time to kill the thread


Totally disagree. Why do we need to "kill" a thread that has over 71,000 views!!!

This is one of the most instructive and obviously well-followed threads I've come across on SN. Sure there have been some serious throwdowns, but so what?

Just let it be.


----------



## LandLocked66c




----------



## canucksailorguy

> Just watched the crew on a new Beneteau attempt to maneuver into their slip, the guy definitely should have sprung for the joystick docking system&#8230; Rarely does one see such totally clueless boathandling on a boat of that size,


That's not uncommon - I watched a couple of boats attempting to med moor during the Pearl Regatta in Tahiti in flat calm conditions, no current - they were World ARC boaters - it would have been funny had it not been so clear they couldn't handle their boats.


----------



## canucksailorguy

btw - my grateful thanks to the poster who, some 1000 plus posts ago, mentioned that I could set my prefs to read more than the standard ten posts per page. You have saved me enough time to do yet another trip down the ICW...


----------



## Dean101

canucksailorguy said:


> btw - my grateful thanks to the poster who, some 1000 plus posts ago, mentioned that I could set my prefs to read more than the standard ten posts per page. You have saved me enough time to do yet another trip down the ICW...


I missed that one but that sounds like a real time saver. How is it done?


----------



## canucksailorguy

You missed it because YOU did not carefully read all 1231 posts in this thread! 
For shame! But since I'm a really really good guy, I'll tell you how - go to the User CP> settings & options>edit options. For this thread, I chose the 100 per page option - and it's still 13 pages, lol!


----------



## Dean101

canucksailorguy said:


> You missed it because YOU did not carefully read all 1231 posts in this thread!
> For shame! But since I'm a really really good guy, I'll tell you how - go to the User CP> settings & options>edit options. For this thread, I chose the 100 per page option - and it's still 13 pages, lol!


With only 1231 posts to read, I really don't have a clue how I overlooked it. (hanging head in shame) Thanks ever so much for educating me!


----------



## chef2sail

> Totally disagree. Why do we need to "kill" a thread that has over 71,000 views!!!
> 
> This is one of the most instructive and obviously well-followed threads I've come across on SN. Sure there have been some serious throwdowns, but so what?
> 
> Just let it be. - Smackdaddy


Yeah there have been a few good salient points and things brought up I agree, but it is filled with the bitter posts of one indivigual mostly and it has become tiring, of the 71,000 viewings and 1000 posts over 400 can be attributed to one person. Not much learning done by him since post 5 and from him since post 45


----------



## chef2sail

> Totally disagree. Why do we need to "kill" a thread that has over 71,000 views!!!
> 
> This is one of the most instructive and obviously well-followed threads I've come across on SN. Sure there have been some serious throwdowns, but so what?
> 
> Just let it be. - Smackdaddy


Yeah there have been a few good salient points and things brought up I agree, but it is filled with the bitter posts of one indivigual mostly and it has become tiring, of the 71,000 viewings and 1000 posts over 400 can be attributed to one person. Not much learning done by him since post 5 and from him since post 45. You are right keep it for the others.

I will just ignore it and pass the post by


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> Yeah there have been a few good salient points and things brought up I agree, but it is filled with the bitter posts of one indivigual mostly and it has become tiring, of the 71,000 viewings and 1000 posts over 400 can be attributed to one person. Not much learning done by him since post 5 and from him since post 45. You are right keep it for the others.
> 
> I will just *ignore* it and pass the post by


Dude...don't say that word!


----------



## rgscpat

After watching a couple of videos of the recovery of the rescue boat by the Norwegian Gem, I realized it was quite challenging even with all of the resources of the modern cruise ship. In particular, the heavy metal retrieval blocks hanging below the falls could have easily brained one of the rescue boat crew members.

Happy and safe Thanksgiving to USA sailors and visitors (and to those who celebrate at other dates when it's your turn!)


----------



## casey1999

Doug,
Saw where New England Boat Works 
New England Boatworks  Builders of advanced composite sailing and power yachts
builds some really interesting sailing vessels, so I went to their web site to look. When I came upon this vessel, I said to myself "Holly Molly, that is the vessel for Doug".

You can power where you like to go in extreme comfort. If you feel like a sail, lower down the 74 foot yacht. If you ever do get into trouble, you have your very own rescue life boat that you can lower and motor to an awaiting ship like the Kim Jacob!

Go here for more details:
Luxurious and fast sailing yacht Bellatrix built by NEB
Happy Holidays


----------



## LandLocked66c

Nope, no granite counter tops - FAIL!


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks for those links, amazing how quickly things have changed with the pricing on titanium, wasn't very long ago it was often jokingly referred to an Unobtainium, and for good reason... I've been using titanium anchor shackles for awhile, and they were still considerably more expensive than an equivalent stainless counterpart ...
> 
> If I were replacing or starting from scratch today, I'd probably have a good look at composite chainplates from a material such as G-10, a number of high-end builders appear to be going that route, as well... Probably pretty pricey, however, would be my guess...


An article on Titanium chain plates you might be interested in:
Is Titanium an Everyman Metal? - Practical Sailor Article


----------



## LandLocked66c

This made me think of Doug! We miss you Doug!


----------



## smackdaddy

^
Funny.


----------



## DougSabbag

JonEisberg said:


> Damn you, Jeff!
> 
> Just when "Eisenwhatshisname' was ready to post a cutting riposte... (grin, bigtime)


Oh, Eisenwhatshisname, feel free to post whatever you can manage, perhaps with more pictures of a cut up Boston Whaler!

Personal Attack Deleted-Jeff_H SailNet Moderator


----------



## DougSabbag

chef2sail said:


> Yeah there have been a few good salient points and things brought up I agree, but it is filled with the bitter posts of one indivigual mostly and it has become tiring, of the 71,000 viewings and 1000 posts over 400 can be attributed to one person. Not much learning done by him since post 5 and from him since post 45


Is it really "bitter" to post the FACT that it is much safer to extract people from a 50 footer to a 900 footer using a rescue lifeboat than to destroy the 50 footer and then to only throw life bouys at the drowning person who was lucky enough to not be squished from the destructive mating of the two vessels?

Is it really "bitter" to not be overly / enthusiastically impressed when 24 men take pictures of you drowning, rather than deploying either of their 2 rescue lifeboats to get you?

Is it really "bitter" or is it just being honest? When honesty is taken as bitterness, and then disregarded, we're on a slippery slope toward a world of no improvements.

Just accept that you're alive, however that came to be, and do not dare to suggest there could have been a better path to get here. If I am "bitter" then so are all the people who suggested using seat belts AFTER someone died. And so are all the people who suggested penicillin AFTER someone died from an infection.

If we stagnate and accept that which is dysfunctional as the only way it can be, then we cease to improve our lives.

Why vote for a NEW President if not to see an improvement?

If you are truly satisfied with the status quo, then do not bother to support research for a cure for cancer. If after a double masectomy your wife is alive, then isn't that good enough? Why improve upon that... she's alive.

"Bitter"? No, I am not bitter. Frustrated if you continue to support the status quo, is much more accurate.


----------



## shadowraiths

Excluding the shoulda, coulda, wouldas... we all have them in retrospect, two things stand out in this story.

One, the would be rescue boat crashed into Doug's boat, forcing he & his wife to "_abandond ship_."

Two, Doug spent three hours in freezing water, nearly drowning, several times, while the would be rescue crew took pictures.

My guess is the men standing on deck snapping pictures, with life boats in clear view, has been indelibly burned into Doug's mind. Which, in turn reduces, if not completely obviates, a feeling of eternal gratefulness for being "_saved_." Moreover, afaics, this is where the, "_I was saved, in spite of_" sentiment comes in.

That said, I do wonder if our move to capture everything on film... or in this case, perhaps, youtube, has somehow taken precedence over engaging in responsible safety practices? For example, filming makes a great deal of sense in the case of police brutality incidents. So much so, that some states are actually passing laws against civilian filming bc it cast their own LE in a very bad light. There are cases however where filming may not make a lot of sense, and in fact, be counterproductive. In these cases I would proffer that filming distracts and hinders as opposed to helping the situation. This seems to be esp so in rescue operations where participants need to focus upon the rescue as opposed to getting good "_faces of death_" shots for youtube.


----------



## JonEisberg

DougSabbag said:


> Oh, Eisenwhatshisname, feel free to post whatever you can manage, perhaps with more pictures of a cut up Boston Whaler!
> 
> Personal Attack Deleted-Jeff_H SailNet Moderator


Nah, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that the notion of stepping into a Boston Whaler missing its drain plug is a move tantamount to suicide, or not to be considered even in the most dire of circumstances...


----------



## dmcMaine

shadowraiths said:


> Excluding the shoulda, coulda, wouldas... we all have them in retrospect, two things stand out in this story.
> 
> One, the would be rescue boat crashed into Doug's boat, forcing he & his wife to "_abandond ship_."


Well..to adhere to the original timeline, the boat had already been declared abandoned prior to the KJ bisecting Triumph's anchor rode. Triumph's crew had already decided to abandon ship prior to being dismasted while being brought alongside.



shadowraiths said:


> Two, Doug spent three hours in freezing water, nearly drowning, several times, while the would be rescue crew took pictures.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> That said, I do wonder if our move to capture everything on film... or in this case, perhaps, youtube, has somehow taken precedence over engaging in responsible safety practices? For example, filming makes a great deal of sense in the case of police brutality incidents. So much so, that some states are actually passing laws against civilian filming bc it cast their own LE in a very bad light. There are cases however where filming may not make a lot of sense, and in fact, be counterproductive. In these cases I would proffer that filming distracts and hinders as opposed to helping the situation. This seems to be esp so in rescue operations where participants need to focus upon the rescue as opposed to getting good "_faces of death_" shots for youtube.


Just to provide a different perspective.

Not every crew member has a specific active responsibility during a MOB event. One vital function in a rescue is maintaining visual contact with the person in the water. A man-sized object with insufficient flotation in 8-10 foot seas can be very difficult to see. The more eyes looking, the better the odds of being able to maneuver the rescue vessel into position to effect a rescue.

So the fact that the crew are taking pictures can be viewed as a good thing. From a certain perspective.


----------



## smackdaddy

I just want to say that I think it sucks that Doug was banned. That didn't need to happen.

Shadow makes a great point. And that is this is a very complicated issue...with many different angles on what happened. And though I didn't agree with most of it, Doug's was just as valid as everyone else's.

And Jon, you have to admit, you can come across as a tad snide.

Anyway, hang in there Doug.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And Jon, you have to admit, you can come across as a tad snide.


Well, in this particular instance, I should certainly hope so... (grin)

You probably missed a rant of Doug's from a week or two ago, directed largely at me, and deleted by the mods shortly thereafter...

Doug should know my name by now... I'll admit, it's an unusual name, and may sound funny to some, but for some strange reason, I'm rather proud of it... So, toying with it is not likely to produce the desired result of convincing me to "shut the f___ up, and quit responding to my posts...", as he so put it...

As much as I hate to be responsible for elevating the blood pressure of anyone who happens to read my posts on an internet sailing forum, there is always the option of putting me on "Ignore", no?

Although I'm technically a "professional mariner", I still always see myself as an amateur, a sailor who's out there for the pleasure of it all... Delivering yachts is hardly on the same level as they guys who actually work for a living on the water, after all... (grin) They rate my utmost respect, and it just really sticks in my craw when I see the master and crew of the KIM JACOB dissed as they have been during the course of this thread...

In a similar vein, I happened to meet the 2 remaining crew from the s/v RIOT at the Dinghy Club in St. George's during our stop in Bermuda... Nice kids, but I must say there was something rather off-putting about their attitude after having been saved from going on the reef when their steering failed, approaching Town Cut, in 40 knot winds, and 10' seas...

Now, I don't know precisely how much experience one needs to command a Bermuda Harbor Rescue Tug, but I suspect it's a _LOT_... Yet here you have a 23 year old, fresh out of college (for whom working in a 9X9 cubicle is NOT an option, so they take off cruising on a $150K yacht, instead), whining about how his pulpit and stanchions were damaged, and caprail broken, due to the "incompetence" and "inexperience" of the crew of the tug that kept their 50-footer off the reef...

UFB...


----------



## gershel

Jon, I like your "chutzpah". Check that, I love it.
Marc

P.S. CHUTZPAH.... Look it up!


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> I just want to say that I think it sucks that Doug was banned. That didn't need to happen.......


True, but fully justified. He made physical threats, wished several would drown and posted absolute rants full of expletives disguised by characters to get them through the filter. Several of these rants were fully deleted, others were just modified. You may not know what you missed.

He was given sympathy and the benefit of doubt by most and he still reeled back. It had to end.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Wow, that's the first ban i've seen in almost a year... Birdpepper and holymarie certainly deserved it, I guess Doug did as well - after all there are rules...

Shame though...

I'll make a toast to him with one last Granite Counter top!


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - so I think I was _partially_ wrong here (hey, that's at least something, right?).

It's true that I did miss what had been written by Doug and deleted by Jeff. And I have no doubt that Jeff was fair in removing it, and fair in banning Doug for it because I have no doubt that Jeff had given Doug warning. Jeff's a pretty damn good moderator from what I've seen (as are all the other current mods).

The reason I say that it sucks and that it didn't need to happen is this...put yourself in Doug's shoes. He came on here and spilled his guts...outlining his mistakes and failures...which I think was very gutsy and very valuable from a learning perspective. At first, it went very well, then several things happened (which are seemingly inevitable on any forum):

1. People started relentlessly picking at his mistakes and failures...not commiserating with his mistakes and failures (i.e. - we all make them)...but picking at them as if "he should have known that the chainplate would break", etc.
2. Doug got increasingly defensive (which is perfectly understandable).
3. Doug expressed a very dogmatic viewpoint of what happened and what should have happened during the rescue.
4. Most everyone, especially me I guess, disagreed with that viewpoint and argued hard against it.
5. Doug got even more defensive (which is perfectly understandable).
6. Doug started going super nova, probably because of 1 and 4.
7. We're all still here - he ain't.

We've seen this stuff play out many times.

Again, I say it didn't need to happen for 2 reasons. First, granted, Doug had no business physically threatening people. That's ridiculous. He should have been able to see the bigger picture. That's on him. But second, and more importantly in my opinion, in cases like Doug's we members should make each other give the dude some air - and stop being so damn tender ourselves. Of course he's going to blow if he feels the entire world is against him. We should call each other out more if we're needlessly hammering on the guy...instead of complaining to the freakin' mods when he starts swinging back.

Sure, Doug broke the rules, but we shouldn't feel good about that if we all pushed him to the edge so he'd jump.

I wrote some pretty harsh responses to Doug in this thread because I was pissed he was hammering the KJ people so much - what I saw as completely errant hammering. If members here think that I was too harsh with that, I should be called out on it...in the thread - not a pm. Same with anyone else here. That creates some air for a dude like Doug because he sees he has a bit of backup.

Now, on the other hand, I understand you can't give a dude who's going supernova a complete pass. That's not what I'm saying. Doug stuck it out WAY longer than I thought he would, but he wasn't able to get past some of the pickers - and just lost it. He was pretty unreasonable in much of this.

But again, he lost his boat and almost freakin' died at sea. Back to the shoes.

I'm writing all this crap because I am VERY interested in what people that were caught in the sh&t have to say about it. I learn a lot from that. We all do.

I don't care so much what exactly got them there - because, just as Doug said, _no one_ is good enough to never get caught with their pants down. (grin) Look at Puma.

As LL points out above, it's not NEARLY as bad around here as it used to be in this regard. i just hope it's always a place where new-member sailors can come and freely talk about their successes and failures so we can all learn something.

Now, raise your glasses to one of the most epic and most viewed threads ever on SN.

Huzzah!

[Turn off teleprompter and cue "Hail To The Chief"]


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so I think I was _partially_ wrong here (hey, that's at least something, right?).


You're just trying to rationalize the BFS koozzies....


----------



## smackdaddy

LandLocked66c said:


> You're just trying to rationalize the BFS koozzies....


They're "boozies" you bonehead.


----------



## SVAuspicious

gershel said:


> Jon, I like your "chutzpah". Check that, I love it.
> Marc
> 
> P.S. CHUTZPAH.... Look it up!


Jon lives in NJ. I'm pretty sure he knows what chutzpah is. *grin*


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> They're "boozies" you bonehead.


In the mid-west they are koozies! Frickin Texans, I swear...


----------

