# Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013



## rockDAWG

My crewing/captaining luck finally ran out on me, I was shaken but not broken. I need reinvent my luck to continue to sail the great ocean ours.

Here is my daily log while on board a 2002 Jeanneau 43 DS on on route from Long Beach, CA to Diamond Head, Honolulu, HI during the 2013 Transpac Race.

I changed the names of the people involved for now. 

Me - rockDawg or RD. as on-board navigator 
Jake – Near coastal USCG licensed Captain. Serve as a crew.
Harry - Skipper/Owner – A Japanese national owns a Sushi Restaurant in LA, long time old traditional sailor, but no off shore or long passage experience. Serve as a skipper
Jane – Partner of Harry, co-owner of the Sushi Restaurant. Has no sailing experience. Serve a watch crew as needed
Sheryl – Mother of Jane, 86 yo. No official duty. 
Jeanneau 43 – Corporation owned sailing vessel 

==========================
Arrived LAX Friday July 5.
Skipper Harry picked us up at the airport. He looks older than his age and on a heavy side, but nevertheless, a kind and humble gentleman. A number of close calls on the way to the marina, he veered off into other lanes on the highway a few times. I hope Harry sails better than he drives,  but I did not say anything and just sat quietly so he could concentrate on the road. 
When we got the marina, Harry had a hard time to find a parking space. Coming from as an exNYC cabbie, he does not how to drive. We were late for the 'First Time Racer' party. The kitchen at the yacht club was closed but Jane, Harry's business partner bribed the kitchen, and they made us a chicken sandwich for each of us. Actually I would have preferred go to Sam Woo to dinner. Oh well, the guests did not have the choice. 

-Day 2, Sat, July 6
Clear sunny sky in Long Beach. Oh boy, I really have a hard time understanding Harry's English. We need to develop some sign language. He apologized to us all the time about his language , but this is ridiculous. He has been in this Country for 16 years……hahaha. We leave his marina and head to Long beach. He had me on the helm until we entered Long Beach since I have no idea when I am going. At time I have to rely on my iPhone. His chart plotter on the helm sucks, it is B/W and the screen has no contrast, impossible to read. We moved the boat to Pine Ave Pier, where the race official marina was.

There were other boats there on the pier. Because of space we were docked stern in with dropping anchor at bow. I was not able to convey my idea to Harry, so I drew pictures to show him my suggestion. He agreed and we docked successfully.

I saw lots of big boy toys in the race with professional crews. Our Jeanneau 43 just did not fit in the race. But whet the hell, we are here.
We had the skipper meeting in the late afternoon. I recorded the meeting so that I wouldn’t miss anything. I had zero local knowledge and was not familiar with the local names, so it was hard for me to follow what they were saying without a chart/map. 

Obviously the meeting was not geared towards newbies like us. After the meeting was the party. Good food and good entertainment but one has to buy your own drinks in the party. Jake bought me a coke for the evening.

-Day 1, Sunday, July 7:
A bit disorganized, lots of things to do were found not done. We tried to help as much as we could. I found out the provisioning was not done as planned. Sat phone and other safety equipment not installed done. Harry refused to buy a pair jack lines from West Marine. He insisted to use an old 3/8” round sheeting rope. Some of the re-inspection from the race committee was not just a joke. Just a check in the box deal. Totally unfocused, Jane hauled in a wind generator she obtained from eBay and asked me to install for the trip. Are you serious? I asked in my head. 

We canceled our trial spinnaker run with Sam of Norht Sail in San Diego because Harry needed to go shopping for our food. Sam was a 17-time TransPac veteran. It was good that I could at least meet him in person. I tried to pick his brain as much as I could for the race. He gave me a lot of local knowledge. Jake and I wrote down as much as we could. I felt much better as I had sometime to study the chart and the weather report. It seemed to all come together well and scientifically made sense to follow the 1020 isobar.

Rocky start at the top: not sure what was going on, but there must have been big fight between Jane and Harry. Harry barred Jane from boarding the boat until 2 hours before the race started. I got a text message from Harry that was intended for Jane to read. Things were not looking good, I felt uneasy. I finally intervened and made both shake hand and start the team again.

Jake was also having second thoughts and considered backing out. I sacrificed so much for this race/voyage, I felt like I was being let down. Jake asked me what to do. I told him that I was committed to this trip and if he and Jane wanted to back out, I was comfortable sailing the boat alone with Harry. I told him I know Jeanneau well. We would be fine if Jake backed out. 

Day 0, Monday, July 8: Race Day.
An unexpected and totally unnecessary event. Harry blew up over the coffee filter left on the coffee maker by Jake. It was a half hour rage and total shut down all operation. My goodness, the man needs an anger management course badly. He threw things all over and around him. He was insulting Jake and everyone else claiming this is his house,….. blah, bah. 
I don’t think it was a big deal. The filter was still warm and he should have given Jake a chance to clean up. After all, we were being pulled all different directions for the last two days by two bosses. Well…. I didn’t care, I just want to sail the Pacific and nothing can stop me know. 
{Edited: Never knew this was just the beginning of an ordeal that I have never expected}.

When my daughter was in her second grade, I think she had a better organization skills than that of Harry and Jane. We rushed and rushed in a totally disorganized way, I didn’t really have time to think. Somehow, I thought we would have plenty of time to work out the details once the rush is over when on route to Hawaii. Jake reminded Harry to top off the water tanks but he left the dock anyway to head to the starting point. Both Harry and Jane were equally controlling. 

We were 20 min late to the start of the race, but I was happy to see that we were underway; at least I was thinking we will have time to learn or adapt Harry’s style. As I often said to other on the net. It is his boat, his house/castle, his rules unless my life is endangered.

Day 1 and 2, Tuesday and Wednesday, July 9 and 10:
I am totally confused with this trip. Stress and fatigue were high. We were pulled into different directions at all time, like working with two bosses. We were being watched at all time. Micromanagement is too mild a word on this boat. How about nano- or pico-management? 

And how about constantly remind you:
1.	You don't know and thing!!!
2.	You are a very bad crew!!!
3.	You are a crew and an employee, We don’t need your opinion, You should do what you are told.

Day 3, Thursday, July 11
Calling it quits.
Harry exploded with his temper. We had no idea what the hell he was screaming and jumping up and down and stomping his feet like a five year old. He does not use sentences to communicate, just a single words. He continued screaming at you louder and louder with the same mispronounced word. No one knew what he meant, including his partner for 13 years.

Day 4, Friday July 12
Weather is getting warmer. Water temp went up to 71 degree from 68. Partial sun is out for the first time. Our jib was tore and need to be repaired. Although it was a bit too early and we were far from the trades wind, at 2 pm. We flew the spinnaker with heading toward HI and wind was on 160 degree. Doing 6 to 8 knots. Argh, finally we got the speed that I was hope for. 

Day 5, July 12.
Too upset and too exhausted to enter daily log. Micromanagement and constant yelling finally wore me down.

Day 6, July 13:
Conditions were not getting better despite Jane talking to Harry. There was a significant mistrust towards Jake and I. We were not allowed to talk to each other and not permitted to sit at the navigation table and must stay in our berth, per Jane orders. In despair, Jake contacted a military ship “HS V2 Swift” nearby for rescue, claiming unsafe environment. Unfortunately Harry and Jane refused to let us leave the boat. The captain of Swift talked on the radio that they would monitor for 3 hours. They took away the VHF radio and sent Swift away. We were officially their prisoners. 

Without any hope of getting off the boat and still has at least 2 weeks of sailing, I tried to repair the jib and the jib track on jib furler. Jake hoisted me up to the forestay to repair the tract and lower down the jib. I ended up being hoisted 4 times. It was no fun and impossible to hold on. The bosun chair was so poorly made, it cut out my circulation from the waist down. 

I was starting to put a doubt on this voyage what would if this bad situation continues. The boat was doing about 4 knots, and every day there are about 2 to 4 hour of yelling and the boat moved less than 3 knots. We are going to run out of food before seeing land. 

Day 7, July 14:
Things seem getting better since I raised hell or should I say I exploded. Jake and I stopped working, Harry apologized to me telling me that he did not properly maintain his boat for this trip. The forestay track came apart because the loosen allen screws. He thanked me to go up the forestay to fix the track. Otherwise, we have to return to Long Beach. 

I warned him that I made no apology of my behavior of rising hell if he ever endangers my life again. He ordered me to go on the dock immediately to take the spinnaker down with my harrass. At the moment of his rage, I obliged and went on the deck with Jake to take the spinnaker down. That was stupid of me.

Day 8, July 15:
Cloudy again
Since I was ordered to stay in my berth, I did not do any watch. When I was up, I was informed the spinnaker was down, Harry claimed it was a wild gybe or should I say he was not good enough to sail at night with the spinnaker. I told him to use autohelm if needed to control the sudden wind changes. But he avoids and claim that autohelm is dangerous. 

The repaired jib at least held up. But we were moving very slowly again.

Conditions are getting worse. Blame games begins. It is apparent that it is their boat, it is their decision. They don't care how long it takes to get to Hawaii. Both Jake and I want to get out this situation as soon as possible. 
Jake and I set up the spinnaker again. We were doing quite well and got the speed up. A few hours later, one of the snap shackles came loose and caused the spinnaker fly like a kite. We carefully got spinnaker safely on deck and just used the jib and main sail. Wind was good and we are doing about 6 to 7 knots.

Day 9, July 16:
Every day seems like just another explosion. Life on this boat sucks big time. They think we are here to be their servants. Constantly being humiliated, we can't even trim the sails until we are asked. WTF!!! 
Jake and I sewed and repair the bottom part of the spinnaker so that it won't rip further up the sail. We have no control where we are heading where the wind is. Harry just take to rhumb line 243 degree, But we worked all day.

Jane took away the sat phone preventing Jake from downloading the weather grib file. Harry has a problem controlling his temper and totally lacks people skills, but Harry is not a bad person. Jane is an evil, manipulative, and controlling liar. She appears she controls Harry until he blows up. 

Day 10, July 17
Got up early in the morning and found out Harry took us directly north for almost 45 nm. WTF. Now we need to spend a whole day sailing back south. Wind died again.

We saw a j40 passing us. They did not even look at us or wave. They depart 2 days behind us. We are hardly moving. 

Day 11, July 18:
Jake and I stayed watch from 10 to 4 am. We had a good run with the spinnaker doing 6 to 7.5 knots at all time, we use the autohelm to get us through some hairly situation. It was the best we had for this trip. After more than 7 hrs, Harry came to relieve us. Less than 5 min at the helm. He lost control of the spinnaker and it suffered a total system collapse. We rush back on deck with total disbelief. We knew it would require 5 to 6 hours of me and Jake working hard to get the spinnaker up again to sail in decent speed.

Both me and Jake worked franticly to prevent any further damage to the spinnaker under a total darkness with 17 plus wind. I almost killed myself and I decided I must quit in the dangerous situation. Jake and I want back to the cockpit and told Jane we could not work under this condition. In less than two hours, it would be dawn. We would try again to fix the fouled spinnaker.

At day break, Jake woke me up and get ready to rescue the spinnaker that was stuck permanently on the forestay. After 3 hours, fight with the wind we got it down and fly the spinnaker again. 
The rest of the day, we sailed ok. Me and jake tried to dominate at helm as much as we could. Because we don’t want harry at the helm to fuuk thing up. If things fuuked up, it is me and Jake to fix the problem. 

Day 12, Friday, July 19:
Mutiny at dawn
Got 2 hours sleep in 24 hours, me and Jakeues were on the helm all night until 4 am. Handed the helm to Harry and within 30 min the emergency whistle blew and rushed to deck with my half naked body and harness. The spinnaker collapsed and fouled. The guy line fell. WTF!!! 
Jake and I fought like hell and battled 15 knots wind with huge sail of the spinnaker, and tried to save the spinnaker. We finally reattached the guy and cleared the fouled lines went back down to sleep. We were very lucky this time.

Must be less than 5 mins, the whistle was blew again, what the **** now. I bet my blood pressure went through the roof. The spinnaker was hopeless wrapped on the forestry. After 2 hours, Jake and I took down the damaged, torn spinnaker. 

Mutiny is the only way to survive. I begged Harry to use the autohelm to control the spinnaker or we quit. We gladly put our lives on the line so many times (6) and we were only half way to Hawaii. We could not do this anymore. Like all the other times, they refused to use autohelm. I instructed Jake to use my satphone to call Dave Cort (Race Committee) The boat's satphone was no Longer accessible to us. I spoke to Dave begging him to help us to resolve the problem. He refused and claimed that is not their problem and we must resolve ourselves. I told him that this had become a safety issue for the crew members. I asked him to contact the CG for us and have the CG to call the owner. He hung up on me.

Because of poor reception, we moved up to cockpit to call the CG. Harry came behind and attacked Jake and use his arm around his neck and tried to get our sat phone and throw it over board. I struggled with him and he turned around and picked up the winch handle trying to strike Jake's head. I blocked his arm from hitting Jake. I dared him to strike me. But I was in a combat mode to block and struck his nose. He hesitated for a second and I grabbed and threw the handle away. Jane jumped in the midst of this for our phone, I grabbed her hands and pushed her to the starboard side of the cockpit and sat still. I told Jake to escape into the v-berth with the phone. 
I shouted both of them with fouled language that they were no match with my strength and speed. 'Don't be stupid'!!!

I went to the v-berth after Jake and locked ourselves in. Harry stepped on the hatch, preventing us from opening the hatch for air and better reception.

I had my iPhone with me and CG number. We contacted the Norfolk region and worked ourselves to west coast region. I asked Jake to call CG, since he speaks perfect English with un-detectable Jewish New Yorker accent. 

After explaining the situation to CG, the remaining question was to ask CG for advice on how to take control of the boat legally. Under what situation we must follow to get us safely to Hawaii. 

If we don’t take control for the boat and sail her properly, our sails will suffer more damage and water supply will become an issue. We would be in trouble. We were totally out of CG Helo range. The wild gybe that Harry causes because his inability to sail at night, put me and Jake a greater danger. 

Our water is dangerously low. Jake only given 1.5 L bottle of water to drink each day. And we are carrying an 86 year old lady who has no idea what is going on around her.

The CG informed us to deescalate the situation best I know how while he seeks legal advice. Lt. Daniel Han asked us to call back in an hour.
=======================

I will download the rest from my iPhone later.


----------



## jimgo

I heard Harry is ready to race again next year, and wants you for crew!


----------



## RobGallagher

Holy Crap! I feel sort guilty getting so much entertainment from your unfortunate situation. This could be a movie.

Now hurry up and download the rest so I can finish the story.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Come on! what happens next?!


----------



## JonEisberg

UFB... Is this for real?

Seriously, dude - you need to get your own boat...

Until then, you need to get better at reading the Warning Signs...


----------



## Capt.aaron

JonEisberg said:


> UFB... Is this for real?
> 
> Seriously, dude - you need to get your own boat...
> 
> Until then, you need to get better at reading the Warning Signs...


I just don't think you can make this sh!t up. An 86 year old Japanese lady that doesn't know what 's going on? The Evil Jane? I love it. He does need his own boat. Get a little under 30 bare bones sloop or something dude. Easy to handle, cheap to maintain. And def. needs to be more picky about who he goes to sea with, of course he undoubtedly knows that now.


----------



## blowinstink

I hate the word epic . . . but this is gunna be epic . . .. 

Part II please!


----------



## jimgo

Aaron, don't tell him to get his own boat! If he does, we won't get stories like this any more. Instead, they'll be about some jacka$$ that he kindly took on as crew after 3-4 months of begging and whining who assaulted him and locked him and took over command of his boat!

Seriously RD, even if it's totally BS, glad you're back in one piece.


----------



## DrB

*Could be very real......*

There is Jeneau 43 in the 2013 TransPac.


----------



## HeartsContent

Wow! Can't wait to hear the rest of the story. What great lesson to all.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - this is the best damn story I've heard in a VERY long time!!!!!


----------



## oceangirl

The first temper tantrum was your cue to leave. There is absolutely no reason to stay aboard after that. 
As you experienced, things go wrong fast and can get out of control fast, good or bad crew.

Please learn from this, you can point fingers at the crazy people, but you stayed aboard. if there is a next time, leave and don't look back.


----------



## JonEisberg

oceangirl said:


> The first temper tantrum was your cue to leave. There is absolutely no reason to stay aboard after that.
> As you experienced, things go wrong fast and can get out of control fast, good or bad crew.
> 
> Please learn from this, you can point fingers at the crazy people, but you stayed aboard. if there is a next time, leave and don't look back.


_EXACTLY_...

Particularly ironic, that this story comes from one who - through the various 'Bluewater vs. Production Boats' threads that routinely occur here - has maintained that the choice of boat matters little for offshore passagemaking, instead it's all about the _CREW_... (grin, bigtime)



rockDAWG said:


> I would suggest you continue to read and read and then read some more. It will soon realize that *it is not the blue water boat that is important in crossing the pond. It is the sailor who knows how to sail blue water. *


----------



## CalebD

Rocky,
Glad you lived to write the tale.
Sounds pretty horrible.

Waiting patiently for next installment.


----------



## blowinstink

Can't we get the rest of the story before we get all heavy with the conclusions?


----------



## bljones

is there a fresnel lens involved? or poodle ranchers?


----------



## SlowButSteady

Holy Aquari-tantrums, Batman!!

OK, I totally realize that this is "armchair quarterbacking" (or navigating, or whatever), but...

1) If there is friction among the crew before you even leave the dock, it should be a HUGE red flag. The tension of being away from land and in close quarters is bound to only magnify such friction.

B) If the owner/skipper has the boat nowhere near prepared, and is skimping on basics like jack-lines, for a 2000+ nm passage (much less a race) you should be way beyond red flags and in the shooting off of flares territory (or "Help Mr. Wizard, I don't wanna be a TransPac sailor anymore!!!" territory).

III) If you say the magic words "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" the USCG is obligated to respond and at least come check things out. If the skipper/owner was truly putting you and the others in mortal danger, it might just be time to call in the calvary (granted, I wasn't there, but the story is sounding pretty close to that "mortal danger" threshold to me), or just hog-tie "Capt. Queeg" and sail the damned boat yourself to Hawaii. Either option is gonna force you to do some serious "splainin' " once you get to dry land, but if there is real doubt as to whether you're gonna' get to dry land under the circumstances as they are, it's probably worth it.

In any case, I'm gonna nuke some popcorn and get ready for the rest of the story.....


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> _EXACTLY_...
> 
> Particularly ironic, that this story comes from one who - through the various 'Bluewater vs. Production Boats' threads that routinely occur here - has maintained that the choice of boat matters little for offshore passagemaking, instead it's all about the _CREW_... (grin, bigtime)


I'm not sure I follow the logic on this post. Sounds like RockD and this Jake guy (i.e. - the crew) were the only reason that boat made it anywhere near HI.

I looked up the details and they abandoned the race in last place with 300 miles to go. I can't wait to hear part 2.


----------



## Classic30

SlowButSteady said:


> Holy Aquari-tantrums, Batman!!
> 
> OK, I totally realize that this is "armchair quarterbacking" (or navigating, or whatever), but...
> 
> 1) If there is friction among the crew before you even leave the dock, it should be a HUGE red flag. The tension of being away from land and in close quarters is bound to only magnify such friction.
> .....


True enough, but to fair on poor 'ol Dawg, it's not uncommon for the pressures of race prep for a major race like the TransPac to cause some level of "pre-race tension" that one might expect would settle out after the yacht was headed west.

One obvious lesson out of this is to insist on the whole boat getting out for a 'shakedown' preparation sail a few days beforehand so you can gauge how you all work together and iron out any 'issues' with the boat (in fact some of our major races include one or two harbour races beforehand to encourage exactly this) - and bail in plenty of time if you have to - but all too often there simply isn't time, and in that case you simply hope this will never happen...

FWIW, I've yet to be convinced you could legitimately call a "Mayday" in this situation even if you had access to a radio, but it'll be interesting to see what others think.


----------



## blt2ski

Part 2 will be interesting, as I noticed the boat is NOT at the finish line in hawaii! but on the BIG island to the south, not at the finish on the northern island...............oh boy! the phun is just beginning!

Marty


----------



## SlowButSteady

Hehehe...

Scroll to the bottom of the page...22 people are waiting for part 2.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

the boat named Aquarius is listed as a DNF. Look at the crew listing, names fit story. Yikes! http://www.yachtscoring.com/boatdetail.cfm?Yacht_ID=39745


----------



## oceangirl

Sorry if I came off preachy, I only say it because I too have made the very same mistakes. I was off shore for two weeks with a psycho. Before departure, all the signs were there, I even implored the captain, days before we left, to leave him behind and just do the leg with the two of us ( captain and I). So, the two weeks of fear, misery, and nearly getting dead a couple times, was all my fault. I should of never been on that boat. Lesson learned..well actually, took a couple more bad deliveries to learn, but then I got wise
Sorry you had a terrible trip, being offshore can be fun and beautiful, I hope your next trip is just that.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Hartley18 said:


> ...
> FWIW, I've yet to be convinced you could legitimately call a "Mayday" in this situation even if you had access to a radio, but it'll be interesting to see what others think.


I'm not _totally_ convinced either. But it's sounding like an option that should have been considered.


----------



## night0wl

Sailnet servers are going to get HAMMERED on this thread....let the F5ing begin...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> EXACTLY...
> 
> Particularly ironic, that this story comes from one who - through the various 'Bluewater vs. Production Boats' threads that routinely occur here - has maintained that the choice of boat matters little for offshore passagemaking, instead it's all about the CREW... (grin, bigtime)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow the logic on this post. Sounds like RockD and this Jake guy (i.e. - the crew) were the only reason that boat made it anywhere near HI.
Click to expand...

Well, it was in response to the good points first made by Oceangirl...

The logic simply being, for a sailor ostensibly aware of the primacy of the human element to successful passagemaking, it might have been more apparent pre-departure that - with _a skipper with no prior offshore experience_, another crew with _no previous sailing experience_, and an 86 year old mother in law along for the ride - there was more than just a hint that this voyage was not likely to end well 

This was more than "his luck finally running out", sounds more like a wishful disregard of some pretty blatant red flags...

I know, I've been there, done that, myself...


----------



## Sanduskysailor

The story checks out. A little Google detective work and the players names come up. I was a little skeptical when the navigator had a backgound as a prankster and comedic writer but he also shows up as a sailing instructor and licensed captain. In the Transpac press releases there are quotes from the 86 year old woman listed as the pit person.Talk about no synergy in a crew. It makes you wonder what qualifications the Transpac committee uses in determining who can enter.


----------



## aeventyr60

Wow! I was wondering when the Dawg was going to report in. Geez, what a crappy trip. Funny that a guy who had done a lot to prepare, interviewed for the job and had to submit his qualifications, did not get the same kind of information about the boat, skipper or other crew members before deciding to join this boat. I guess the "opportunity" was to great and he threw common sense out the window?
Hopefully the rest of the story is better.....


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Damn it dawg, it's after 10pm Pac time and I gotta work tomorrow, hurry the ****up


Or I take your Iphone


----------



## rockDAWG

Sorry for the delay. Wifey had work for me to do at home 

Here is the second part and more stuff (pics and others) will follows
============

Day 13, July 20
It was exhausted and very tensed day yesterday. Jake and I felt good the new outlook, but remained caution, just because Harry's split personality and temper. Last night decent wind with 6 to 7.5 SOG running autohelm . We did good and doing more than 150 nm. 728 nm to go.

Today it was the first morning that there was no wild gybe overnite after the physical confrontation yesterday, and we use my own sat phone to inform CG. It was the first morning that I did not need to risk my life on deck to unwrap the spinnaker.

@10 am: I catch up my daily log. After the call to USCG, and be advised to deescalate the confrontation. Me and jake sat in the v-berth discussing our option. We are not immediately in danger, although physical violence has erupted. We are too far from Helo range. Our love ones and the CG know own side of the story. If anything happens to us, they have the lead. They know our sails have been compromised and water tanks were not up off. Water will eventually become an issues. The CG knows our GPS tracking URL. 
Now we just have to survive and take to boat the Hawaii. I opened the door and saw Harry sat on the Navigation table. I informed him that we just spoke to the USCG and emails the details to my secretary and Jake's friends. My secretary and his friend were in voice contact with the CG. I will take over the boat with or without your approval. My job is to reach landfall ASAP. Harry was shaking his head and I am not sure what he was saying. I told I am willing to talk gentleman to gentleman alone with Jane and Jake around. Finally we spoke alone. We agreed that only he and I talk, all other opinions must go through one of us.

1. No fighting. 
2. Autohelm must be used at night, I insisted that will be no compromise on this. J
3. Harry and me will share the responsibility captain the boat to Hawaii

We shook hand. (What a fuucker )

Jake and I will not get out onto the deck to unwrap the spinnakers again at nite or we can risk our sails!!! If the sail is damage beyond repair, we are doomed. We don't have enough fuel to motor.

Evening: no wind less than 3 kn, weather grib file gave us no warning. We are low on water with 60 g of fuel.

Very light wind thro out the the day. Harry insisted go rhumb line despite all of us head more south. I managed head south while he is not looking. 
At nite after dinner winds picked up with 10 to 12 kn, perfect a) I have you aiming at 31N/125W and if we can be a bit further N, that would be better condition for our spinnaker. Jake and I sailed her nicely at 6.5 kn and above. I stayed up and watched from 8 pm till Jake relief me at 3 am.

Day 14, July 21
No wild gybe and no need to go on deck at nite for the 3rd nite since the mutiny. .

We are finally in the trade wind region. Had they let me sail the boat, we could have been here 3 or 4 days ago. So much time wasted, and so much anger has been expressed. It is just sad. Fuccking worst time in my life. I wonder what my wife would say next time I go crewing for others. Good thing she is on the road traveling and I have my sectary instead.

Looking forward to having another good day. I started taking pic and fish trolling since the stress was gone and arrival to Hawaii is doable.

I had a few small talks with Harry. He apologized numerous times for his behavior and praised my seamanship and leadership. He said perhaps I have more experience in running bigger operations. I was nit touched by his words.

We have good wind all day long doing 6.5 to 8 kn SOG with port tack with Spinnaker. At 7 pm dinner time, big swell coming, pretty rough sea. True wind at 10 to 12 knot. Water temp at 84.3F. Still moving fast.

Day 15, July 22:
At 11 am HST 428 nm from Molokai light. Water temp 84 F. Wind is still good near 20 knot behind us. A bit high for spinnaker but autohelm handled well. We are doing 7 to 8 knots.

Don't believe this, food is running low and this is the first time I willingly eat the food I hate. **** these people do not know how to provision food. Gourmet sushi chef my foot. . According to Jake. The best three dinners in this trip were my food I brought from home).

Oh yeah, they hid the bottled water, so me and Jake can only drink water from tap. We are not allowed to cook and they controlled the galley and cook us a small portion meal every day, no seconds. We survived by eating snack and the nuts my wife packed for me. I have never lived so poorly in my life. If I tell my friends and family, no one will believe us. It is a good thing that Jake has a Hero 3 GoPRo and captured everything including all these yelling and screaming for the world to hear. I told him to block my ugly mug.

Just a few more days to go. How could one could treat another human being like this way is beyond me. Jake and I on watch most of the time, and do all cleaning and upkeep. Just feel like a servant. Fortunately, the sky is still beautiful as ever. Can't wait to get home.

After quiet 3 days without incidences, and fight broke out again. Jane decided to tape shut the faucet in the galley to prevent us to use any water while they sleep. All the faucets in the head were taped shut a few days again. So we can't even get water to drink since the bottled water is hidden from us. It is just ridiculous. Jake raised hell and Harry agreed not to do that. But the argument continues between Jake, Jane and Harry. This lasted for good half hours.

This is such unprofessional, petty, and childish behavior. . Fuuuk!!! 360 nm to go.

Day 16, July 23
283 nm to go. Water temp 85.4F.

Since the heated oral exchange between Jakeues and the owners, they escalated his punishment. His night watch duty has been removed. Fucck lucky him... Now I have to do more ... Haha.

They intend to impose more rules to make him more miserable. It is all about control. Instead of being a leader to bring out the best in others, they bring the worse from their crew. It certainly not a right way to be a host or a leader. I guess some are destined to be great men and some are destined to be little 'men' in their own little world.

Back to original topic. Wind is good, we were moving fast. Wind from east at 15 to 19 knots. Still has current behind us at 0.6 Kn.

At the current condition, we may be at Molokai light at Thursday dawn. Be in marina at dusk.

I studied charts yesterday to work out my approach. Book says don't go in harbor at night, not sure what is the deal. The harbor is well marked, plenty of water and we will have almost full moon at nite. I will let Harry makes the decision. But at the worst, I am comfortable to go in in the dark.

At noon, Harry was at the helm and totally lost control. The spinnaker was hopelessly wrapped around the forestay. This man couldn't control the spinnaker. He practically fears of the spinnaker. Remember that man can't even drive in the parking lot.

I called Jake who has been banned from cockpit up on deck to help me free the spinnaker. After a grueling struggle again, we managed to take the spinnaker. Harry kept saying the spinnaker was very dangerous to us. In my mind, he is very dangerous and stupid. He was the one with the problem, but too dumb and proud to see the truth. This was the last I see the spineaker. We are sailing the crippled jib and main now. Harry turned on his engine to do some motor sailing.

At 4 pm, I woke up to loud yelling from a mad man. He was totally out of control with a face so bright red. It turn out his target was not Jake, but Jane. He yelled Jane does not do anything and don't touch anything and immediately come down below. I immediately jumped on the cockpit and to control of the helm. It was set to auto. I was afraid to change anything except to trim to sail to quiet it down. I saw jake was busy taping&#8230;. LOL
We are so close and yet so far from land. It moves so slowly now without the spinnaker at just above 5 knots.

I am in survival mode, laying low and trying to get thing done correctly to get home ASAP. What else can one do in this situation? .

232 nm to go. Heading 230 degree, will do a gybe sometime tonight.
Hope this is the last entry for the day. I am so tired with this drama.
Day 17,July 24:

I woke up at 2 am to start my watch. Wind died down we are moving slowly with just jib and main. Harry suggested we go to Hilo island since the boat is heading to Hilo.

Another day of beautiful day. Sea calm and not much fun. We are definitely sailing to Hilo. It will get us to land and ends our misery sooner, but it will cost me more money to get home. Hilo has no marina, which will also pose a problem: no area for us to clean up before boarding the plane. Water is so short we are not allow to wash our face or brush teeth let alone sponge bath or shower on board.

At 11:20 am, 364 nm from Hawaii. we saw a CG boat headed east passed us on starboard side about 5 nm. Not sure if they are checking on us. CG at west coast told my secretary that they have notified Hawaii CG our situation. Not sure why the CG motored so far from their base. I plan to call CG upon our arrival in the marina.

Harry asked me to start packing. He didn't want me to leave anything behind. He also asked to return a mesh t-shirt and an ugly Hawaii shirt back that he got them from Dollars store.

Since Jake and I will be leaving tomorrow morning when we arrive Hilo. The attack has switched onto Jane NOW. The Poor woman took all the beating today. There were more the five episodes of explosive yelling. 30 min ago Jane was preparing Alfredo for the "last night dinner on board". It was apparently Harry wants her to use microwave to make it. Since the engine was not running and can't use the microwave based on Harry rules. She did not want to start the engine because she was afraid to wake him up.

He found out she used the stove to cook the meal. He got all upset for disobeying his order. He got physical but I am not if Jane got beaten. He took the pan and slammed on the counter, the food flew all around. Then he ordered her to throw the dinner over board. There went our dinner.

This man is a very sick man. No wonder he is single without friends or family. I can't imagine how it will be like working in his Sushi restaurant; it must be hell. I am glad I am getting out tomorrow.

Jake and I will stay up tonight to make sure we can arrive Hilo as planned.

At 8:10 pm. All quiet and I am alone at the helm. Moon has not made her appearance yet. There are so many stars. Vega shines so bright on my right and North Star was dimly light starboard aft. Of course Satan[Saturn] is shinning above my head. This is what I live for. It is so bad that this is the worst crewing experience I have ever had. I hope my wife does not get too concerned about me crewing in the future. She has always trusted that I know how to take care of myself.

Day 18, Thursday, July 25:
I woke up at day break, big island was in a distant view. What a sight!!! Although I love the sea, seeing land after so many days at sea is special, especially after this troubled voyage. We motored into Hilo bay at the end of the breaker where the coast guard station is. We were practically being kicked off the boat and they refused to book me the ticket home. I was in no mood to argue and will deal with it later when I get home.

We stopped by homeland security to ensure we are cleared properly. The kind officer showed us where the CG office is.

We stopped by USCG to close our distress call. Lt Han of the west coast CG had notified Honolulu CG of our trouble with the captain, insufficient water and damaged sails.

We also give the short version of the incidence to the CG. . Officers Will and Jensen listened tentatively, and ask what could the CG do in the future to avoid this problem.

I told the CG that there is nothing they could do. However by the action of calling the CG, it was sufficient to get the owner take us seriously and that an authority knows our sailing vessel had problems. Jake was able to fly in one of his film crew from Honolulu to Hilo, was arrived just in time to film while we were interviewed by the CG.

After a couple calls and texts with my wife, my travel arrangement was set. Taking a short flight to Honolulu, to Seattle today and then to Philly. I will be home on Friday at 5 pm, just in time to stop by Philly to have a nice dinner.
This concluded my very first bad experience and the very worst crewing adventure. I am keeping my fingers crossed that this will be the last.

My next delivery is from TCI to PR shortly after hurricane Dorian.


----------



## rockDAWG

Post Note:
Shortly I got home. I heard from the news that tropical storm Floosie is on its way to Hilo. I guess Jake and I save the boat and her owners. 

Hurricane Season 2013: Hawaii Braces for Tropical Storm Flossie as Floods Strike Continental U.S. | Video - ABC News


----------



## RocketScience

Dayum...


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Holly crap dawg, I am truly sadden for ya but, Damn what a adventure


----------



## SlowButSteady

I browsed around the Web a bit and figured out which sushi restaurant "Harry" and "Jane" own. I've actually eaten there once, two or three years ago, and was completely under-whelmed. Really. I've had better sushi from the take-out counter at Whole Foods. "Harry" may own/run a sushi joint, but he ain't no sushi chef (as in an "itamae"). Somehow, this TransPac episode doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Minnewaska

Holy smokes. Glad to hear its over and you're underway back home. What cliche makes most sense here? Learning experience? What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger?

At the least, there must be some inspiration for that tattoo you want. 

Glad you're safe. Can't wait to see the vids.


----------



## JulieMor

Geez Rock! What an ordeal! Glad you and Jake are safe, and grandma too. 

But I think you missed one factor in your navigating. Your greatest source of wind was coming from Harry. You could have won if you harnessed that.


----------



## Brett Bris

I hope you have the copyright on this ******!


----------



## smurphny

Geeez, some good lessons here. Congratulations for getting back without hurting Harry. It's difficult to fathom what could possibly be going on in the mind of someone like this.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sanduskysailor said:


> It makes you wonder what qualifications the Transpac committee uses in determining who can enter.


Yup, you've sure got that right...

Safety inspection a "joke"? Dave Cort of the Race Committee _"hanging up on him"_ on the satphone, after his request to notify the CG?

Seriously?


----------



## jimgo

Sanduskysailor said:


> the boat named Aquarius is listed as a DNF. Look at the crew listing, names fit story. Yikes! http://www.yachtscoring.com/boatdetail.cfm?Yacht_ID=39745


Interesting...the site is now down.


----------



## cruisingdream

Should have stopped in Hollywood on your way home to strike a movie deal.


----------



## chucklesR

cruisingdream said:


> Should have stopped in Hollywood on your way home to strike a movie deal.


Should stop at a lawyers office and start a suit for reckless endangerment, both on Harry and on the Transpac race organization.


----------



## blt2ski

Transpac 2013 PUBLIC - Powered by Yellowbrick Tracking

The tracking part is still there. There is another site with info too, or at least was. I doubt it was removed. The one above shows the aquarius at Hilo, the other boats to the north, and some heading home already.

Marty


----------



## jimgo

Marty...do you think "Harry" will be able to GET his boat home?


----------



## lancelot9898

Great title for a movie. What actor should play Harry? 

There are many dangers that can be encountered as we hike alone in wilderness areas or sail to remote locations, but all of these maybe the most dangerous is a fellow human. For the vast majority of encounters it is benign and worthwhile, but the danger is still there. While I admire your patience and restraint, I don't think you realize the danger that you were in.... not from nature, but from Harry. Even letting the CG know of your situation does not help protect you from the actions of an irrational man. Glad you survived.


----------



## JonEisberg

chucklesR said:


> Should stop at a lawyers office and start a suit for reckless endangerment, both on Harry and on the Transpac race organization.


I don't know, some of this reads to me, at least as written, somewhat implausible...

For example, the contact made with the military ship on Day 6, and the request to be taken off due to the "unsafe environment"...



> In despair, Jake contacted a military ship "HS V2 Swift" nearby for rescue, claiming unsafe environment. Unfortunately Harry and Jane refused to let us leave the boat. The captain of Swift talked on the radio that they would monitor for 3 hours. They took away the VHF radio and sent Swift away. We were officially their prisoners.


What, were Harry & Jane holding guns to their heads? Moreover, the captain of the SWIFT doesn't even bother to investigate the situation further, and is content to be simply "sent away" by someone who apparently speaks barely understandable English? After the original request to be evacuated was made by someone speaking "perfect English"? If that is, indeed, how this encounter went down, it certainly doesn't speak very highly of the command of the SWIFT or the Navy's concern for the safety of American sailors on the high seas - particularly in an age where Carnival cruise ships and Liberian-flagged merchant vessels are willing to come to the aid of distressed sailors, literally, at the drop of a hat... 

It's not like it would have taken the SWIFT very long to arrive on scene to check things out, after all...










I don't know, just sounds like there might be a tad more to certain elements of this story


----------



## kjango

When that guy re-gained consciousness , his clothes would have gone out of style , & if the water ran out I'd have slit his throat & drank his blood .


----------



## blt2ski

Harry will probably get his boat home.....altho suspect it will be hired help without him on board, or he will have to sell there........

but, as I was packing truck for the day, a thought occured. Many if not most countries other than the US, would require ea boat to have 2-3 prep races with the crew generally speaking as is to be sailed on longer races like this. This in reality, would have weeded out this skipper/boat combo. As it is now, ANYONE could potentially enter this race, even if the boat was not fit, skipper/crew member(s) are not fit etc. 

Hopefully if this hits the YC's in charge etc, they may get looked at by USSA or equal and told to tighten the screws on initial interviewing the skippers etc as happened at the Chi-mac after the flipping of the boat and 2 folks died in an improper designed boat for the task being down. The skipper/crew manifests should also be looked at etc a bit more also in this races case. I know locally, the vic-maui has some qualifying races that need to be down before you can actually cross the start line, this would potentially/probably, not not 100% positive, taken this guy out before the start.

marty


----------



## krisscross

Dawg, that is a pretty gnarly experience, no doubt! 
You must have angered the sea gods somehow to deserve this amount of sh...t fall on you... 
Glad you made it home safely and thank you for a great story!
I always consider people to be the most important factor in every situation.


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> I don't know, some of this reads to me, at least as written, somewhat implausible...
> 
> For example, the contact made with the military ship on Day 6, and the request to be taken off due to the "unsafe environment"...
> 
> What, were Harry & Jane holding guns to their heads? Moreover, the captain of the SWIFT doesn't even bother to investigate the situation further, and is content to be simply "sent away" by someone who apparently speaks barely understandable English? After the original request to be evacuated was made by someone speaking "perfect English"? If that is, indeed, how this encounter went down, it certainly doesn't speak very highly of the command of the SWIFT or the Navy's concern for the safety of American sailors on the high seas - particularly in an age where Carnival cruise ships and Liberian-flagged merchant vessels are willing to come to the aid of distressed sailors, literally, at the drop of a hat...
> 
> It's not like it would have taken the SWIFT very long to arrive on scene to check things out, after all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, just sounds like there might be a tad more to certain elements of this story


Agree. The thing that seems implausible is that anyone would endure a madman for more than a very short time before setting him straight in one form or another. People willingly staying confined to berths on the whim of a loony??? Makes no sense. It isn't 1810 and the crew aren't Shanghaied drunks waking up under the command of Capt. Bligh. Something does not add up here.


----------



## Schniggles

Sorry for your shiity voyage many lessons learned for all of us. Epic story! Thanks for posting.


----------



## JonEisberg

smurphny said:


> Agree. The thing that seems implausible is that anyone would endure a madman for more than a very short time before setting him straight in one form or another. People willingly staying confined to berths on the whim of a loony??? Makes no sense. It isn't 1810 and the crew aren't Shanghaied drunks waking up under the command of Capt. Bligh. Something does not add up here.


Certainly, the encounter with the SWIFT doesn't add up...

After an initial contact requesting evacuation, a US Navy vessel is simply told, "Nevermind, go away, everything's OK now..."??? Without so much as the officers aboard at least demanding to speak once again with the crewmember requesting to be taken off???

Not bloody likely... 

And if, indeed, that's what transpired, someone at the Department of the Navy needs to hear about it...


----------



## krisscross

smurphny said:


> It isn't 1810 and the crew aren't Shanghaied drunks waking up under the command of Capt. Bligh.


You should read up on the HMS Bounty story. You owe it to yourself. I recommend Caroline Alexander book, The Bounty, based on a very thorough research. Bligh was a consummate navigator, sailor, and captain. None of his men were shanghaied and the mutiny happened in 1789, mostly because large part of the crew wanted to stay on Tahiti.


----------



## weinie

DEVELOPING ENTERTAINMENT NEWS!....

The cast of the new epic movie MUTINY AT DAWN! has just been been released!

Harry - George Takei
Jane - Sharon Stone
Jake - Jake Gyllenhaal
RockDawg - Matthew McConaughey
and featuring Aunt Edna as Sheryl:









it is also being reported that Fred Thompson will once again don a naval officer's uniform as the Captain of the Swift and Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels will have cameo roles as Coast Guard officers Will and Jensen.


----------



## smackdaddy

Best thread ever.

PS - I just want to know what the 86 y.o. chick was doing this whole time. Must have been great entertainment for her.


----------



## JulieMor

I don't know about the belief that a call for help will bring it. We were about 5 miles off shore late at night, returning from the Bahamas, when a squall blew through that pegged the anemometer at 70. After about 30 minutes of hell my dad was freaking out. He told me to call the CG with a Mayday. I did. They hung up.


----------



## azguy

If your story is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, I would have used tape/zip tie/whatever and tied them up in the cabin and pt them on food and water rations. 

Maritime laws or not, your life was at risk and you were 10000% nicer and more patient than I would have been.


----------



## ShoalFinder

I wasn't there, so I certainly won't comment on what did or did not happen. I can say this, RockDawg has more patience than I do for stupid people.

After the second time Captain Numbnuts wrecked the spinnaker, I'd have told him "you broke it, you fix it." The first time he went ballistic I would have cut him some slack because I didn't know him, but I'd have gone to him after he calmed down and told him that s**t is not going to happen again. 

Confined to quarters? No water? Sorry, but that is crazy. That's when you and the psycho have a conversation that goes like this, "You crazy SOB, I will beat your MFA and throw you in the water. I am officially off duty. Sail this tub yourself. One more word out of you and I will beat you to death with this winch handle and feed you to the fish."


----------



## Skipper Jer

Holy cow. I know that everything on the internet is true but this story boarders on the UN-beliveable side. 
We need a link to Jake's movies. 

Dam, if it was me on board, Harry would have fallen overboard while everyone else was down below.


----------



## Cruisingdad

JonEisberg said:


> Certainly, the encounter with the SWIFT doesn't add up...
> 
> After an initial contact requesting evacuation, a US Navy vessel is simply told, "Nevermind, go away, everything's OK now..."??? Without so much as the officers aboard at least demanding to speak once again with the crewmember requesting to be taken off???
> 
> Not bloody likely...
> 
> And if, indeed, that's what transpired, someone at the Department of the Navy needs to hear about it...


HEHE! Well, I can imagine the CO on watch, listening to RockDawg, turning to his XO, and saying, "uhhh... Screw that! I ain't going back to that! Full steam ahead!"

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

This has to be one of the best stories I have read on SN in a long time!!!

Wow Rock! What a story... and you have pics and a video too!?? Holy cow. 

Brian


----------



## rhr1956

smackdaddy said:


> Best thread ever.
> 
> PS - I just want to know what the 86 y.o. chick was doing this whole time. Must have been great entertainment for her.


I found the following on sailrevolution website...

"I think this will be a great adventure, and everyone should have a good time," said Shirley Fischer, who is sailing on Hiroyuki Funaoku and Janet Nicholson's Jeanneau 43 Sun Odyssey DS Aquarius in her first Transpac. "I'm 86 years young, I've sailed before with Hiro and my daughter Janet, and they asked me to come, so here I am. I've had my own boat before, just sailing from here to Catalina, but Hawaii of course is much further. So I'm looking forward to just being part of this, for going this far, and enjoying the experience."

When asked about her role on the team, Fischer said "I will do anything I can to help. But when on the helm I was asked to look out for refrigerators and whales!"


----------



## weinie

rhr1956 said:


> I found the following on sailrevolution website...
> 
> "I think this will be a great adventure, and everyone should have a good time," said Shirley Fischer, who is sailing on Hiroyuki Funaoku and Janet Nicholson's Jeanneau 43 Sun Odyssey DS Aquarius in her first Transpac. "I'm 86 years young, I've sailed before with Hiro and my daughter Janet, and they asked me to come, so here I am. I've had my own boat before, just sailing from here to Catalina, but Hawaii of course is much further. So I'm looking forward to just being part of this, for going this far, and enjoying the experience."
> 
> When asked about her role on the team, Fischer said "I will do anything I can to help. But when on the helm I was asked to look out for refrigerators and whales!"


I think you just blew their cover!


----------



## rhr1956

I tend to do that sometimes... ;-)


----------



## az_r2d1

Wow, what a story. I don't think I would have had the patience and would not have put up with it that long. Being the owner doesn't give you the right to be so abusive to your crew, and DEFINITELY does not give you the right to withhold water and food. Add to that the fact that it was all his fault due to bad/lack of planning.... 

No, the cover needs to be blown. People need to be aware of this so nobody else will fall into the trap.


----------



## Ajax_MD

smackdaddy said:


> I'm not sure I follow the logic on this post. *Sounds like RockD and this Jake guy (i.e. - the crew) were the only reason that boat made it anywhere near HI.*
> 
> I looked up the details and they abandoned the race in last place with 300 miles to go. I can't wait to hear part 2.


You're only hearing one side of this story. Do you really expect the storyteller to make a full confession of his incompetence, or do you expect him to paint a story of him and his companion being the heroes of this tale of mis-adventure?

Based on RD's past contributions, my opinion is that he is arrogant and knows all. You don't contribute knowledge to RD, he contributes it to you. You are wrong, and that's the end of it.

Even if we give RD the benefit of the doubt and say that his version of the tale is 100% factual, he is STILL at fault for allowing himself to become trapped in the situation.

The only data I needed in order to decide whether or not I would embark as crew, was the crew manifest he listed in the first paragraph of his opening post: A list of non-usable bodies and complete incompetence if I ever saw one, yet he decided to board and subject himself to the skipper's authority anyway.

Don't look to me for sympathy.


----------



## smackdaddy

BubbleheadMd said:


> You're only hearing one side of this story. Do you really expect the storyteller to make a full confession of his incompetence, or do you expect him to paint a story of him and his companion being the heroes of this tale of mis-adventure?
> 
> Based on RD's past contributions, my opinion is that he is arrogant and knows all. You don't contribute knowledge to RD, he contributes it to you. You are wrong, and that's the end of it.
> 
> Even if we give RD the benefit of the doubt and say that his version of the tale is 100% factual, he is STILL at fault for allowing himself to become trapped in the situation.
> 
> The only data I needed in order to decide whether or not I would embark as crew, was the crew manifest he listed in the first paragraph of his opening post: A list of non-usable bodies and complete incompetence if I ever saw one, yet he decided to board and subject himself to the skipper's authority anyway.
> 
> Don't look to me for sympathy.


Oh. He's never come across that way to me. Actually the opposite. But, believe it or not, I don't actually read every single post on SN. I'm too busy trying to get my own post count up so I can finally send private messages.


----------



## Cruisingdad

BubbleheadMd said:


> You're only hearing one side of this story. Do you really expect the storyteller to make a full confession of his incompetence, or do you expect him to paint a story of him and his companion being the heroes of this tale of mis-adventure?
> 
> Based on RD's past contributions, my opinion is that he is arrogant and knows all. You don't contribute knowledge to RD, he contributes it to you. You are wrong, and that's the end of it.
> 
> Even if we give RD the benefit of the doubt and say that his version of the tale is 100% factual, he is STILL at fault for allowing himself to become trapped in the situation.
> 
> The only data I needed in order to decide whether or not I would embark as crew, was the crew manifest he listed in the first paragraph of his opening post: A list of non-usable bodies and complete incompetence if I ever saw one, yet he decided to board and subject himself to the skipper's authority anyway.
> 
> Don't look to me for sympathy.


Wow. He doesn't strike me that way either, but I have not read all his stuff.

We all have to remember this is just his impression of what happened. Still, a pretty good story!

I cannot imagine what the video of all this must be like.

Brian


----------



## Ajax_MD

Like I said, even if I'm totally wrong about RD, and his accouting of the story is 100% factual, this is all I need to know to walk away from this situation:



> Me - rockDawg or RD. as on-board navigator
> Jake - Near coastal USCG licensed Captain. Serve as a crew.
> *Harry - Skipper/Owner - A Japanese national owns a Sushi Restaurant in LA, long time old traditional sailor, but no off shore or long passage experience. Serve as a skipper
> Jane - Partner of Harry, co-owner of the Sushi Restaurant. Has no sailing experience. Serve a watch crew as needed
> Sheryl - Mother of Jane, 86 yo. No official duty. *Jeanneau 43 - Corporation owned sailing vessel


If that's not enough, the "Day 1" accounting should have been the final nail in the coffin. There were way, way more than enough warning bells in his account, before they ever left the dock.


----------



## Cruisingdad

BubbleheadMd said:


> Like I said, even if I'm totally wrong about RD, and his accouting of the story is 100% factual, this is all I need to know to walk away from this situation:
> 
> If that's not enough, the "Day 1" accounting should have been the final nail in the coffin. There were way, way more than enough warning bells in his account, before they ever left the dock.


In all honesty, that would have concerned me too... esp on a run that long.

This thread should also serve as a warning for those who are always looking to crew (esp as 'companions') to something I have long said: WHen you get on that boat, it isn't like you can just get off an leave. You are now in a situation where you are stuck there at the captains whims. No cell phones and no vhf. If rock did not have a sat phone, it might have been even worse??

Just a thought.

But I think many people, esp those without boats, are eager to go sailing and experience stuff and may overlook shortcomings (or pretend to over look them). Me? I got my boat and will (and have) told you to screw off. I ain't going. I am picky amd when I go out, it is with competent people that I trust and will have fun with... fun being the key word. If we can all agree on one thing, it was that no one was having fun on RD's boat! Well, maybe the 86 year old gal. She was watching reality tv for weeks!

Brian


----------



## poopdeckpappy

lancelot9898 said:


> Great title for a movie. What actor should play Harry?
> 
> .


Has to be Ken Jeong


----------



## JonEisberg

Cruisingdad said:


> I cannot imagine what the video of all this must be like.


I guessing we'll ever see it, but if nothing else, it might be enlightening to hear what an _"un-detectable Jewish New Yorker accent"_ sounds like


----------



## smackdaddy

My first ocean race was a little uncomfortable. The skipper/owner and his son were ALWAYS going at it. Very tense. I saw it at the beginning during my test sail with them and knew what I was getting into. But I wanted the experience, so I gutted it out...even though it was the 3 of us on the same shift day in and day out. The other 3 crew got to sleep through most of the crap.

Of course, this was only 3 days of racing and 3 days of return...not 2 freakin' weeks. Ouch.

All that to say, I can understand Rock's initial decision. Sometimes you just want to go. And I respect his restraint when it all went off the rails. It's not your boat.

RDawg - sorry I encouraged you to miss the deposition, dude. Heh-heh.

PS - I guess I'm most interested in the CG's response to this...that is try to deescalate the situation. It's an interesting role the CG is thrust into in a situation like this. What _should_ they do?


----------



## Cruisingdad

JonEisberg said:


> I guessing we'll ever see it, but if nothing else, it might be enlightening to hear what an _"un-detectable Jewish New Yorker accent"_ sounds like


HEHEHEE! Ah, now THAT was funny!!!

Brian


----------



## rbrasi

I think someone should reach out to Harry to get his side of the story. And, as stated previous, my guess is that he gets the boat delivered back to Marina Del Rey.


----------



## TJC45

Ask any police officer what is the most dangerous situation they are faced with and most will tell you it's the domestic dispute call. Emotions running high, people get totally irrational. That makes them unpredictable. Rational people becoming irrational and unpredictable, committing unimaginable, even to them, acts of violence. And there you have your average run of the mill domestic violence murder. 

That's what was going on here. Irrational and unpredicable behavior. Only this time on a small boat a 1000 miles from shore. So who ya gonna call? The CG is the only authority to call in this situation. And, IMO, the CG should have responded more strongly. 

The fortunate thing here is that no one was injured or worse. But,again, as any LEO will tell you, that line was very frayed. Easily, this story could have had a very different, and tragic outcome


----------



## TJC45

If nothing else this story serves as a reason to consider single handed races!!!!


----------



## smackdaddy

TJC45 said:


> Easily, this story could have had a very different, and tragic outcome


Dude, did you not see the part about the alfredo sauce? That's plenty tragic!


----------



## Cruisingdad

rbrasi said:


> I think someone should reach out to Harry to get his side of the story. And, as stated previous, my guess is that he gets the boat delivered back to Marina Del Rey.


Pfft. I think SMackdaddy needs some more experience offshore.


----------



## Cruisingdad

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, did you not see the part about the alfredo sauce? That's plenty tragic!


Im with ya. I thought the whole story very believable until he came out with the sushi bar owners making alfredo sauce. Come on? We;re supposed to believe that?


----------



## smackdaddy

Cruisingdad said:


> Pfft. I think SMackdaddy needs some more experience offshore.


Heh-heh. No. Way. In. Hell.


----------



## rockDAWG

JonEisberg said:


> I guessing we'll ever see it, but if nothing else, it might be enlightening to hear what an _"un-detectable Jewish New Yorker accent"_ sounds like





Cruisingdad said:


> HEHEHEE! Ah, now THAT was funny!!!
> 
> Brian


I thought so too....LOL. I wrote this part on my iPhone while Jake was sitting next to me me. I showed to him, he said he like that. So that is how the story was recorded. In the hardest time, we found humor in every situation to keep us alive and balance.

We had good laughs in the most unpleasant time, we have come good friends, although I did not know Jake's political viewpoint or I am with him on that front. I knew that he has produced an influential independent film, but I have not seen it or what it is about.

I will address some of you comments later. Thanks for your support. For those who have negative viewpoint against me, please keep it coming. I have you covered. My post is directly coming from my notepad in my iPhone. It is not written as a book, but rather a note to myself to remind me the key fact during my voyage to Hawaii. *If I were you, I would not throw **** to others unless you walk in their shoes. It is about respect and human decency. After all, we are sailors, we have been humbled by the seas. Human drama is just drama !!!*

Let focus on the positives, learn from this and be a better human being toward each other.

I will write about my takes on this later. It may be a while. I am preparing a trip to take a small boat from TCI to PR this weekend. There is lot of homework to do before crossing Mona passage.

Thanks again, Captains.


----------



## smackdaddy

rockDAWG said:


> Moon has not made her appearance yet. There are so many stars. Vega shines so bright on my right and North Star was dimly light starboard aft. *Of course Satan is shinning above my head.*


I think that was your main problem right there. When Satan himself starts shinning your head - nothing good's gonna happen.

DYAC!


----------



## rockDAWG

Cruisingdad said:


> Im with ya. I thought the whole story very believable until he came out with the sushi bar owners making alfredo sauce. Come on? We;re supposed to believe that?


It was Jane made the alfredo pasta, Harry was sleeping. After all, We had not much to eat except the Ramen noodles laced with chemicals.


----------



## rockDAWG

smackdaddy said:


> I think that was your main problem right there. When Satan himself starts shinning your head - nothing good's gonna happen.
> 
> DYAC!


Ooops. Saturn


----------



## Skipper Jer

Rock, a link to Jakes movies showing Harry's rage, please. Or a picture of Harry's face in a moment of uncontrollable rage.


----------



## Cruisingdad

rockDAWG said:


> It was Jane made the alfredo pasta, Harry was sleeping. After all, We had not much to eat except the Ramen noodles laced with chemicals.


Incredible! You know I was joking ya there Dawg!!

Great story. Would love to hear Jake's take on here!

Brian


----------



## TQA

Great story to look back on, you got there and nobody died but is sounds like it was close at times. 

Taping the taps closed!


----------



## Cruisingdad

Captainmeme said:


> Rock, a link to Jakes movies showing Harry's rage, please. Or a picture of Harry's face in a moment of uncontrollable rage.


Here ya go!


----------



## rockDAWG

Captainmeme said:


> Rock, a link to Jakes movies showing Harry's rage, please. Or a picture of Harry's face in a moment of uncontrollable rage.


I sent a link to Jake and asked him to make his appearance on here. He may not have the video of Harry's rage, but I am sure you has plenty of recording of him.

Jake is currently in Mexico teaching a course. so his reply may be delayed.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Cruisingdad said:


> Here ya go!


I was thinking more along the lines of this:


----------



## rockDAWG

smackdaddy said:


> All that to say, I can understand Rock's initial decision. Sometimes you just want to go. And I respect his restraint when it all went off the rails. It's not your boat.
> *
> RDawg - sorry I encouraged you to miss the deposition, dude. Heh-heh.
> *
> PS - I guess I'm most interested in the CG's response to this...that is try to deescalate the situation. It's an interesting role the CG is thrust into in a situation like this. What _should_ they do?


http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...had-bad-day-i-need-hug-will-kill-someone.html
No regret, SD. I would do it again in a heart beat. It is too bad it was not the element of nature threaten us survival but from the other human that acted upon us.

As for the CG's comment, I think it is a wise one. Deescalate is the perfect word in our situation, since we were just half way point. No one can be here within a short time. We were on our own. Our call to CG is not for help, but rather to inform them if something happens to us or the boat, they have to clues to go by.

We waited for a long time and waited until physical violence has occurred before calling. It was a right and calculated decision to call. We were not a bunch of pu55ies to cry for help.


----------



## jimgo

Cruisingdad said:


> ...Well, maybe the 86 year old gal. She was watching reality tv for weeks!


I think you just hit the nail on the head. This isn't a move, it's "The Real World" on steroids.


----------



## mbetter

jimgo said:


> Interesting...the site is now down.


It's not down, it just expects a session cookie to be present. Go to yachtscoring.com / pick event / find transpac / find "Aquarius".


----------



## emcentar

I think Jake has the screenplay for his next movie.


----------



## rockDAWG

emcentar said:


> I think Jake has the screenplay for his next movie.


Yes, he has lot of footage and recorded through out the voyage. He had three film crews for two days filming the preparation and departure. I also mentioned that he had a film crew in Hilo filming our arrival in Hio. I don't know how much it will end up in his film. It is apparent he was funded by some organization but this mishap (voyage) was just a sideline until it made a dramatic turn to the worst.


----------



## rockDAWG

My secretary did some work for me regarding the Labor Law in CA. I can file three complaints against the company 
•	Violation (for not providing sufficient safety and welfare of the employee, water, etc.)
•	Retaliation (for threatening after you called CG)
•	Wage (for not reimbursing the expenses to go home)

The boat is in the name of the corporation, was used as a tax write off, we were the employee of the company and were protected by the labor law of California. All three complaints are well documented in our correspondings (emails), video, pictures, and voice recordings. If DOL is sided on our case, the legal action will follow.


----------



## smackdaddy

rockDAWG said:


> My secretary did some work for me regarding the Labor Law in CA. I can file three complaints against the company
> •	Violation (for not providing sufficient safety and welfare of the employee, water, etc.)
> •	Retaliation (for threatening after you called CG)
> •	Wage (for not reimbursing the expenses to go home)
> 
> The boat is in the name of the corporation, was used as a tax write off, we were the employee of the company and were protected by the labor law of California. All three complaints are well documented in our correspondings (emails), video, pictures, and voice recordings. If DOL is sided on our case, the legal action will follow.


Yeah, yeah - but can you now make a good spicy salmon roll?


----------



## rhr1956




----------



## poopdeckpappy

emcentar said:


> I think Jake has the screenplay for his next movie.


Oh hell yeah, With what RD wrote here and the right actors? those guys can produce a movie that would make Capt. Ron look like a High Seas Drama :laugher


----------



## rockDAWG

rhr1956 said:


>


Not yet, one step at a time. 

1. Filing the compliants
2. DOL reviews the case and evidences
3. DOL takes action if any
4. DOL open mediation and compensation 
4. DOL grants the right to sue
5. Looking for a lawyer

This will take months and years perhaps, Patience is a virtue. Even they win, they will lose big time.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

rockDAWG said:


> If DOL is sided on our case, the legal action will follow.


You know who else I would have dealings with on a personal level?, The SOB race organizer that hung up on you


----------



## rockDAWG

JonEisberg said:


> UFB... Is this for real?
> 
> Seriously, dude - you need to get your own boat...
> 
> Until then, you need to get better at reading the Warning Signs...


Buying my own boat will not satisfy my craving for off shore sailing. If I have my own boat, I will end up putting around the boat at the dock all day, week and year, just like most of you folks.

Without my own boat, I can be in Hawaii last week, TCI next week, Central America the week after, and Azores the next!!! Granted, privilege to sail other's boat comes with responsibility and risk. We just have to manage it.

Like I said before, I was shaken but not broken. I am determined as ever. Some may say I am arrogant. Perhaps, but this is my life, I choose to live the what I like it. If my wife and grown children endorse my style, who do I need to get approval. 

No regret.


----------



## rockDAWG

poopdeckpappy said:


> You know who else I would have dealings with on a personal level?, The SOB race organizer that hung up on you


This was very disappointed from the longest race committee of world. Jake has previously called to alert them, they did nothing and just ignore his sat phone messages (no reply).

Their revisit safety inspection from the race committee was a joke, I know I was there. The Caribbean 1500 rally team did a better job than these TransPac guys.

Just be patience, one step at a time. Once DOL hands out their rulings, we will have the free ticket to forward.

I studied the book of "Art of War" very well when I was a young man and later in life in English translation.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

I may joke with you about the movie thing but, this was a serious deal and in light of the string of tragic losses we suffered over the last couple years, to have that kind of response in this kind of race from the race officials is down right scary.


----------



## smackdaddy

poopdeckpappy said:


> I may joke with you about the movie thing but, this was a serious deal and in light of the string of tragic losses we suffered over the last couple years, to have that kind of response in this kind of race from the race officials is down right scary.


Not to belabor the point - but this is why this is interesting to me.

Purely from the RA's and CG's perspective, it basically boils down to a complete relationship breakdown between skipper and crew on a boat in the middle of a race. Though it is undoubtedly miserable and somewhat insane, it is not immediately _life-threatening_.

The only real fix is to work it out long enough to get to safety. Which RockD did.

What _CAN_ the CG and/or RA realistically do beyond giving this advice? It's a very, very tricky situation that I bet doesn't pop up very often.


----------



## jackdale

What a nightmare. Actually several nights. 

Jack

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rockDAWG

poopdeckpappy said:


> I may joke with you about the movie thing but, this was a serious deal and in light of the string of tragic losses we suffered over the last couple years, to have that kind of response in this kind of race from the race officials is down right scary.


I agree. Most of this organizations are a money making machine in the good old boy club. They charge the participant $3500 plus all other fees. The sale of merchandise and media coverage etc are lots of profits.

I did closed to 10K nm sailing in just short few years, I have never needed to go out on deck in pitch dark to fix anything so urgently. In this voyage, 4 out 6 wild gybes, Jake and I had to get on deck in the dark to rescue or to tame the spinnaker. The spinnaker was so enormous and powerful that I was yanked airborne a couple time. I was Hoisted 4 time to the forestay when the boat was in motion. I was being swung and banged against the forestay. I was not afraid of dying. But dying for Harry's stupidity is not I have in mind.

Harry has been living in this country for 16 years who has not learned how to behave properly and respect another human being. His way of life must be stopped. Look at his way to treat his partner in the last two days of the voyage. What an evil man!!!

Jake: I hope you coming in soon. Insert some of your words in here.


----------



## Skipper Jer

HOLY MOLLY BATMAN there is a Sushi chief/captain Harry and he is looking for help at his eatery.
If you want to apply here is the link.
Sushi Chef and / or Preparation Helper - Los Angeles - Sushi A GoGo

Drop a line to Harry, let him know you like sailing.

Here are the requirements:
Required Experience:
Clean good public image and appearance.
Some knowledge of Sushi.
Dependable, with a cooperative nature.


----------



## JonEisberg

rockDAWG said:


> My secretary did some work for me regarding the Labor Law in CA. I can file three complaints against the company
> •	Violation (for not providing sufficient safety and welfare of the employee, water, etc.)
> •	Retaliation (for threatening after you called CG)
> •	Wage (for not reimbursing the expenses to go home)
> 
> The boat is in the name of the corporation, was used as a tax write off, we were the employee of the company and were protected by the labor law of California. All three complaints are well documented in our correspondings (emails), video, pictures, and voice recordings. If DOL is sided on our case, the legal action will follow.


Hmmm, change of heart, eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody _died_ on this voyage, right?



rockDAWG said:


> As much as I dislike my lawyers, since they and their firm suck my dry.  I think in the Bounty case, the lawsuit is justified. *In the case of Rule 62, I don't think it is justified. *
> 
> But this is just me. YMMV.


----------



## rockDAWG

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, change of heart, eh?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody _died_ on this voyage, right?


No, not at all.

In the Rule 62' case, there was no evidence to mistreatment from the captain. No survivors has spoken since the tragedy. In this case, there were plenty of evidence at hand.

Not sure what is your problem?


----------



## smurphny

krisscross said:


> You should read up on the HMS Bounty story. You owe it to yourself. I recommend Caroline Alexander book, The Bounty, based on a very thorough research. Bligh was a consummate navigator, sailor, and captain. None of his men were shanghaied and the mutiny happened in 1789, mostly because large part of the crew wanted to stay on Tahiti.


Sorry I was loose with the facts. Just a little hyperbole. Didn't mean to impugn Capt. Bligh, by using the connotation of his name. Just ordered a used hardcover copy of Alexander's book for 44 cents! (love the used book selections on Amazon!)Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## rockDAWG

Captainmeme said:


> HOLY MOLLY BATMAN there is a Sushi chief/captain Harry and he is looking for help at his eatery.
> If you want to apply here is the link.
> Sushi Chef and / or Preparation Helper - Los Angeles - Sushi A GoGo
> 
> Drop a line to Harry, let him know you like sailing.
> 
> Here are the requirements:
> Required Experience:
> Clean good public image and appearance.
> Some knowledge of Sushi.
> Dependable, with a cooperative nature.


To my understanding and my converstation with them before the hell broke loose, they employ no one other than the recent immigrants who do not know their rights better. They also import Sushi chef trainee directly from Sushi schools in Japan and pay less than minimal wages and housing allowance. They have an well oiled system, cycling thru with unlimited supply cheap labor from aboard.

This is just sad.


----------



## aeventyr60

rockDAWG said:


> Not yet, one step at a time.
> 
> 1. Filing the compliants
> 2. DOL reviews the case and evidences
> 3. DOL takes action if any
> 4. DOL open mediation and compensation
> 4. DOL grants the right to sue
> 5. Looking for a lawyer
> 
> This will take months and years perhaps, Patience is a virtue. Even they win, they will lose big time.


Why Bother? You survived. Your decision to get on the boat. Poor decision making on the journey by you and Jake. Having an incompetent skipper at the wheel flying a kite at nite? After the 2nd nite you and jake didn't get it? Could of de escalated the situation early by heaving to, getting a good night rest, spliting up the crew so You and j\Jake were on different watches, one competent crew one incompetent crew...so all does not break loose and you are repeatedly woken up. Lot's of weird thing happening on your trip, and you the experienced crew/delivery/business/adventure kinda guy.

If you decide to sue, make sure you list that on your next crew qualification CV. Sure be get lots of crew offers after that.


----------



## krisscross

rockDAWG said:


> Not yet, one step at a time.
> 
> 1. Filing the compliants
> 2. DOL reviews the case and evidences
> 3. DOL takes action if any
> 4. DOL open mediation and compensation
> 4. DOL grants the right to sue
> 5. Looking for a lawyer
> 
> This will take months and years perhaps, Patience is a virtue. Even they win, they will lose big time.


Will you put this kind of effort and time into something like that?
There are plenty of much easier ways to get even with this dude if that is your point, teaching him a lesson at the same time.
In general I avoid stepping into sh..t and I'm cleaning up as soon as possible after I do.


----------



## RTB

Nice write-up rockDawg.

I have had an unpleasant experience crewing on a boat in a regatta. Only 2 days/one night, fortunately. I had actually sailed with this captain before, but that wasn't enough to know his actual abilities or how he "played with others". 

Another time, I crewed for i2f and his wife, Melanie. We sailed from Green Cove Springs to Cartagena, Colombia. There were some moments that became uncomfortable, but nothing to get upset about. We had known each other for quite awhile, but being at sea for weeks at a time can become tiring, mentally.

I often look at "crew wanted" and "wanting to crew" posts. I just shake my head, wondering how things played out for anyone answering to these positions? 

Don't slam the race committee. If you sign on as crew, you really should have done your homework on the skipper. Same for the skipper. Don't put inexperienced crew on your boat. At least not someone that has no idea of what it will be like once the starting gun fires. Certainly not on the Transpac!

Just my 2 cents.

Ralph


----------



## smackdaddy

85 guests on this thread. I'd say this mutiny is making the rounds.


----------



## JulieMor

krisscross said:


> None of his men were shanghaied and the mutiny happened in 1789, mostly because large part of the crew wanted to stay on Tahiti.


...where all the Tahitian women were topless...


----------



## aeventyr60

JulieMor said:


> ...where all the Tahitian women were topless...


I was a little disappointed that the gals did not come out in canoes to great us bearing their fruit....Can't blame the guys for wanting to stay in Tahiti...long days at sea with hard tack and biscuit, not to mention Bubba...


----------



## JimMcGee

:worthless:

And video


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

rockDAWG said:


> My secretary did some work for me regarding the Labor Law in CA. I can file three complaints against the company
> •	Violation (for not providing sufficient safety and welfare of the employee, water, etc.)
> •	Retaliation (for threatening after you called CG)
> •	Wage (for not reimbursing the expenses to go home)
> 
> The boat is in the name of the corporation, was used as a tax write off, we were the employee of the company and were protected by the labor law of California. All three complaints are well documented in our correspondings (emails), video, pictures, and voice recordings. If DOL is sided on our case, the legal action will follow.


Don't bother with claiming expenses.

What about suing'em for unlawful imprisonment ("confined to berths")?

Or how about assault with a deadly weapon (the winch handle incident)?

Heck, might as well go whole-hog for attempted murder


----------



## night0wl

I wouldn't sue...lest you want yourself plastered all over Sailing Anarchy as the latest person to get legal. Look at Podmajersky (sic). The guy was clearly in the right, but became a sailing pariah. Got a Rule 69 hearing against him and a 1 year ban for what (I believe) was another dude behaving unethically.

You may say "who cares, i'm going forward legally and will take this guy down"...but think about how many offers to go as crew you'll get if you are known as the guy that sues a boat owner (even if you are in the right). If you love crewing and ocean passages, expect that well to dry up pretty quickly. Just as the net was able to figure out it was Aquarius, they'll be able to figure out the guy that sued.

You survived and have one hell of a story to tell. Chalk it up to life lessons and great stories to tell at the yacht club after the race is over.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/men-overboard/Content?oid=912184


----------



## rockDAWG

Nightowl, it is a good advise and has wisdom. I will certainly take heart to consider this calmly and logically. Thanks.


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> Why Bother? You survived. Your decision to get on the boat. Poor decision making on the journey by you and Jake. Having an incompetent skipper at the wheel flying a kite at nite? After the 2nd nite you and jake didn't get it? Could of de escalated the situation early by heaving to, getting a good night rest, spliting up the crew so You and j\Jake were on different watches, one competent crew one incompetent crew...so all does not break loose and you are repeatedly woken up. Lot's of weird thing happening on your trip, and you the experienced crew/delivery/business/adventure kinda guy.
> 
> *If you decide to sue, make sure you list that on your next crew qualification CV. Sure be get lots of crew offers after that.*


Yeah, the irony is pretty thick, alright...

"Frivolous lawsuits" are only bad, _sometimes_...



rockDAWG said:


> IT is not an easy decision. I think Bounty situation is quiet different from Rule 62. Bounty LLC is an organization and Rule 62 is a privately Mom and pap operating pleasure boat.
> 
> If I perished in the sea, I don't want my wife to sue my sailor buddy who was kind enough to give me a ride regardless what happened. **** happens, we must bear all the risk on our own shoulder. However My legal council Schumberg and Goldstein would think differently.
> 
> Likewise, if have need a crew and **** happens, he died. I don't want his family go after my nest egg. A few weeks ago, I indeed post a thread regarding how to protect ourselves from frivolous lawsuit. Even if you win, you will lose big time.
> 
> *If Laura's family wins the case, no owner will want to take on any crews and no captain can afford to hire crew or vise verse.*


----------



## JonEisberg

rockDAWG said:


> Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> 
> Hmmm, change of heart, eh?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody died on this voyage, right?
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> In the Rule 62' case, there was no evidence to mistreatment from the captain. No survivors has spoken since the tragedy. In this case, there were plenty of evidence at hand.
> 
> Not sure what is your problem?
Click to expand...

I don't have a "problem", I'm simply gobsmacked by the irony of and inconsistency of your point of view...

You don't believe there is legitimacy to a lawsuit against the owner of RULE 62, whose incompetence or negligent behavior led directly to the DEATH of one of his crew, and yet you feel you are entitled to sue this guy because he simply _"mistreated"_ you, and generally made your life _unpleasant_ for a couple of weeks? Seriously?

Man up, accept the fact that it was your poor judgment that put you on that boat in the first place, chalk it up to another lesson learned, and move on...

Just my opinion, take it or leave it...


----------



## CatMan22

Damn Dawg, that's a heck of a story, I feel bad for encouraging you to go in your previous post. I think after about the second run in with Harry this scenario would have been running through my mind.


----------



## Classic30

rockDAWG said:


> I agree. Most of this organizations are a money making machine in the good old boy club. They charge the participant $3500 plus all other fees. The sale of merchandise and media coverage etc are lots of profits.


I can't speak for the way the TransPac is organised (although from hearing my Dad speak of his race a few years back, I got the impression it was properly and professionally organised and run) but I do think your ignorance is showing.

FYI, major race organisation typically requires large amounts of money to be forked out in insurance, professional event management, advertising and venue hire. Someone else has to get the merchandise made in the first place - and pay for it - whether it is sold or not, and the media must be informed and corralled each step of the way (more $$$) or the whole event descends into chaos. If you look into it you'll find the race entry fees only just cover the insurance and operations side, which typically runs 24hrs from before that race start to after the finish. The bigger (and longer) the race the higher the cost for things like charter of a radio-relay vessel or GPS tracking of each competitor.

From my limited personal experience with yacht race organisation in this part of the world, I have yet to come across any event that was a "money making machine". Indeed, without the tireless (and unrewarded by hangers-on like yourself) efforts of countless *volunteers* working long hours for no money at all - simply the love of the sport - and the financial backing of one or more major sponsors *ALL* major yachting events in the world today (even the current America's Cup event, FWIW) would run at a loss and there'd be no race for you to compete in!

"Profits"? "Good old boy club"?? I don't think so..


----------



## SalNichols94804

Given that were probably not a paid, professional seaman under the Jones Act, it isn't likely that you have ANY course of action. You were a volunteer crew. Period. You get what you get...caveat emptor applies. The fact that you are exploring legal remedies as crew in a sailboat race sets off my red flags. 

Personally, something tells me that your behavior contributed to this nightmare. Yeah, the owner was an [email protected], but rather than work with him, you chose to enlist the willing crew to overturn his authority, call the USCG and generally behave...badly. 

I've done 6 crossings and two races as skipper. It isn't easy. There will be conflicts, as one would expect when stuffing 5-15 people into a restricted space for 8-15 days. I don't sail with screamers, so I would have opted out at the first sign. But really, who goes to sea with someone that they've never met? 

I take great pride in taking care of my crews. But if you grabbed my Satphone and called the USCG because you didn't like one of my decisions...I'd have you arrested when your feet hit solid ground.


----------



## shadowraiths

night0wl said:


> I wouldn't sue...lest you want yourself plastered all over Sailing Anarchy as the latest person to get legal. Look at Podmajersky (sic). The guy was clearly in the right, but became a sailing pariah. Got a Rule 69 hearing against him and a 1 year ban for what (I believe) was another dude behaving unethically.


Here's the link and an excerpt.








The name John Podmajersky was forever registered into the annals of sailing douchebaggery after the Chicago developer sued the Chicago Yacht Club to get his name on a trophy, and his cancer-battling long time crew for a million bucks. That long and sordid story is long over and "Pod" is back to quietly enjoying sailboat racing, but he'll always be remembered for bringing lawyers and the courts somewhere they never, ever should have been allowed: Into a disagreement between two sailors over amateur sailboat racing.​







That aside, and to the OP:

Yes, I found the story to be interesting. At least, initially. Though, imho, you seem hardly without fault. While I do get that crewing for the transpac is/was the main draw I was admittedly surprised in light of your introduction, that you chose to go.

While it certainly sounds like this guy was an insufferable bastard, I do wonder what part you played wrt the seemingly ongoing explosive dynamics. Bc, from your description, it certainly sounds like your role in this particular fiasco was not small.

For example, the way you repeatedly harp about his ESL and him not behaving to your standards? He's been in the country for 16 years, and you expect him to suddenly, what? Sound like someone who grew up speaking US english? Assimilate to your customs?

Aside: You do understand that cultures vary widely? Even within and between communities in the good ole USofA. Moreover, you really should educate yourself on linguistics. Just sayin...

But, I digress.

From your description, it sounded like you had absolutely no respect for this man from the get go. If this is the case, he very likely picked up on that. Which, of course, not surprisingly, exacerbated the situation.

That you are now considering suing this guy is very sad. You chose to go. Even with all of the up-front warning signs. I do not know about other readers but I certainly would not risk even having you aboard my boat, much less crewing on even a short jaunt.

And last but not least. There's this bit:



rockDAWG said:


> Buying my own boat will not satisfy my craving for off shore sailing. If I have my own boat, I will end up putting around the boat at the dock all day, week and year, just like most of you folks.


I think the idiom, , "_beggars can't be choosers_" is apropos here. Esp considering that you seem intent on crewing on other people's boats. People whom, by your very words above, you seem to disrespect their choice to actually own/work and pay for the upkeep of their boats. And yet, you want a free ride? Please.

That said, transpac is a great race. Quite a few of my dockmates have not only crewed but also done the singlehanded transpac. The people who run it and sail it, love sailing.

That you characterize them as a money making machine... that you would even remotely consider going after as a result of your poor choice, leaves me wondering why you even wanted to crew in this race in the first place.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Transpac????????????


Puleazzzzze. San Fran to hawaii is 2,000nms. Trans Pacific from there to the other side of the Pacifc (ie a trans pac) is 6,000 nms.


I agree with RockD it must have sucked bit time. Dunno how it can work out better... unless only taking my own boat.

And being able to sail my own boat without crew. 


Mark


----------



## diverchick71

At work dammit...have to go. Will be back to read the rest!!!


----------



## jameswilson29

Sounds as if a good time was had by all!


----------



## Ajax_MD

shadowraiths said:


> <snip>That aside, and to the OP:
> 
> Yes, I found the story to be interesting. At least, initially. Though, imho, you seem hardly without fault. While I do get that crewing for the transpac is/was the main draw *I was admittedly surprised in light of your introduction, that you chose to go.*
> 
> While it certainly sounds like this guy was an insufferable bastard,* I do wonder what part you played wrt the seemingly ongoing explosive dynamics. *Bc, from your description, it certainly sounds like your role in this particular fiasco was not small.
> 
> For example, the way you repeatedly harp about his ESL and him not behaving to your standards? He's been in the country for 16 years, and you expect him to suddenly, what? Sound like someone who grew up speaking US english? Assimilate to your customs?
> 
> Aside: You do understand that cultures vary widely? Even within and between communities in the good ole USofA. Moreover, you really should educate yourself on linguistics. Just sayin...
> 
> But, I digress.
> 
> *From your description, it sounded like you had absolutely no respect for this man from the get go.* If this is the case, he very likely picked up on that. Which, of course, not surprisingly, exacerbated the situation.
> 
> That you are now considering suing this guy is very sad. You chose to go. Even with all of the up-front warning signs. I do not know about other readers but I certainly would not risk even having you aboard my boat, much less crewing on even a short jaunt.
> 
> And last but not least. There's this bit:
> 
> I think the idiom, , "_beggars can't be choosers_" is apropos here. Esp considering that you seem intent on crewing on other people's boats. People whom, by your very words above, you seem to disrespect their choice to actually own/work and pay for the upkeep of their boats. And yet, you want a free ride? Please.
> 
> That said, transpac is a great race. Quite a few of my dockmates have not only crewed but also done the singlehanded transpac. The people who run it and sail it, love sailing.
> 
> That you characterize them as a money making machine... that you would even remotely consider going after as a result of your poor choice, leaves me wondering why you even wanted to crew in this race in the first place.


Ugh...I give up on bolding the the relevant comments. The whole darned post pretty much nails it.

Shadow, you are wise my dear. I bow to your superior articulation.


----------



## JomsViking

rockDAWG said:


> Nightowl, it is a good advise and has wisdom. I will certainly take heart to consider this calmly and logically. Thanks.


Counting to ten is always good advice - Wish I had always heeded what my Dad told me


----------



## krisscross

JulieMor said:


> ...where all the Tahitian women were topless...


Not only topless, but sported breasts that were like horns on a buffalo... 
I would have stayed too... by hiding deep in the interior before the Bounty sailed out of the harbor, so I could later pretend I just missed the boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

Interesting snippet from SA:



> Tony-F18, on 01 Aug 2013 - 10:37, said:
> 
> I thought the story might be juiced up a little for the sake of a good story, until I found their restaurants's Yelp page:
> 
> Review by a customer:
> 
> *EXTREMELY RUDE, nasty cashier running this place. Service is usually not at the top of my priorities when eating from a little stall in the wall at the farmer's market but this guy went from rude to rabid dog in about 30 seconds. I ordered a few rolls, he gives me change back then walks up to the sushi counter to grab the fish WITHOUT WASHING HIS HANDS OR PUTTING ON GLOVES!! Had I not been watching his every move I would have been tasting dirty cash register fingers in my spicy tuna hand roll. ( I was watching him since from the get go I got the feeling that this was the kind of guy who would spit in your food and call it a garnish).
> 
> I kindly requested that he put on gloves and he barked some incoherent annoyingly shrieking broken English at me. I kept calm and tried to explain to the guy that he was required to wear gloves and that If he did not I had the right to ask him to. The guy continued to argue with me but Its amazing how the words HEALTH DEPARTMENT are universally understood in the restaurant world.
> 
> This was a total fiasco. The sushi was OK but the cashier needed a muzzle and an attitude makeover.*


Sound familiar RDawg?


----------



## Skipper Jer

PLEASE someone go to his eatery with a video camera to catch one of his melt downs.
I'd do it but I live in east Tennessee.


----------



## kellysails

I smell the beginnings of a new reality show. RDawg if you could stand to do a weekly sailing with the guy their might be some serious bucks in it for you. Just hire some chase boats to pull you out of the drink on occasion, adds to the drama. It makes "Deadliest Catch" look like child's play. Maybe Jake's transpac tape could be the teaser. It sounds like Jake has some experience in this realm. :laugher

Now what would this new reality series be called?


----------



## Cruisingdad

kellysails said:


> Now what would this new reality series be called?


"Don't _Rock_ the boat!"

Brian


----------



## aa3jy

rockDAWG said:


> My crewing/captaining luck finally ran out on me, I was shaken but not broken. I need reinvent my luck to continue to sail the great ocean ours.


Been there..done this.. I can attest to the 'Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde' personality change(s) of a trip to long on a small boat in a big ocean with a crew and Captain that appeared to be somewhat normal on land and completly irrational once at sea.

It's easy now with internet background checks that may possibly eliminate or shed light on some possible problems.


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> Interesting snippet from SA:
> 
> Sound familiar RDawg?


This will continue the threads drift, but I think it needs to be said. I am sure the sarcastic personal attack will begin after I post this.

Steve,

Why would you cherry pick out the WORST review of 48 on Yelp of this establishment. Was this to justify your point of view. I really have no knowledge of this place personally...nor do you.

In the interest of fair play and objectivity I have linked the other 47 reviews which present an *UNBIASED * more objective opinion.

It appears this establishment has its critics and its supporters and falls somewhat in the middle of the road in terms of reviews, trending to the positive.

Sushi A Go Go - Mid-City West - Los Angeles, CA

Sushi A Go Go - Reviews & Menu - Mid-Wilshire - Los Angeles 90036

https://foursquare.com/v/sushiagogo/

The continued personal attack on this gentleman without corroboration of the posted story seems ludicrous. Then to take it from the Transpac 2013 Race to his business establishment and who he hires is even a larger jump into the unknown. The whole post from Rockdawg is a good story andseems personal in nature.

I will reserve a detailed post of the questions and inconsistencies I have till later, but suffice it to say that Rockdawg has shouldered zero responsibility for the alleged accounts of what took place other than a poor choice of captains on his part.

One can only wonder why someone would ignore all the warning signs present before leaving on the race and risk life and limb on a large ocean passage with someone you clearly did not know or trust and had reservations about.

If there is one thing to learn if you even only believe 10% of this tale, is that you shouldn't sail off with someone you have the slightest doubt in their ability or their character.

This would seem to be a major lapse in judgment. Good judgment is one of the keys to risk management. More to come.


----------



## GeorgeB

RD,
I was shocked when I read about your horrific experience on the Transpac. I have heard stories from friends about their “race from hell” but your story beats them all hands down. One common theme in all the stories is the lack of proper provisioning. I think that if you see that the boat isn’t properly provisioned – cut your losses and walk away then and there.

Can you clarify a couple of things? Did the Jeaneau have a symmetric or A-kite? How were the crew positions outlined at the start? You mentioned that you were the navigator, yet Jake was downloading the GRIBs and Harry was setting the course. It seems to me that Harry used your’ s and Jake’s resumes in order to qualify for the race? Was the agreement that you and Jake would crew in exchange for free transportation and food during the trip? Can you post the link to the NOR and SI’s? How did you guys do your morning check-in? Also through the SATphone? Does the Transpac allow for autohems? How did you manage the energy consumption on the boat?

I am a little surprised of the casual attitude on the part of the Transpac race committee. I wonder if they have gotten complacent over the years as the vast majority of boats racing are sleds crewed by rock stars? I’m not sure you have much recourse against the RC. Somewhere in that paperwork you must have signed a crew waiver. My experience in running regattas is there isn’t much money to go after – one of the biggest expenses is the D&O insurance premium to defend the RC against lawsuits. As to the RC providing conflict counciling, don't expect them to provide "marriage counciling services" or the USCG to air drop a social worker anytime soon. (I think it is even covered in the NOR under the section pertaining to the "skipper's responsibility to race".)

My experience with the PacCup was the opposite. We had a very rigorous inspection a month ahead of the race. Half of the crew had to have a current SAS certificate and previous ocean racing experience. We had to demonstrate that our emergency rudder could turn the boat in a complete 360 in under two minutes and we needed to certify that we “passed” a MOB drill. There were countless other requirements (I have a 2” binder at home chronicling our preparation.)

Flying a kite at sea is a lot more difficult than inshore. The way Hawaii (Oahu) is situated in the trades, you have to steer really deep angles – just right for a head stay wrap. Not all ocean racers may agree, but we swear by using a “spinnaker net”. This is a simple set-up using webbing shaped like a big letter “A” (with three cross pieces). You hoist using the spare jib halyard and one leg goes to the base of the mast and the other behind the stem fitting. The “net” is like kryptonite to a spinnaker intent on head stay wrapping. The sail just touches the “net” then bounces back to where it belongs.

The big difference between the Eastern and Western Pacific is the lack of islands on the eastern side. The PacCup race will place you the furthest from land in all ocean races and is second only to Point Nemo in remoteness. If you slide too far south in the trades on the way to Hawaii, your next best landfall are the Line Islands.


----------



## Cruisingdad

GeorgeB said:


> RD,
> I was shocked when I read about your horrific experience on the Transpac. I have heard stories from friends about their "race from hell" but your story beats them all hands down. One common theme in all the stories is the lack of proper provisioning. I think that if you see that the boat isn't properly provisioned - cut your losses and walk away then and there.
> 
> Can you clarify a couple of things? Did the Jeaneau have a symmetric or A-kite? How were the crew positions outlined at the start? You mentioned that you were the navigator, yet Jake was downloading the GRIBs and Harry was setting the course. It seems to me that Harry used your' s and Jake's resumes in order to qualify for the race? Was the agreement that you and Jake would crew in exchange for free transportation and food during the trip? Can you post the link to the NOR and SI's? How did you guys do your morning check-in? Also through the SATphone? Does the Transpac allow for autohems? How did you manage the energy consumption on the boat?
> 
> I am a little surprised of the casual attitude on the part of the Transpac race committee. I wonder if they have gotten complacent over the years as the vast majority of boats racing are sleds crewed by rock stars? I'm not sure you have much recourse against the RC. Somewhere in that paperwork you must have signed a crew waiver. My experience in running regattas is there isn't much money to go after - one of the biggest expenses is the D&O insurance premium to defend the RC against lawsuits. As to the RC providing conflict counciling, don't expect them to provide "marriage counciling services" or the USCG to air drop a social worker anytime soon. (I think it is even covered in the NOR under the section pertaining to the "skipper's responsibility to race".)
> 
> My experience with the PacCup was the opposite. We had a very rigorous inspection a month ahead of the race. Half of the crew had to have a current SAS certificate and previous ocean racing experience. We had to demonstrate that our emergency rudder could turn the boat in a complete 360 in under two minutes and we needed to certify that we "passed" a MOB drill. There were countless other requirements (I have a 2" binder at home chronicling our preparation.)
> 
> Flying a kite at sea is a lot more difficult than inshore. The way Hawaii (Oahu) is situated in the trades, you have to steer really deep angles - just right for a head stay wrap. Not all ocean racers may agree, but we swear by using a "spinnaker net". This is a simple set-up using webbing shaped like a big letter "A" (with three cross pieces). You hoist using the spare jib halyard and one leg goes to the base of the mast and the other behind the stem fitting. The "net" is like kryptonite to a spinnaker intent on head stay wrapping. The sail just touches the "net" then bounces back to where it belongs.
> 
> The big difference between the Eastern and Western Pacific is the lack of islands on the eastern side. The PacCup race will place you the furthest from land in all ocean races and is second only to Point Nemo in remoteness. If you slide too far south in the trades on the way to Hawaii, your next best landfall are the Line Islands.


That is the best post yet. Great post, George.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

BTW, I thought you couldn't Autopilot on that race? Didn't that disqualify you? Would that be why the captain refused it?

Do you know George?

Brian


----------



## shadowraiths

Cruisingdad said:


> BTW, I thought you couldn't Autopilot on that race? Didn't that disqualify you? Would that be why the captain refused it?


From the 2013 transpac rules:

1.6 Auto pilot use is only permitted for double handed boats.​


----------



## jimgo

If you read some of the check-in information from the race committee, you'll see that once the Autopilot was used, the boat was DQ'd.


----------



## capta

Quite honestly, I feel that there is a lot more to this story than we are getting here.
However, be that as it may be, the fact that you were aboard that boat 10 seconds after leaving the dock w/o topping up the water tanks on a 2225 mile voyage, makes all that followed YOUR fault, even if you had a water maker aboard, which you did not mention.
I have never heard anything so stupid in over 50 years of voyaging! Who needs sails when one is dying from dehydration? Or navigation?
If you want to continue sailing and making a living aboard boats, you are going to have to work on your judgement skills. It was totally irresponsible for you to sail on that boat and no one should expect you to honor your agreement to do so, if the captain attempted to leave the dock w/o filling the tanks.
Do not try to make your part in this horror story anyone's fault but your own. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE!


----------



## Cruisingdad

jimgo said:


> If you read some of the check-in information from the race committee, you'll see that once the Autopilot was used, the boat was DQ'd.


Thats what I have been saying. I wonder if RD knew that and the captain did too, which is why he did not want to run the AP?

I guess only RD and the captain know the answer to that.

Brian


----------



## juggleandhope

A few points as we collaborate together to make sense of the experience RD has shared with the forum;

1. Filing with the California Department of Labor seems ethically required - that's how we protect other workers from employer abuse. To not do so is like leaving a bottle lying on a public staircase - even though you don't know who will fall or how bad they'll be injured, you know you've got to pick up the bottle. Another benefit of filing with the DOL would be that, after initial filing, the DOL pursues the case and eats the time and energy of the scary people, without much additional impetus from you. In other words, it has the beauty of a washing machine or setting a sail and won't require much of your life to keep it going. Any passage-making captain who would blackball you as crew for continuing to guarantee the safety of your fellow sailors (as you did in the original "mutiny") would be pledging an absurd allegiance to a ruling-class-solidarity over safety and decency and you'd be better off not on their boats.

2. Several posters have published personal attacks on RD and blamed him for the experience he and the others had to survive. Although the crudeness of these attacks seem initially surprising I think we're all familiar with the urge to blame victims. If it's the victims fault it's no one else's problem, I'm not endangered because I won't make the mistake the victim did, I'm absolved of solidarity in the face of injustice, and so forth. I'd like to imagine that the most unsympathetic people (like Ellidyr in the Black Cauldron) actually have the largest hearts and thus have the most fear of opening them - like how the most angrily homophobic men sometimes have surprising blood-flows in research studies?

3. Congrats to RD on not throwing the two bosses overboard. You would have regretted it later, probably, and thus you should feel proud that you handled the situation well enough that everyone could walk away. Congrats also on keeping the faith with your fellow crew - sometimes in crazy situations unless you're strong and lucky everyone turns on everyone as each small "betrayal" feels threatening. Sounds like you two did great in not turning on each other and in sailing the boat to a safe port. I'm curious how you managed to work out the moments when the two of you felt at cross-purposes - you describe the first one, when he thought exiting the race and you told him to do what he thought was right.

4. In terms of Bligh, I remember reading in his journal that several sailors tried the hide-in-the-woods trick and despite help from very friendly Tahitians it didn't work. From the reading I've done it seems that one factor in the decision to mutiny had to do with Bligh's mixed role as both the person who oversees provision-dispensing and the person allowed to profit by substituting cheap provisions for customary ones. I've also read a hypothesis that perhaps Bligh's violence, which didn't particularly exceed other captains', had a different "tone" because he himself wasn't an aristocrat but desperately wanted to be accepted as one. People hate wanna-bes. Finally, I'll point out that his other major appointment, Governor of (what's now called) Australia, also ended in a successful revolution.

Thanks again for sharing the story so we can all learn from it, RD.


----------



## Flybyknight

With all due respect to those who cast RD's account in a negative light, and I do mean this with the respect; look, you weren't there and the boat and crew arrived intact, so who are you to judge? 
And RD, your post while exceptionally gripping and exciting, should have stuck to the facts as you saw them, and left personalities out; I mean completely out.
IMHO
Dick


----------



## SlowButSteady

Randolph555 said:


> ...the account of RD crewman was right in the fact that the owner and friend had very little spin exp., ...


I suspected as much after I did a search and found a few fairly recent race results showing _Aquarius_ sailing in non-spinnaker classes. Somehow, I would think that the TransPac wouldn't be a great venue to try improving ones limited sail-handling skills.


----------



## Capt Len

I've had skippers try violence or days of fetal position. The violence doesn't work as I'm 6' 7" and 235 and the fetal is easy ,, just sail the boat.It's all about the personalities and weaknesses of the characters involved. I've got some tales to tell but this one takes the hardtac. On to the next adventure.


----------



## smackdaddy

Randolph555 said:


> I was asked to run that race team and got Don Souther and Duncon Harrison as teammates.... Duncon has been on 4 transPacs and won on Willow Wind (Cal 40)... they wanted me to trade Duncon for the 86yr old woman!!! The owner (in a text) said she made for a good drinking partner!.... Talked to Don and Duncon and under the advise of Don's brother Bob, Sam Heck and Merry, Steve Tregor (Grand Illusion), Richard Parlette(White Knight), and practically everyone else we ran for the hills!!! That boat should never have left the dock!!!... we all feel sorry for the crew RD and Jake and believe there is truth in that report as I have raced that boat to PV and dealt with these people before!.. they are decent people but their flair-ups are notorious!
> 
> Aquarius passed quite easily the pre-race inspection, as it was campaigned as a live-aboard boat that races and therefore be measured/weighed as is (compared to another similar boat by the inspector it passed specs.) Unfortunately, the boat had no real sail arsenal and being a virtual last-minute entry it somewhat slipped its way through the cracks.... the account of RD crewman was right in the fact that the owner and friend had very little spin exp., in fact, we had the same problems in the PV race although we managed a 2nd.
> (FYI)...cheers, Randy


Thanks for the details Randy. That puts the whole thing a bit more into perspective.

But obviously you haven't seen the 86 y.o. on the coffee grinder after a case or two of beer. She's a madman.


----------



## shadowraiths

smackdaddy said:


> But obviously you haven't seen the 86 y.o. on the coffee grinder after a case or two of beer. She's a madman.


Would love to hear what she was doing during the screaming matches and physical fights. It's a curious cat sorta thing...


----------



## smackdaddy

I still don't know why RDawg and Jake didn't duct tape Captain Furious into the boasun's chair, run him up the mast, and leave him.






And the 86 y.o.


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> I still don't know why RDawg and Jake didn't duct tape Captain Furious into the boasun's chair, run him up the mast, and leave him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the 86 y.o.


And what right would he have to imprison the Captain of the vessel. Just because he got his feelings hurt and didn't like being yelled at. Just because he didn't agree with the Captains decisions? Just because he felt he had superior knowledge than the Captain? None of that would justify taking over the boat and mutinying.

RD has ridiculed the Captain and BTW his self professed attitude to those who own boats by his own statements in this thread and others.

Did you ever think maybe that's why the CG recommended what they did and didn't get involved. Lots of accusations, rants and threats by Rockdawg....against the owner and his business, against the race organizers of the Transpac, against the Coast Guard. Yet nothing being done but airing it here. Sounds like a paper tiger.

Strange wonder why?


----------



## chef2sail

Randolph555 said:


> I was asked to run that race team and got Don Souther and Duncon Harrison as teammates.... Duncon has been on 4 transPacs and won on Willow Wind (Cal 40)... they wanted me to trade Duncon for the 86yr old woman!!! The owner (in a text) said she made for a good drinking partner!.... Talked to Don and Duncon and under the advise of Don's brother Bob, Sam Heck and Merry, Steve Tregor (Grand Illusion), Richard Parlette(White Knight), and practically everyone else we ran for the hills!!! That boat should never have left the dock!!!... we all feel sorry for the crew RD and Jake and believe there is truth in that report as I have raced that boat to PV and dealt with these people before!.. they are decent people but their flair-ups are notorious!
> 
> Aquarius passed quite easily the pre-race inspection, as it was campaigned as a live-aboard boat that races and therefore be measured/weighed as is (compared to another similar boat by the inspector it passed specs.) Unfortunately, the boat had no real sail arsenal and being a virtual last-minute entry it somewhat slipped its way through the cracks.... the account of RD crewman was right in the fact that the owner and friend had very little spin exp., in fact, we had the same problems in the PV race although we managed a 2nd.
> (FYI)...cheers, Randy


Randy....

Thank you for shedding light on their reputation. You are obviously experienced and have experienced friends, as you showed good judgment in not going with them a second time without your friends, but you were thinking about it till they nixed your friend replaced by the 86year old. If it was terrible the first time to PV why did you even consider going again?

Would you agree there is a big difference between the run to Hawaii and the run to Puerto Vharda? Was this boat adequately outfitted ( besides the sails) to do this passage safely. Did it have the proper safety equipment?

I noticed you just joined Sailnet and this is your first post, so how did you find out about this controversy? What boat did you eventually get a ride on?

You said you texted with the Captain. Do you have the Captains e mail address. Could you PM it to me. It might be nice to here the other side of this story also


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> And what right would he have to imprison the Captain of the vessel. Just because he got his feelings hurt and didn't like being yelled at. Just because he didn't agree with the Captains decisions? Just because he felt he had superior knowledge than the Captain? None of that would justify taking over the boat and mutinying.
> 
> RD has ridiculed the Captain and BTW his self professed attitude to those who own boats by his own statements in this thread and others.
> 
> Did you ever think maybe that's why the CG recommended what they did and didn't get involved. Lots of accusations, rants and threats by Rockdawg....against the owner and his business, against the race organizers of the Transpac, against the Coast Guard. Yet nothing being done but airing it here. Sounds like a paper tiger.
> 
> Strange wonder why?


Easy there Tarzan. It was a joke.

You can find the guy's contact info on the interwebs if you look. Actually go up to the help wanted link in this thread.


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> Easy there Tarzan. It was a joke.
> 
> You can find the guy's contact info on the interwebs if you look. Actually go up to the help wanted link in this thread.


I have done that already thanks.

That e mail was a Generic e mail for the business. No answer on the cell. Was hoping since Randolf had already spoken directly to him there was an alternative number


----------



## shadowraiths

SA does not seem to be quite as ready to skewer the captain while lauding RD & "Jake" as heroes. In fact, I think this individual nails the situation rather well.


----------



## Classic30

shadowraiths said:


> From the 2013 transpac rules:
> 
> 1.6 Auto pilot use is only permitted for double handed boats.​


If that means what I think it means, it sounds like RD was waaaay out of line *insisting* on it being used, even though it sounds like the 'captain' was too inexperienced to skipper the boat safely without it during his watches.

The Transpac is one of the world's major ocean races, not some paddle around the lake. Given the amount of $$ the 'captain' would have needed to fork out to enter (and forfeit by using the autopilot) and the hassle spent getting the boat to the start line and given his apparent temper, I'm surprised the 'captain' didn't chuck RD overboard...


----------



## davidpm

I've got one lesson learned and one question.
Lesson:
If you have RockDawg as crew you can abuse and scream at him all you want.
Sounds like a lot of race boats.*

Just don't mess with his food and water. 



Question:
How exactly does the business own the boat and how is that handled tax wise.


----------



## aeventyr60

food and water and a scratch under the chin once in a while is usually all it takes for most dogs, I mean crew...


----------



## shadowraiths

Hartley18 said:


> If that means what I think it means


Well, here's a clarification from the transpac incident report.








￼14 July 2013 Aquarius Aquarius reported by sat phone to Commodore Cort that they were using the ￼￼autopilot. Commodore Cort explained that its use was not permitted in their ￼￼Division by the NOR​







Notice the dates.



rockDAWG said:


> Day 8, July 15:
> Cloudy again
> Since I was ordered to stay in my berth, I did not do any watch. When I was up, I was informed the spinnaker was down, Harry claimed it was a wild gybe or should I say he was not good enough to sail at night with the spinnaker. I told him to use autohelm if needed to control the sudden wind changes. But he avoids and claim that autohelm is dangerous.


----------



## rockDAWG

GeorgeB said:


> RD,
> I was shocked when I read about your horrific experience on the Transpac. I have heard stories from friends about their "race from hell" but your story beats them all hands down. One common theme in all the stories is the lack of proper provisioning. I think that if you see that the boat isn't properly provisioned - cut your losses and walk away then and there.
> 
> Can you clarify a couple of things? Did the Jeaneau have a symmetric or A-kite? How were the crew positions outlined at the start? You mentioned that you were the navigator, yet Jake was downloading the GRIBs and Harry was setting the course. It seems to me that Harry used your' s and Jake's resumes in order to qualify for the race? Was the agreement that you and Jake would crew in exchange for free transportation and food during the trip? Can you post the link to the NOR and SI's? How did you guys do your morning check-in? Also through the SATphone? Does the Transpac allow for autohems? How did you manage the energy consumption on the boat?
> 
> I am a little surprised of the casual attitude on the part of the Transpac race committee. I wonder if they have gotten complacent over the years as the vast majority of boats racing are sleds crewed by rock stars? I'm not sure you have much recourse against the RC. Somewhere in that paperwork you must have signed a crew waiver. My experience in running regattas is there isn't much money to go after - one of the biggest expenses is the D&O insurance premium to defend the RC against lawsuits. As to the RC providing conflict counciling, don't expect them to provide "marriage counciling services" or the USCG to air drop a social worker anytime soon. (I think it is even covered in the NOR under the section pertaining to the "skipper's responsibility to race".)
> 
> Flying a kite at sea is a lot more difficult than inshore. The way Hawaii (Oahu) is situated in the trades, you have to steer really deep angles - just right for a head stay wrap. Not all ocean racers may agree, but we swear by using a "spinnaker net". This is a simple set-up using webbing shaped like a big letter "A" (with three cross pieces). You hoist using the spare jib halyard and one leg goes to the base of the mast and the other behind the stem fitting. The "net" is like kryptonite to a spinnaker intent on head stay wrapping. The sail just touches the "net" then bounces back to where it belongs.
> 
> The big difference between the Eastern and Western Pacific is the lack of islands on the eastern side. The PacCup race will place you the furthest from land in all ocean races and is second only to Point Nemo in remoteness. If you slide too far south in the trades on the way to Hawaii, your next best landfall are the Line Islands.


GeorgeB, thanks for the post, it was well written with all good intention for all of us. I will try to address your questions the best I know how given limited free time I have currently.



> I think that if you see that the boat isn't properly provisioned - cut your losses and walk away then and there.


In the hindsight I should have, but then, I would miss this opportunity to sail TransPac. With this under my belt, I can do TransPac in a few years with my own boat. The sailing challenge of TransPac was not tough at least at the time we were going through. But to win this race is all about strategy in the first 3 to 4 days along with the consistent repeated performance. That is what I have learned.

I am not a quitter, I will adapted and but never quit. It is not my style. In fact, I was yelled at the lest among three of us (Jake, Jane and me). I can deal with his anger, but totally disregard weather reports and refuse to down load weather files and constantly mishandling the spinnaker made me frustrated and hopeless to get to Hawaii in a reasonable time.

On the Day 4th or 5th, Harry was screaming at us to take the spinnaker down after he woke up, He yelled me and ordered me to go the dock without my harness. After the spinnaker was down, I was so mad that I had a confrontation with him. That was the last he ever yelled at me. From time to time, he threw out some dirt, but I ignored or just walked out. Unfortunately, Jake was not so lucky. Their fights are constant daily.



> Can you clarify a couple of things? Did the Jeaneau have a symmetric or A-kite? How were the crew positions outlined at the start? You mentioned that you were the navigator, yet Jake was downloading the GRIBs and Harry was setting the course. It seems to me that Harry used your' s and Jake's resumes in order to qualify for the race? Was the agreement that you and Jake would crew in exchange for free transportation and food during the trip? Can you post the link to the NOR and SI's? How did you guys do your morning check-in? Also through the SATphone? Does the Transpac allow for autohems? How did you manage the energy consumption on the boat?.


We have a sym. kite. The crew position is the same I listed in my first post. I was a navigator on papar. In fact, Day 0, the list of responsibility throw out the window. There was two commanders - Harry and Jane. 
I am not sure how they qualified themselves, both Jake and I have sent in lots of official notarized documents to the committee.

Yes, they agreed our transportation are provided. Meals are provided Sushi Chef, dinner at SamWoo on arrival and massage at one of the health spas, plus official Transpac clothing. All these were documented in their email to us. All are lies, never happened. Besides my flight ticket, all are silly stuff that I don't really care.



> How did you guys do your morning check-in? Also through the SATphone? Does the Transpac allow for autohems? How did you manage the energy consumption on the boat?


In the first few days, either me or Jake did the morning check in all through sat Phone. After Jane found out Jake has been sending messages to the Committee about the bad situation and his use of VHF calling other vessel for help, they hided the Sat phone and radio.

TransPac rule does not specifically prohibit use of Autohelm. If you are a doubler, you can use autohelm. The rule stops there. We spoke to the Committee via Sat Phone, using autohelm does not lead to automatically disqualification. It may carry some penalty. I believe it would be justifiable to use autohelm temporary to help the boat to gain back control in a dacy situation. We were in the Division 8, we are the amateur race team.

In our case, we were the last at all time. We were late at the start for 20 mins, and the next following 4 days, we stopped moving for few hours listening to harry and Jane lecturing everyday.

Harry started his engine a few time a day claiming to charge the batteries. I have never see a captain need to charge the batteries so frequently. I questioned him a few times, never got a decent answer, I gave up. He also prohibited us to charge our Phone, lap tops. We ended up charging our when he sleeps. So many petty shiit, no one could beleive it in 2013.



> I am a little surprised of the casual attitude on the part of the Transpac race committee. I wonder if they have gotten complacent over the years as the vast majority of boats racing are sleds crewed by rock stars? I'm not sure you have much recourse against the RC. Somewhere in that paperwork you must have signed a crew waiver. My experience in running regattas is there isn't much money to go after - one of the biggest expenses is the D&O insurance premium to defend the RC against lawsuits. As to the RC providing conflict counciling, don't expect them to provide "marriage counciling services" or the USCG to air drop a social worker anytime soon. (I think it is even covered in the NOR under the section pertaining to the "skipper's responsibility to race".)


I did not beleive that either. Since I was not there for the first safety inspection, so I did not know how strict it was. But the follow up inspection was just a formality, I was there show the stuff.

I was not looking for counseling. We were crying for help to move our boat in a reasonable speed. They knew how slow we were. At that pace, we would not able to get to Hawaii by the last arrival date they set for the race - the 26th. All Jake wants them to say to tell Harry or Jane is: It is Ok to use autohelm for emergency situation. Or use can use autohelm with how many of point of penalty. Again, we were the last one, what does it matter. But they refused. When I called, he hung on me. That was disappointed.

After I called CG and I informed Harry that Jake has spoken to the CG. Harry backed down and agreed to use Autohelm. A few days later, Jane called committee to withdraw from the race. The CG did not need to do anything, the act of calling to CG got what we want. That is what we need at this situation. *We barely missed the tropical storm Flossie. 
*



> Flying a kite at sea is a lot more difficult than inshore. The way Hawaii (Oahu) is situated in the trades, you have to steer really deep angles - just right for a head stay wrap. Not all ocean racers may agree, but we swear by using a "spinnaker net". This is a simple set-up using webbing shaped like a big letter "A" (with three cross pieces). You hoist using the spare jib halyard and one leg goes to the base of the mast and the other behind the stem fitting. The "net" is like kryptonite to a spinnaker intent on head stay wrapping. The sail just touches the "net" then bounces back to where it belongs.


I don't have much problem of flying the spinnaker, although it was my first. One I get a hang of it, it is not too bad. It was tiring becasue I need to constantly look up the Windex and feel how the spinnaker doing behind the main. The problem Harry has is: he can't look at the mast head windex, we use the Windex at the helm. There is 5 to 10 sec delay. But you can't teach the old dog new trick. I have to admit flying spinnaker is hard, but lot of fun since there was much wind during the day, but night, good wind.

After the mutiny on Day 12, we did about half way. Six more days, we did the rest. We sailed twice as fast after we took control minus some incidences that we let Harry had his way - saving face is important.

The spinnaker was a new sail to this boat, Harry has never flew with it. It was a used sail I think it was a bit too bit and keep getting caught. We have a spinnaker net, but was not hoisted up properly later we found out. We ended up taking it down by the order of Harry and was told never want to see it again. That was it. It is his boat and his decision.

I hope I have addressed your questions.

When I have some time, I will address why "no auto helm" was so important to Jane. Later, I found out Harry couldn't care less. I found the answer from the heated argument between Jane and Her mother.

I need to jump out the soap box for fresh air.


----------



## Classic30

rockDAWG said:


> I was not looking for counseling. We were crying for help to move our boat in a reasonable speed. They knew how slow we were. At that pace, we would not able to get to Hawaii by the last arrival date they set for the race - the 26th. All Jake wants them to say to tell Harry or Jane is: It is Ok to use autohelm for emergency situation. Or use can use autohelm with how many of point of penalty. Again, we were the last one, what does it matter. But they refused. When I called, he hung on me. That was disappointed.


Rock, just so you know for future, one thing that is standard all over the world is that *ALL* actions during a race, including whether or not to continue racing, are the responsibility of the nominated skipper.

It's not the responsibility of the Race Committee to help you get to Hawaii before the last arrival date. The time limit is there to allow the people waiting patiently for you at the finish line to not have to wait forever. After the "last arrival date" passes, you are automatically scored DNF and where you end up (Hawaii or the open ocean) is totally up to you.

If the NOR says in your division you get disqualified for using an auto-helm (or the engine), whether you are coming last or first, no-one is stopping you from using it under emergency conditions - but under the race rules the consequence is DNF.

Again, it's the skippers' call, not the Race Committee's.. and a call to the RC could also be read by your competitors as "outside assistance". I suspect that's why he hung up on you. For him to say anything at all could get him in deep do-do.


----------



## CBinRI

Cruisingdad said:


> In all honesty, that would have concerned me too... esp on a run that long.
> 
> This thread should also serve as a warning for those who are always looking to crew (esp as 'companions') to something I have long said: WHen you get on that boat, it isn't like you can just get off an leave. You are now in a situation where you are stuck there at the captains whims. No cell phones and no vhf. If rock did not have a sat phone, it might have been even worse??
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> But I think many people, esp those without boats, are eager to go sailing and experience stuff and may overlook shortcomings (or pretend to over look them). Me? I got my boat and will (and have) told you to screw off. I ain't going. I am picky amd when I go out, it is with competent people that I trust and will have fun with... fun being the key word. If we can all agree on one thing, it was that no one was having fun on RD's boat! Well, maybe the 86 year old gal. She was watching reality tv for weeks!
> 
> Brian


I absolutely would love to do this type of passage but would never do it with folks I hadn't sailed with or didn't know well. Indeed, on my own boat, I would not do a long passage with crew I barely knew.


----------



## SalNichols94804

There is SO MUCH WRONG here that I'm not even sure where to start. To begin with, you showed little to no respect for the skipper before you even left the dock. Your petulance over having to buy your own drinks is telling. 
You signed on as a NAVIGATOR on a downwind race having NEVER BEFORE flown a kite? Just exactly what were your qualifications to sign on as navigator to begin with? 
Then you two twits, having decided that things were not as you wanted started calling the RC, USCG, the U.S. f$$king Navy, and god knows who else on the sly to whine? 
You signed up for a trip to Oahu on an Aloha Division boat, and you were picked by and large because neither of you have or had the experience or skill to get on board a real race boat. You should have accepted your lot in life and delt with it, s-ingtfu in the process, or never left the dock.
A simple look up at the crew list will tell EVERYONE who you are. Personally, you couldn't get on a boat that I run if you pointed a gun at me. I suspect there are a lot of other owners that feel the same.
Finally son, you are dead wrong about the AP. on a crewed boat, it's a DSQ/DNF. At the moment that YOU forced that issue, YOU flushed the owners race investment, whatever it might have been, down the drain. If you had done that to me, on my boat, it would have cost me $55K, and I can guarantee you that you would have been tie wrapped to the lifelines for the duration of the passage.


----------



## carl762

SalNichols94804

Welcome to the Board.  Very well put.

I see a great divide here on the circumstances and horror of RD's trip, the crew, the imprisonment, etc., holy crap!. Tons of excellent responses to RD's horror story. I'll not judge.

RD, save your time, money, health, trust me the legal system thing will be a waste of time.

Get out there, crew another boat, sounds like you have the skills, even more now, after this trip from Hell!


----------



## JonEisberg

SalNichols94804 said:


> There is SO MUCH WRONG here that I'm not even sure where to start...
> 
> You signed on as a NAVIGATOR on a downwind race *having NEVER BEFORE flown a kite?*


Wow, just _WOW_...

I think the mere fact that he actually confessed to that tells us pretty much all we need to know...


----------



## tdw

I'm no racer but why would the navigator expect to end up running the foredeck ? 

I realise on short crewed boats we all need to pitch in but if I signed on as navigator I'd not expect that I'd be in charge of raising and lowering sails. Assisting yes, in charge no.

Am I missing a salient point here ? 

All in all however, I do find it hard to understand why the crew ever set sail. Like lots of us I've sailed on boats with very average equipment levels, been offshore with nothing but a log, depthsounder and vhf, blah blah blah. No other electronics at all but the skipper knew his stuff. Had he struck me as a borderline nutter then reaction is simple. Get off the boat and go home. Don't set sail. I appreciate the point re experience but I'm sorry, that is the kind of experience I can do without.


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> There is SO MUCH WRONG here that I'm not even sure where to start...
> 
> You signed on as a NAVIGATOR on a downwind race having NEVER BEFORE flown a kite? Just exactly what were your qualifications to sign on as navigator to begin with?





JonEisberg said:


> Wow, just _WOW_...
> 
> I think the mere fact that he actually confessed to that tells us pretty much all we need to know...


Just one thing...as RDawg mentioned, I wouldn't take the "Navigator" moniker too seriously. You guys are assuming he sold himself as that. Did the 86 y.o. really sell herself as the pitman? Seriously?

Look, in my book, all this is the responsibility of the captain. Pure and simple. He chose his crew - and only 2/5's of them could sail, and he didn't like either one of them. He also took his boat and crew out woefully unprepared. Every bit of that was a bad call. And it's on him.


----------



## SalNichols94804

JonEisberg said:


> Wow, just _WOW_...
> 
> I think the mere fact that he actually confessed to that tells us pretty much all we need to know...


Basically, he's qualified to be a cab driver, and maybe as delivery crew.


----------



## tomandchris

Sounds like this is one big cluster.......never mind. I agree, the captain is responsible for preperation and running the boat. In some ways it seems that he was not capable, and in some cases it sounds like the crew was not letting him. Who is right, all of our guesses mean nothing.

Bottom line for me. If the captain is shoving off on this trip without topping off the water tanks, I am stepping off as he does so. Being loud I can deal with, being stupid I can't deal with because he makes me stupid for going along with him.

The race experience was important to RD, but surviving the race should have been more important for him and his family. This inexperienced crew was just damn lucky that the weather they encountered was calms.


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackers, I'm going to ask you when you last skippered a boat on a major passage?


----------



## SalNichols94804

tdw said:


> I'm no racer but why would the navigator expect to end up running the foredeck ?
> 
> I realise on short crewed boats we all need to pitch in but if I signed on as navigator I'd not expect that I'd be in charge of raising and lowering sails. Assisting yes, in charge no.
> 
> Am I missing a salient point here ?
> 
> All in all however, I do find it hard to understand why the crew ever set sail. Like lots of us I've sailed on boats with very average equipment levels, been offshore with nothing but a log, depthsounder and vhf, blah blah blah. No other electronics at all but the skipper knew his stuff. Had he struck me as a borderline nutter then reaction is simple. Get off the boat and go home. Don't set sail. I appreciate the point re experience but I'm sorry, that is the kind of experience I can do without.


 On a four person crew, (can't count mom here), everyone needs to be able to do anything. In '10, I navigated an Andrews 56, and my day job was on the bow or the mast, except when it was my turn to drive. You have to make things work because you can't Cary food and water for the number of crew that you'd LIKE. you take whom you need, and work with it.


----------



## shadowraiths

SalNichols94804 said:


> smackers, I'm going to ask you when you last skippered a boat on a major passage?


In the engineering industry, we call this sort of challenge a disk-sizing contest. Iow, what do sailors call it?


----------



## Classic30

shadowraiths said:


> In the engineering industry, we call this sort of challenge a disk-sizing contest. Iow, what do sailors call it?


Arrogance...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Wow, just _WOW_...
> 
> I think the mere fact that he actually confessed to that tells us pretty much all we need to know...





SalNichols94804 said:


> smackers, I'm going to ask you when you last skippered a boat on a major passage?


Never. Just crewed on a few minor ones. But I have my own boat now and will soon.

Regardless, that doesn't matter.

Either the skipper is the skipper...or he's not. You can't have it both ways.

You said it best here...



SalNichols94804 said:


> On a four person crew, (can't count mom here), *everyone needs to be able to do anything*. You have to make things work because you can't Cary food and water for the number of crew that you'd LIKE. *you take whom you need*, and work with it.


This skipper didn't do that. He blew it.


----------



## tomandchris

SailNichols
Can you give those of us that are not initiated an idea of how a 
DSQ costs you $55K? I really have no clue as to the costs of the TransPac.


----------



## SalNichols94804

I just googled RD under his professional name. He sounds like a piece of work all on his own.


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> Just one thing...as RDawg mentioned, I wouldn't take the "Navigator" moniker too seriously. You guys are assuming he sold himself as that. Did the 86 y.o. really sell herself as the pitman? Seriously?
> 
> Look, in my book, all this is the responsibility of the captain. Pure and simple. He chose his crew - and only 2/5's of them could sail, and he didn't like either one of them. He also took his boat and crew out woefully unprepared. Every bit of that was a bad call. And it's on him.


That's I agree with the Captain took his boat out woefully unprepared. This in spite of two other know ocean races that he participated in before .

He increased his burden with Rockdawg. We have seen him on here gaining experience through passage making the last two years if we belive his posting. We do not know how he presented himself to the Captain though. Maybe the Captain thought he was getting someone as experienced as Randolf , as we don't know what kind of credentials he presented.

As far as the term navigator, on a racing vessel such as the Americas Cup or phrf races that means something. On a Transpac race of at least 10-14 days all crew has to be accomplished at almost everything. Setting and mataining a spinnaker is Racing 101.

Again the Captain erred, when he chose the 86 old, and two inexperienced racers, inexperienced navigators, inexperienced passage makers, inexperienced in the Pacific, to attempt 14 days in the open ocean. He didn't even have enough experience to provision , put all the safety equipment on board timely.

Now we get to the crew. No way I would ever risk my life no matter how much experience I woud gain in this situation. I know my limitation and would know my place as being supportive crew with much more experienced ocean racers like Randolf and his friends. Rockdawg has poor judgement in not recognizing his limitations and lack of eperience and not at all recognizing the dangerous situation he was putting himself and others in. He even told Jake he old race with the Captain alone and that it was ok for Jake to bail. The REAL sailors like Randolf and his fiends recognized the situation as too much of a risk and in he name of safety said no way. Rockdawg in his bravado says illl do it alone. This is an obvious and telling clue into his thought process and what is more important, Safety or personal accomplishment. Most accomplished sailors would not have not left he dock with this Captain in this situation with this crew. This is a risk of life for what? He knew he had major doubts but continued on ignoring a slew of red flags. That type of risk taker is not who you want in charge, or even in your crew.

Then they get underway. It seems everything the Captain did was wrong in Rockdawgs mind. Remember the Captain has more experience in ocean racing already and knows the rules too. But RD arrogance raises its head again with criticism of everything the Captain does. One has to wonder how much this was and open and direct challenge,

Imagine you are the Captain. You take on a crew of unknowns , someone who has openly expressed distain for boat owners and probably displayed that. Someone who never set a spinnaker in an ocean race challenging openly your decisions and tactics. Someone who won't shut up and just be the crew but believes he should run the boat. Someone who calls the Coast Guard, the race organizers, the military and who knows who else.

A sign of maturity came from the Coast Guard who recommended tht Rockdawg lower the confrontation threshold. Maturity is when you see the volatile nature of the Captain not to wave. Red flag in front of him, but try and lower the confrontation level. Did Rockdawg do that. Well if his posts on here in terms of confrontation are any pre- indication of what hed do on this mans boat I doubt it. In fact he kept openly challenging him. If I were the Captain and had the right crew...I'd have hog tied him and duct taped his mouth shut and locked him in a cabin till landfall.

So yes Smack is right about the Captains responsibility , but this post also bings into focus the responsibility of the crew.


----------



## SalNichols94804

tomandchris said:


> SailNichols
> Can you give those of us that are not initiated an idea of how a
> DSQ costs you $55K? I really have no clue as to the costs of the TransPac.


I could send you my budget and spreadsheet, but I'll summarize:

Entry, insurance = 3.5k
SSB + modem = 3k
Boat mods = 7k
New rudder= 19k installed
E rudder= 2.5k
Spinnakers=15k
Blast reacher 1.5k used and modified
Food/consumables for 5 for 3wks= 2.2k
Raft rental=.8k round trip
Satphone installed with ext ant=1.5k
Satphone minutes=.5k
All of the crew dinners parties etc.=.8k

Craploads of other nuts and bolts stuff.

Delivery costs=13k

If you get dsq'd, these are sunk costs. The only carry away are the big ticket items which you'll never recover in resale. Essentially, some PhD punk with no financial skin in the game will have gotten you tossed, flushing two years worth of work and nearly 60k.

Trust me, it was the most expensive vacation of my life. If I go in '14, I think I can do it for 20k.

Note that this hasn't addressed the 15k in repairs since I brought the boat home.


----------



## SalNichols94804

And guys, this s a cheap program, not a big boat/gran Prix effort where the costs generally run around 100k/mo for a boat like those in div2 of the Trans PAC.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Smackers, he had an uncooperative crew from the drive from the airport. His best option was to leave the arse at the dock. I had someone try to make the rules on my boat last year. We had a talk.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Man if I was going to piss away 60+k , I think I'd rather be sh*t faced at some achorage to the south of here, trying to remeber how I got there, wondering why my glass always dry and hoping the rash on her sun tanned a$$ is from the non-sikd.


----------



## Classic30

poopdeckpappy said:


> Man if I was going to piss away 60+k , I think I'd rather be sh*t faced at some achorage to the south of here, trying to remeber how I got there, wondering why my glass always dry and hoping the rash on her sun tanned a$$ is from the non-sikd.


Yes, well it's fairly obvious you're not a racer then.  

For racing people, the main object is to WIN... not just some trinket at the end of the race but, far more importantly, the respect of (a) your peers and other competitors as they acknowledge you as "The King" for that race, that year, and (b) your friends for years afterward as they admire the contents of your trophy cabinet. For many, for the prestige of the winners podium, money is no object.

$60k is loose change compared to the money spent by *serious* racers in everything from the Transpac to the America's Cup. Anything much less than that and you're only there for the fun of it.


----------



## aeventyr60

poopdeckpappy said:


> Man if I was going to piss away 60+k , I think I'd rather be sh*t faced at some achorage to the south of here, trying to remeber how I got there, wondering why my glass always dry and hoping the rash on her sun tanned a$$ is from the non-sikd.


5 good years of cruising in the tropics....not sure what all the hype is about racing.


----------



## Classic30

aeventyr60 said:


> 5 good years of cruising in the tropics....not sure what all the hype is about racing.


You're in the groove, spray flying, competition loosing ground to leeward as they chase you to the top mark... Yep, you're right. No idea.

...but some might find 5 years drifting around the tropics just a tad - how can I put it - boring??  

(..and, despite my choice of avatar, I'm no serious racer, btw.. )


----------



## aeventyr60

Hartley18 said:


> You're in the groove, spray flying, competition loosing ground to leeward as they chase you to the top mark... Yep, you're right. No idea.
> 
> ...but some might find 5 years drifting around the tropics just a tad - how can I put it - boring??
> 
> (..and, despite my choice of avatar, I'm no serious racer, btw.. )
> 
> Ha Ha, bored to tears. I wanna job so bad.
> 
> Race ya to the bar, mate!
> 
> Might just be down yer way soon, save me a space on the rail!


----------



## lancelot9898

Well, this has all been an interesting tale. What I find most curious is that Jake had a film crew at the departure and also at the arrival? Maybe I read that wrong. What was the purpose of that film crew? ...to film a pilot for a reality TV show? 

I would just like to know "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say. I think my inital impression of this story might have been wrong.


----------



## sailordave

Wow, 20 pages. I'll jump in though I'm sure I'll regret doing so.

1st, while I know sometimes we all make typos when posting to the Internet, RD is not the most articulate person when he posts; not grammatically or in syntax, so for him to denigrate the owner over his ESL is pretty petty.

2nd, The TRANSPAC is heavy duty. Not a day sail. Granted it's mostly downhill but that's not easy helming. I can teach someone to drive a boat upwind pretty easily. Steering downwind is a lot trickier even if it's not a turbo sled boat. And "Navigator" may just be a label. Because in any distance race there is a huge difference between being the Navigator and actually NAVIGATING.

3rd. RD admits he hasn't flown a chute. And was trying to trim it by looking at the Masthead vane? WTF? Every boat I've been on the chute was trimmed by standing where you could SEE the freaking curl on the chute.
RD reminds me of people I've "worked" with that have held multiple positions and titles.... and couldn't do any of them halfway competently but they have this wonderful looking resume and keep getting picked for other jobs! I can hear it now "I was NAVIGATOR" on a TRANSPAC boat.

I have no idea what really occurred on this trip. I just think that it was a setup to fail before RD even flew out there. Much as I would have liked to do the TRANSPAC I would not have agreed to get on that particular boat w/ those particular people knowing the lack of experience and preparation.

To RD I'll say this. While you seem all gung ho to fly off and sail in exotic places and rack up offshore miles (as am I!) you might better be served by spending some time sailing on a local race boat and getting more experience. Your own posts in this thread alone make me question whether I would want to be offshore w/ you on any boat. That is just an observation and not piling on in response to others who seem to have issue w/ you. I haven't read many of your other posts from other threads and only pop in here a few times a month or so. Just look at my post count!
In the future I would suggest doing "due diligence" and assess the boat/owner as to whether they would be a good fit for you.


----------



## tomandchris

SalNichols94804 said:


> I could send you my budget and spreadsheet, but I'll summarize:
> 
> Entry, insurance = 3.5k
> SSB + modem = 3k
> Boat mods = 7k
> New rudder= 19k installed
> E rudder= 2.5k
> Spinnakers=15k
> Blast reacher 1.5k used and modified
> Food/consumables for 5 for 3wks= 2.2k
> Raft rental=.8k round trip
> Satphone installed with ext ant=1.5k
> Satphone minutes=.5k
> All of the crew dinners parties etc.=.8k
> 
> Craploads of other nuts and bolts stuff.
> 
> Delivery costs=13k
> 
> If you get dsq'd, these are sunk costs. The only carry away are the big ticket items which you'll never recover in resale. Essentially, some PhD punk with no financial skin in the game will have gotten you tossed, flushing two years worth of work and nearly 60k.
> 
> Trust me, it was the most expensive vacation of my life. If I go in '14, I think I can do it for 20k.
> 
> Note that this hasn't addressed the 15k in repairs since I brought the boat home.


Thanks for the information. It is appreciated.


----------



## chucklesR

SalNichols94804 said:


> There is SO MUCH WRONG here that I'm not even sure where to start. To begin with, you showed little to no respect for the skipper before you even left the dock. Your petulance over having to buy your own drinks is telling.
> You signed on as a NAVIGATOR on a downwind race having NEVER BEFORE flown a kite? Just exactly what were your qualifications to sign on as navigator to begin with?
> Then you two twits, having decided that things were not as you wanted started calling the RC, USCG, the U.S. f$$king Navy, and god knows who else on the sly to whine?
> You signed up for a trip to Oahu on an Aloha Division boat, and you were picked by and large because neither of you have or had the experience or skill to get on board a real race boat. You should have accepted your lot in life and delt with it, s-ingtfu in the process, or never left the dock.
> A simple look up at the crew list will tell EVERYONE who you are. Personally, you couldn't get on a boat that I run if you pointed a gun at me. I suspect there are a lot of other owners that feel the same.
> Finally son, you are dead wrong about the AP. on a crewed boat, it's a DSQ/DNF. At the moment that YOU forced that issue, YOU flushed the owners race investment, whatever it might have been, down the drain. If you had done that to me, on my boat, it would have cost me $55K, and I can guarantee you that you would have been tie wrapped to the lifelines for the duration of the passage.


Having completely read the 20 pages that there are now, and followed links to other sites / references etc..
I'm going to say that this post nails it on the head. 
I'd like to see the other side of the story, but really just don't care anymore.


----------



## weinie

I don't think this thread turned out the way RD thought it would.


----------



## Plumbean

SalNichols94804 said:


> I could send you my budget and spreadsheet, but I'll summarize:
> 
> Entry, insurance = 3.5k
> SSB + modem = 3k
> Boat mods = 7k
> New rudder= 19k installed
> E rudder= 2.5k
> Spinnakers=15k
> Blast reacher 1.5k used and modified
> Food/consumables for 5 for 3wks= 2.2k
> Raft rental=.8k round trip
> Satphone installed with ext ant=1.5k
> Satphone minutes=.5k
> All of the crew dinners parties etc.=.8k
> 
> Craploads of other nuts and bolts stuff.
> 
> Delivery costs=13k
> 
> If you get dsq'd, these are sunk costs. The only carry away are the big ticket items which you'll never recover in resale. Essentially, some PhD punk with no financial skin in the game will have gotten you tossed, flushing two years worth of work and nearly 60k.
> 
> Trust me, it was the most expensive vacation of my life. If I go in '14, I think I can do it for 20k.
> 
> Note that this hasn't addressed the 15k in repairs since I brought the boat home.


I agree with a lot of what you have written, but counting all of these as one time sunk costs is a bit much. You sound as if you bought the boat to do one race with the plan to sell it after. That's your choice, but nobody ever expects to make money on a boat like it is an investment, and writing all of this off up front ignores that a lot of it (rudder, boat mods, sails, etc.) has a useful life that extends long past the first expenditure of money.


----------



## zz4gta

rockDAWG said:


> 2002 Jeanneau *43 footer* DS on a Transpac Race.
> 
> Me - 1
> Jake - 2
> Harry - 3
> Jane - 0
> Sheryl - 0
> ==========================


3 people sailing a 43' boat with 2 liabilities on board. I would not have left the dock for a beercan race, much less tried to cross over 2k miles of open ocean.

Story would've been, I got to the boat, it was poorly prepped, crew was a joke, and I flew home. Oh well, I lost some money on the ticket, but I saved 20 days of vacation time and a little thing I call my life.


----------



## Plumbean

juggleandhope said:


> A few points as we collaborate together to make sense of the experience RD has shared with the forum;
> 
> 1. Filing with the California Department of Labor seems ethically required - that's how we protect other workers from employer abuse. To not do so is like leaving a bottle lying on a public staircase - even though you don't know who will fall or how bad they'll be injured, you know you've got to pick up the bottle. Another benefit of filing with the DOL would be that, after initial filing, the DOL pursues the case and eats the time and energy of the scary people, without much additional impetus from you. In other words, it has the beauty of a washing machine or setting a sail and won't require much of your life to keep it going. Any passage-making captain who would blackball you as crew for continuing to guarantee the safety of your fellow sailors (as you did in the original "mutiny") would be pledging an absurd allegiance to a ruling-class-solidarity over safety and decency and you'd be better off not on their boats.


The idea that RD would sue for redress as an aggrieved employee here is pretty offensive, and smacks of everything that is wrong with our legal system. And yes, I'm a lawyer.

It may be that a tort was committed (I'm thinking of the threat with the winch handle in particular), but I have a strong suspicion that there is a lot more to this story than just RD's side of it. Plenty of blame to go around.


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> Smackers, he had an uncooperative crew from the drive from the airport. His best option was to leave the arse at the dock. I had someone try to make the rules on my boat last year. We had a talk.


Something tells me Captain Furious is not quite the same kind of skipper you are.

Look, if on a long, hot passage a crazy skipper and his crazy mate hide the water, tape the taps shut, and tell me I can't drink _anything_ for several days...they will absolutely end up zip-tied to the mast. That's a threat to my life. And at that point, I could care less how much they put into the race.

That's the thing that tipped the story for me. Everything else was just dysfunctional BS.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Just got back to this thread after having been gone for a couple of days. Several posters have written the same things that I thought when I originally read the story. I've raced on over 60 boats in my life and have done a lot of long distance racing. Not all have been pleasant for sure but this story is the perfect storm of over inflated egos with unrealistic expectations combining for a near disaster.

1.Taking an 86 old woman on a long distance race. Who does that? My 89 year old mom is in pretty good shape but no way is she coming with us on any serious race much less a Transpac. You signed up for that? Huge red flag when looking at a boat to crew on. Not because she is an 86 year old woman, but because the skipper is o'k with that. It speaks volumes about the mindset of the skipper.

2. You have no experience with a spinnaker and you sign on for the Transpac? Can someone be that naive? The Transpac is usually all downwind, what do you think you will be doing with a 4 person crew? Epic fail on part of Rockdawg is assessing the situation.

3. Calling the Navy. Do you think they are going to take 2 able crew off a civilian boat and leave 2 people with an 86 year old woman to fend for themselves mid ocean? You are nuts if you even think that would happen. What is the captain of the Navy vessel to do. Take all the crew off and sink the vessel? 

4. Obviously the owner is native Japanese, by your surname you appear to be ethnic Chinese or Korean. Any cultural bias there? RD's comment on lack of English language skills by the owner might be a clue.

5. Was the boat prepared for the RACE? First question RD should have asked was how many chutes on board. On a mostly downwind race of this magnitude I would think that you would have at least 3. Big red flag for anyone who has done any racing at all.

6. Why would you sign up for a long distance race with only 3 other able bodies. Flying the chute in the conditions that can be expected requires a watch of 4. One person on the guy, one on the main, one trimmer. and one helmsman. You rotate every hour. Do yourself a favor, go rent the movie Morning Light and you might get clue. Bottom line you needed 8 crew, all who had decent racing skills to be even close to being competitive or even to finish within the time limit.

Posting your story on the internet? Are you nuts? You signed up for a race without doing due diligence. You got into a bad situation and freaked out. The skipper freaked out. The best thing to do was to learn from the experience, thank your lucky stars that you didn't get hurt or worse, and move on. Blasting your skipper, no matter how incompetent, idiotic, abusive, and/or linguistically challenged he is, is just plain stupid. Legal action? Do you think any sane skipper would ever want you for crew after this?

RD, if you want to do any offshore racing as a crew in the future, delete your posts, sign up for some more local point to point races as crew, develop all around skills, and most importantly, learn from your mistakes. The owner that you sailed with is most likely learning from his or will on his return trip back to the mainland.


----------



## CBinRI

How could you think you can use the auto-pilot with a crew of five and not get disqualified?


----------



## cutterdad

Seriously Dude,
I would not of left the dock for a day sail on that boat!

True story or not let's see chapter two.


----------



## smackdaddy

285 guests viewing this thread? Hm. Maybe SA's mythical FP _does_ have a few readers.


----------



## Skipper Jer

I would pay to see a movie based on RD's version of the events.

With this guy playing Captain Harry:


----------



## night0wl

Oh boy, this just made the front page of Sailing Anarchy.

Dont say I didn't warn you.

Mods, *PLEASE* *INTERCEDE*...the last thing we need is the sailing anarchy "ilk" (opinionated yet also unhinged) to impact our little corner of sailing paradise here on sailnet.


----------



## smackdaddy

night0wl said:


> Oh boy, this just made the front page of Sailing Anarchy.
> 
> Dont say I didn't warn you.
> 
> Mods, *PLEASE* *INTERCEDE*...the last thing we need is the sailing anarchy "ilk" (opinionated yet also unhinged) to impact our little corner of sailing paradise here on sailnet.


Hey...we're not that bad.


----------



## mbetter

night0wl said:


> Oh boy, this just made the front page of Sailing Anarchy.
> 
> Dont say I didn't warn you.
> 
> Mods, *PLEASE* *INTERCEDE*...the last thing we need is the sailing anarchy "ilk" (opinionated yet also unhinged) to impact our little corner of sailing paradise here on sailnet.


Intercede and do what, take it off SA's front page?


----------



## night0wl

mbetter said:


> Intercede and do what, take it off SA's front page?


Close posting to members with under 500 post count.


----------



## smackdaddy

night0wl said:


> Close posting to members with under 500 post count.


You do realize you're kind of chumming the water right now, right?


----------



## Cruisingdad

night0wl said:


> Oh boy, this just made the front page of Sailing Anarchy.
> 
> Dont say I didn't warn you.
> 
> Mods, *PLEASE* *INTERCEDE*...the last thing we need is the sailing anarchy "ilk" (opinionated yet also unhinged) to impact our little corner of sailing paradise here on sailnet.


Thanks for the heads up. We decided to make Brent Swain and Bob Perry a moderator for this thread. That will help calm things down. (snicker)

Brian


----------



## night0wl

Cruisingdad said:


> Thanks for the heads up. We decided to make Brent Swain and Bob Perry a moderator for this thread. That will help calm things down. (snicker)
> 
> Brian


niiiiice...


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> 285 guests viewing this thread? Hm. Maybe SA's mythical FP _does_ have a few readers.


You must have quite an influence with the SA group as you are the one who posted it first and supplied the link and brought it to their attention.

Now that's what I call chumming the water


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> You must have quite an influence with the SA group as you are the one who posted it first and supplied the link and brought it to their attention.
> 
> Now that's what I call chumming the water


Naa. No influence. But I hang out in both places - have for a long time. There's an absolutely incredible amount of experience and knowledge there (not to mention wit).

So, I like SA a lot (especially CA). When there's a great story like this that deals with a race sailors are interested in, I have no problem spreading the word. I'm just selective on the word I spread.

Anyway, they're good guys. Just a little edgier than most. I happen to like their "ilk".


----------



## jorgenl

Me thinks RD might just have blown his (slim) chances on getting another gig in a major race....


----------



## Capt Len

May be taken as blasphemy but methinks there's more to sailing than racing.It's obvious that there is more to racing than sailing.


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> Naa. No influence. But I hang out in both places - have for a long time. There's an absolutely incredible amount of experience and knowledge there (not to mention wit).
> 
> So, I like SA a lot (especially CA). When there's a great story like this that deals with a race sailors are interested in, I have no problem spreading the word. I'm just selective on the word I spread.
> 
> Anyway, they're good guys. Just a little edgier than most. I happen to like their "ilk".


I agree with that. I also read a lot of their posts. I Dont get involved with them though. I respect the knowledge and information there. Having spent a number of years crewing in Annapolis races and a few Newport to Bermuda ones I understand their mentality also. Racing really helped me hone my sailing skills in terms of sail trim etc. I was always crew or navigator/ tactician in later years.

I have no where the skill or hard core ability as most on SA, but their viewpoints are kind of spot on and blunt without the nanny niceties you see here many times.

Their view of this situation has turned since the initial reactionary posts of incredulity have started weighing in also just like here. The more you think about this the more questions arise.

At least everyone survived and is safe. That's the most important think. Many lessons to be learned by all sides.

Dave


----------



## Coquina

Wow - so many levels of FAIL I don't know where to start.
RD - you showed stupendously bad judgement in even getting on that boat. I would not go from the fuel dock to the holding tank pumpout dock with that bunch, let alone out in the OCEAN farther than I could swim back to land. You have never flown a CHUTE? Really? WTF 

How exactly is this going to work  You don't know much and the rest know even less. I have turned down offshore passages with MUCH better crew than this because there were not enough experienced hands aboard. I ran a 2 good man 4 useless passenger offshore trip ONCE and vowed NEVER again and those 4 were pleasant if not especially good.

* As it happens, I was on the receiving end of a hysterical MAYDAY call once on a hot flat calm day. A voice screaming over and over "we have no water we have no oil". I was in a poor position to help, the calm having strectched my own supplies as well. As I was wondering what to do a calm voice came on and told me the first guy had been in the sun too long. I am wondering how the "we can't get along" calls went. If your posts are factually accurate including denial of water and physical attacks I would have been calling Mayday and setting off every beacon I could find, not just suggesting I was unhappy


----------



## Minnewaska

There are always two sides to every story, that's why my own post only wished RD well that he's back and suggested this had to be a good learning experience. I don't know the whole story, nor does anyone else here.

However, those that denigrate a fellow sailor who had a harrowing experience, regardless of fault, are seriously messing with karma. Particularly those that also seem to press 'like' on every single negative post toward the OP. No one here has experience beyond anything they may ever encounter.

There has been no investigation, no other stories, no other first hand observations, no data, but the convictions are rolling in. I'm not taking a side either way. Can't wait to see the reported vids. Maybe we'll hear from the owner.


----------



## cyasurfin

So...Where's the rest of the story?


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> There are always two sides to every story, that's why my own post only wished RD well that he's back and suggested this had to be a good learning experience. I don't know the whole story, nor does anyone else here.
> 
> However, those that denigrate a fellow sailor who had a harrowing experience, regardless of fault, are seriously messing with karma. Particularly those that also seem to press 'like' on every single negative post toward the OP. No one here has experience beyond anything they may ever encounter.
> 
> There has been no investigation, no other stories, no other first hand observations, no data, but the convictions are rolling in. I'm not taking a side either way. Can't wait to see the reported vids. Maybe we'll hear from the owner.


Wow,

And here I always thought when a reader here presses "like" its because they agreed with what the others poster wrote.

I will have to consult my imaginary "karma" shrink. I didn't realize it was going to create and encourage bad juju.


----------



## Coquina

Try this:
I got on a powerboat with 3 drunk guys.
They ran aground and got stuck and wrecked the drives. I had to swim home and got stung by nettles. It was terrible and dangerous and horrible.

*Yes that is true. So what exactly did you THINK was going to happen *

I have never flown a spinnaker nor met the skipper and crew.
I get to the dock and discover a boat crewed by an irrational barely-speaks-English inexperienced skipper, his inexperienced biatch-from-hell girlfriend, an 89 year old lady, and one guy that can sail. PLus the boat is ill-prepared at best.

It was terrible and dangerous and horrible.

*Yes that is true. So what exactly did you THINK was going to happen *



Minnewaska said:


> There are always two sides to every story, that's why my own post only wished RD well that he's back and suggested this had to be a good learning experience. I don't know the whole story, nor does anyone else here.
> 
> However, those that denigrate a fellow sailor who had a harrowing experience, regardless of fault, are seriously messing with karma. Particularly those that also seem to press 'like' on every single negative post toward the OP. No one here has experience beyond anything they may ever encounter.
> 
> There has been no investigation, no other stories, no other first hand observations, no data, but the convictions are rolling in. I'm not taking a side either way. Can't wait to see the reported vids. Maybe we'll hear from the owner.


----------



## oceangirl

Making it to land , when there were times during the trip you didn't think you would, sets a certain brain jam of thoughts and emotions, in RD defense, His post have been written while still reeling from the crazy events. So a little leeway for him would be nice. Plus, dont down play a person in a rage while floating in the middle of the ocean, ive been there, things can go wrong very fast, no words can describe the danger. My unhinged guy( lets call him psycho) nearly knocked me overboard in a panic to get topside. He spent hours in his bunk rocking and growling. Funny aye? rocking and growling, but in the middle of the ocean with no where to go? Scary scary chit. But in RD case the loose cannon was the Captain. There is little to no recourse for crew in that situation.

Yes, we all agree, leaving on that boat was not prudent. But Smackdaddy is right, RD's one ( big) mistake doesn't give the owners the right to do what they did, the biggest is not being in controll or in command of himself, which has a chilling effect on the entire vessel. 

Hope that made some sense.


----------



## GMFL

night0wl said:


> Close posting to members with under 500 post count.


Wait, Wait, Wait. Can we start at 200 posts, I'm almost there.


----------



## abrahamx

My blood pressure must have rose a hundred points while I was reading those logs. That dude should have been beat down, and often. Its either going to be him or me if a stranger tries grabbing my phone out of my hand. Land or sea.


----------



## abrahamx

GMFL said:


> Wait, Wait, Wait. Can we start at 200 posts, I'm almost there.


 just an absurd suggestion in the first place. 
I mean the post you were referring to. Who cares about post count.


----------



## SlowButSteady

RD may have made the mistake of not bailing on this rag-tag bunch before the start of the race (and THAT was a pretty serious mistake), HOWEVER, it is the skipper of the boat who is ultimately responsible for ALL the problems in this case:

- The skipper didn't properly prepare the boat
- The skipper didn't assemble an adequate crew for such a race
- The skipper didn't properly provision the boat
- The skipper didn't have the experience to be the skipper of a boat sailing 2000+ miles of open ocean
- The skipper (apparently) has absolutely no management skills (his ownership of a mediocre sushi bar notwithstanding)

Yes, RD may have been in over his head with respect to flying a spinnaker, but it was the skipper's responsibility to make sure that the crew could handle the sails. The skipper totally lost control of the situation because he could neither sail the boat himself, nor bring himself to handing over that responsibility to someone who could do so.

I don't think a lawsuit or complaint to the labor relations board is going to accomplish anything (other than just cause more grief and frustration). But writing up a concise, not-too-nasty article/letter to Latitude38 will almost certainly go a long way toward keeping "Harry" from roping another inexperienced crew into another such "adventure". Lat38 is THE sailing rag on the West Coast, and they often publish such letters. The editor may not agree with RD on everything, and subsequent letters are likely to be as diverse (and nasty) as some of the stuff here. But such a letter will get the word out.


----------



## SalNichols94804

I'm not sure any of them could have made it to Catalina and back on their own while under sail, let alone HI. 

I had a young guy aboard my boat last yr for the Pac Cup. We took him out and shook him down. on overnight and three day sails, he was more or less ok. He claimed that a Chi-Mac was like a HI race...no big deal. We had a light air start which meant that 5 days out we were still 8 days from Kaneohe. Physical fatigue, brought upon by the rotating watches killed him. Crewing on a HI race is like living in the Alaskan bush in Winter. A weekend skiing in Tahoe isn't adequate prep., and even a Bermuda race is at most 1/4 the duration for boats like mine. 

I guess what I'm saying is that none of them had a bloody clue.


----------



## CATALINA GUY

I followed the boat via yellowbrick.....I wondered why she was so slow and finalya DNF


----------



## CATALINA GUY

I followed the boat during the race....now I know why she was so slow


----------



## CATALINA GUY

Lucky you made it back. I followed the boat via yellowbrick and now I know why she was so slow.
My parents sailed against DORADE in the 36 Transpac on Sartartia an 85 ft Alden schooner I follow the race.


----------



## Coquina

How about the RC? How in the hell did they sign off on this 
Anyway, RD perhaps learned a valuable lesson in when to go Monty Python*

* RUN AWAY RUN AWAY

RD - READ THIS BOOK: Amazon.com: Albatross (9780395655733): Deborah Scaling Kiley: [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EcA%[email protected]@[email protected]@51EcA%2BvapCL

This will give you an idea what happens when an incompetent crew meets up with real weather. You all were very lucky.



SlowButSteady said:


> RD may have made the mistake of not bailing on this rag-tag bunch before the start of the race (and THAT was a pretty serious mistake), HOWEVER, it is the skipper of the boat who is ultimately responsible for ALL the problems in this case:
> 
> - The skipper didn't properly prepare the boat
> - The skipper didn't assemble an adequate crew for such a race
> - The skipper didn't properly provision the boat
> - The skipper didn't have the experience to be the skipper of a boat sailing 2000+ miles of open ocean
> - The skipper (apparently) has absolutely no management skills (his ownership of a mediocre sushi bar notwithstanding)
> 
> Yes, RD may have been in over his head with respect to flying a spinnaker, but it was the skipper's responsibility to make sure that the crew could handle the sails. The skipper totally lost control of the situation because he could neither sail the boat himself, nor bring himself to handing over that responsibility to someone who could do so.
> 
> I don't think a lawsuit or complaint to the labor relations board is going to accomplish anything (other than just cause more grief and frustration). But writing up a concise, not-too-nasty article/letter to Latitude38 will almost certainly go a long way toward keeping "Harry" from roping another inexperienced crew into another such "adventure". Lat38 is THE sailing rag on the West Coast, and they often publish such letters. The editor may not agree with RD on everything, and subsequent letters are likely to be as diverse (and nasty) as some of the stuff here. But such a letter will get the word out.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Coquina said:


> How about the RC? How in the hell did they sign off on this ...


The buck stops with the skipper of the boat. No matter what other blame there is, it's ultimately the skipper's responsibility to make things work.


----------



## finding41

Is there a link to the yellow brick trail the boat made?
I'd love to see it.


----------



## Coquina

True.....but if the "skipper" is THIS clueless...............he might not even KNOW that.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Coquina said:


> True.....but if the "skipper" is THIS clueless...............he might not even KNOW that.


Well, it looks like that's part of the problem. Just because he's got enough money to buy a big boat doesn't mean he's got the knowledge, or personality, to be in charge on a blue water passage. Best thing to do at this point is to make sure the word gets out so that others won't have to put up with his incompetence in a similar situation.


----------



## jackdale

finding41 said:


> Is there a link to the yellow brick trail the boat made?
> I'd love to see it.


Transpac 2013 PUBLIC - Powered by Yellowbrick Tracking


----------



## Ninefingers

Oh Sal, you've got yourself into a donnybrook now.


----------



## smackdaddy

SlowButSteady said:


> RD may have made the mistake of not bailing on this rag-tag bunch before the start of the race (and THAT was a pretty serious mistake), HOWEVER, it is the skipper of the boat who is ultimately responsible for ALL the problems in this case:
> 
> - The skipper didn't properly prepare the boat
> - The skipper didn't assemble an adequate crew for such a race
> - The skipper didn't properly provision the boat
> - The skipper didn't have the experience to be the skipper of a boat sailing 2000+ miles of open ocean
> - The skipper (apparently) has absolutely no management skills (his ownership of a mediocre sushi bar notwithstanding)
> 
> Yes, RD may have been in over his head with respect to flying a spinnaker, but it was the skipper's responsibility to make sure that the crew could handle the sails. The skipper totally lost control of the situation because he could neither sail the boat himself, nor bring himself to handing over that responsibility to someone who could do so.


This.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Ninefingers said:


> Oh Sal, you've got yourself into a donnybrook now.


Really? How is that?


----------



## JulieMor

And here all this time I thought you buy a boat to have fun and join the sailing community to enjoy the camaraderie of good friends.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Originally Posted by SlowButSteady View Post
> RD may have made the mistake of not bailing on this rag-tag bunch before the start of the race (and THAT was a pretty serious mistake), HOWEVER, it is the skipper of the boat who is ultimately responsible for ALL the problems in this case:
> 
> - The skipper didn't properly prepare the boat
> - The skipper didn't assemble an adequate crew for such a race
> - The skipper didn't properly provision the boat
> - The skipper didn't have the experience to be the skipper of a boat sailing 2000+ miles of open ocean
> - The skipper (apparently) has absolutely no management skills (his ownership of a mediocre sushi bar notwithstanding)
> 
> Yes, RD may have been in over his head with respect to flying a spinnaker, but it was the skipper's responsibility to make sure that the crew could handle the sails. The skipper totally lost control of the situation because he could neither sail the boat himself, nor bring himself to handing over that responsibility to someone who could do so.
> 
> 
> 
> This.
Click to expand...

Damn, times sure have changed since I last crewed in an offshore race... I suppose nowadays, crew are expected to to serve a function little different than passengers on a Carnival Cruise ride, and sometimes - as rockDAWG put it - his "luck ran out", and he finally wound up with a Captain Schettino in command...

I once did a Chicago-Mac back in the 70's as a last-minute walk-on when heavier weather was forecast, but every other race I've done, the crew was intensely involved in the prep of the boat from the get-go... In fact, the owner/skipper was usually the LAST one to arrive on the scene, by that time the watch captains and the rest of the crew had everything sorted, and every single crewmember knew where every single item on that boat had been stowed, etc... As it should be, of course...

The last Bermuda race I did, the program commenced with the first get-together of the crew 9 months in advance, with two more gatherings over the course of the winter... Scores of emails and phone calls during that interval, relating to every conceivable facet of the trip...

Sure, the skipper/owner bears the 'ultimate responsibility', but any crew worthy of sailing a race like the Transpac should have been able to see this was a boat one would not want to be on well in advance...


----------



## Coquina

Our Bermuda race routine for almost all crew was:
1. They did one or more local races with us.
2. They did one or more offshore trips/races with us.

Thus going to Bermuda we had a generally skilled and happy crew that worked well in fair weather and foul and knew the boat 

I am getting the idea that RD *really* wanted a Transpac as a "resume builder" to get other rides. At least he now has a very good idea of how NOT to run a boat  The hopefully aborted plan to take legal action against the sushi-skipper will not help a lot in getting him on other boats. IMHO that avenue should not be pursued.



JonEisberg said:


> Damn, times sure have changed since I last crewed in an offshore race... I suppose nowadays, crew are expected to to serve a function little different than passengers on a Carnival Cruise ride, and sometimes - as rockDAWG put it - his "luck ran out", and he finally wound up with a Captain Schettino in command...
> 
> I once did a Chicago-Mac back in the 70's as a last-minute walk-on when heavyier weather was forecast, but every other race I've done, the crew was intensely involved in the prep of the boat from the get-go... In fact, the owner/skipper was usually the LAST one to arrive on the scene, by that time the watch captains and the rest of the crew had everything sorted, and every single crewmember knew where every single item on that boat had been stowed, etc... As it should be, of course...
> 
> The last Bermuda race I did, the program commenced with the first get-together of the crew 9 months in advance, with two more gatherings over the course of the winter... Scores of emails and phone calls during that interval, relating to every conceivable facet of the trip...
> 
> Sure, the skipper/owner bears the 'ultimate responsibility', but any crew worthy of sailing a race like the Transpac should have been able to see this was a boat one would not want to be on well in advance...


----------



## Minnewaska

In some cases, the Captain and Owner are not the same person, even though both are aboard. When this is the case, the owner is often the last to the party. I've always known the true Captain to coordinate the crew, although, the crew certainly was directly involved with preparations. Even if the owner took that title officially, there was always a clear leader among the ranks. Many smart owners I've known, bring along someone more capable than they. It doesn't mean they are necessarily incapable, it clearly means they are smart.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Damn, times sure have changed since I last crewed in an offshore race... I suppose nowadays, crew are expected to to serve a function little different than passengers on a Carnival Cruise ride, and sometimes - as rockDAWG put it - his "luck ran out", and he finally wound up with a Captain Schettino in command...
> 
> I once did a Chicago-Mac back in the 70's as a last-minute walk-on when heavier weather was forecast, but every other race I've done, the crew was intensely involved in the prep of the boat from the get-go... In fact, the owner/skipper was usually the LAST one to arrive on the scene, by that time the watch captains and the rest of the crew had everything sorted, and every single crewmember knew where every single item on that boat had been stowed, etc... As it should be, of course...
> 
> The last Bermuda race I did, the program commenced with the first get-together of the crew 9 months in advance, with two more gatherings over the course of the winter... Scores of emails and phone calls during that interval, relating to every conceivable facet of the trip...
> 
> Sure, the skipper/owner bears the 'ultimate responsibility', but any crew worthy of sailing a race like the Transpac should have been able to see this was a boat one would not want to be on well in advance...


Okay, so it's obivous you've got a bit of a pudgy for giving RD a hard time. Whatever. I'm not here to defend the guy by any means, but your arguments are pretty weak in this particilar case. Here's a rundown of why...

All the stellar crew performances you list above...these were crews put together by the skipper. Again, it boils down to him/her. And that's the way it should work...no doubt. The problem is in this case, the skipper didn't do his job. Don't blame the crew.

You guys are getting your noses up because RD hadn't flown a spinnaker before - so your conclusion is that he had no business crewing a TransPac. Well that's not your call. That's the skipper's. Maybe RD lied about that. I don't know. But neither do you. Again, blame the skipper for allowing it.

Finally, on the above argument...maybe he hadn't flown a kite before. But according to the story, he certainly handled it better than the skipper and was perfectly willing to go up the stick and fix the skipper's repeated clusterfinks. And he was able to drive the boat well enough under spin to avoid his own clusterfinks. That's some pretty quick learning I'd say.

So, feel free to hammer on RD. I don't really care. But at least do so with some facts and not all the uppity hyperbole.


----------



## rbrasi

Haha- Sushi Skipper. I like that.


----------



## shadowraiths

Sounds like the owner was desperate to run the transpac. To the point he scrapes the bottom of the barrel to find crew after a known qualified crew that he'd sailed with in two Puerto Vallarta races opted out. Notably, Randy mentioned that the owner had the boat listed as a live aboard.

Then you have jake & rock, who are desperate to get on a transpac boat, such that they agreed to crew on this boat, last minute, sight unseen, captain unmet, and race rules unstudied.

Not surprisingly, these, together, culminated in at-odds goals, unpreparedness, clashing personalities, and appallingly infantile behavior, resulting in the rather predictable albeit entertaining... as in "_three stooges of the high seas thank gawd no-one died_"... outcome.

Proving yet again that desperate people do desperate (_and stupid_) things.

In the end, regardless of the shoulda coulda wouldas, afaics rock has clearly demonstrated that he has no compunctions whatsoever resorting to violence under duress. Yes, the captain brandished the winch handle. However rock was the one who punched the captain in the nose. So, I, personally, am not the least bit surprised the captain cowed to rock's bullying after that. That rock would then paint himself as victim while smugly talking about taking legal actions speaks volumes.

Btw, and aside, when I read rock's description of the captain, I must admit, I was immediately reminded of the temperamental, though, quite harmless, Chinese cook from my days working at a Chinese restaurant when I was a teen. The cook regularly screamed something in Chinese while brandishing a large hatchet looking knife. Not once was I concerned that he was gonna chop anyone up.

In the end, and imho, any way you cut this, everyone was at fault for this fiasco. That is, except for, perhaps, the 86 year old mother-in-law.


----------



## Coquina

I am a commercial pilot, but have never flown a 727 in my life.
So if some random 727 flying airline wants me to be a copilot and the pilot has NEVER FLOWN ONE EITHER and is NUTS, you might admire my native flying skills for getting the thing to Hawaii in one piece, but my judgement would be terrible for not jumping right off and running away in the first place 
I suspect J.E and I share bit of the same kind of offshore experience and this trip screamed DISASTER from the first paragraph compared to what a "normal" offshore trip is like.



smackdaddy said:


> Okay, so it's obivous you've got a bit of a pudgy for giving RD a hard time. Whatever. I'm not here to defend the guy by any means, but your arguments are pretty weak in this particilar case. Here's a rundown of why...
> 
> All the stellar crew performances you list above...these were crews put together by the skipper. Again, it boils down to him/her. And that's the way it should work...no doubt. The problem is in this case, the skipper didn't do his job. Don't blame the crew.
> 
> You guys are getting your noses up because RD hadn't flown a spinnaker before - so your conclusion is that he had no business crewing a TransPac. Well that's not your call. That's the skipper's. Maybe RD lied about that. I don't know. But neither do you. Again, blame the skipper for allowing it.
> 
> Finally, on the above argument...maybe he hadn't flown a kite before. But according to the story, he certainly handled it better than the skipper and was perfectly willing to go up the stick and fix the skipper's repeated clusterfinks. And he was able to drive the boat well enough under spin to avoid his own clusterfinks. That's some pretty quick learning I'd say.
> 
> So, feel free to hammer on RD. I don't really care. But at least do so with some facts and not all the uppity hyperbole.


----------



## chef2sail

shadowraiths said:


> Sounds like the owner was desperate to run the transpac. To the point he scrapes the bottom of the barrel to find crew after a known qualified crew that he'd sailed with in two Puerto Vallarta races opted out. Notably, Randy mentioned that the owner had the boat listed as a live aboard.
> 
> Then you have jake & rock, who are desperate to get on a transpac boat, such that they agreed to crew on this boat, last minute, sight unseen, captain unmet, and race rules unstudied.
> 
> Not surprisingly, these, together, culminated in at-odds goals, unpreparedness, clashing personalities, and appallingly infantile behavior, resulting in the rather predictable albeit entertaining... as in "_three stooges of the high seas thank gawd no-one died_"... outcome.
> 
> Proving yet again that desperate people do desperate (_and stupid_) things.
> 
> In the end, regardless of the shoulda coulda wouldas, afaics rock has clearly demonstrated that he has no compunctions whatsoever resorting to violence under duress. Yes, the captain brandished the winch handle. However rock was the one who punched the captain in the nose. So, I, personally, am not the least bit surprised the captain cowed to rock's bullying after that. That rock would then paint himself as victim while smugly talking about taking legal actions speaks volumes.
> 
> Btw, and aside, when I read rock's description of the captain, I must admit, I was immediately reminded of the temperamental, though, quite harmless, Chinese cook from my days working at a Chinese restaurant when I was a teen. The cook regularly screamed something in Chinese while brandishing a large hatchet looking knife. Not once was I concerned that he was gonna chop anyone up.
> 
> In the end, and imho, any way you cut this, everyone was at fault for this fiasco. That is, except for, perhaps, the 86 year old mother-in-law.


Well put.

Steve,

No ones got a pudgy for Rock. The skippers weaknesses are obvious. However you seem to want to be an apologist for Rocks choices and behavior.

You went so far as to try and denegrate the Captain with one of 48 reviews of his business from the Yelp site. The worst one as a matter of fact, and it wasn't representative of the other 48 reviews at all. Why did you do that. Why did you cherry pick that skewed review?

Have you researched Rocks evaluations from his employees, they are available and aren't very kind. Seems like you are ok with presenting a one sided view here

It isn't about flying a kite. It's about all the choices including threatening the Captain, hitting him, taking over the boat. Calling the CG, the organizers, and the friging USNavy. he wasnt in iminent danger, he just wasnt getting his way.

Remember the other crew would have gone with the Captain had their last mate come along.

By the way I am curious where's the tape, movie we were promised. There is a completely other side to this story I am sure. The TRUTH as we know is probably somewhere in the middle.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, so it's obivous you've got a bit of a pudgy for giving RD a hard time. Whatever. I'm not here to defend the guy by any means, but your arguments are pretty weak in this particilar case. Here's a rundown of why...
> 
> All the stellar crew performances you list above...these were crews put together by the skipper. Again, it boils down to him/her. And that's the way it should work...no doubt. The problem is in this case, the skipper didn't do his job. Don't blame the crew.
> 
> You guys are getting your noses up because RD hadn't flown a spinnaker before - so your conclusion is that he had no business crewing a TransPac. Well that's not your call. That's the skipper's. Maybe RD lied about that. I don't know. But neither do you. Again, blame the skipper for allowing it.
> 
> Finally, on the above argument...maybe he hadn't flown a kite before. But according to the story, he certainly handled it better than the skipper and was perfectly willing to go up the stick and fix the skipper's repeated clusterfinks. And he was able to drive the boat well enough under spin to avoid his own clusterfinks. That's some pretty quick learning I'd say.
> 
> So, feel free to hammer on RD. I don't really care. But at least do so with some facts and not all the uppity hyperbole.


You're right, we have no knowledge of how he or the skipper presented themselves and their qualifications to one another, or what sort of understanding they had...

However, back when I was a kid fresh out of college and looking to do some offshore racing, and walking the docks prior to the LA-Mazatlan, Chicago-Mac, and Marblehead-Halifax races wearing my 'Crew Available' tee shirt, there was simply no freakin' way I would have solicited a berth on a boat without having a fair amount of experience flying the sort of chutes and bloopers common at that time... Now, maybe that's just me... And, while I can't offer proof of that, or document it, I can assure you - _that is a FACT..._ 

As to the veracity of any of this sorry tale, I'd say the jury is still out on that one... To many experienced racers, and the folks over at Sailing Anarchy, it smells like BS, so who knows what is the truth here...

If you look back at the start of this thread, when everyone couldn't wait for Part II, and some were already pronouncing the story 'epic' and 'best story ever', I was among the first to express my 'doubts'... In retrospect, I'd say I was pretty restrained compared to what followed, pretty much limiting my characterization to certain elements of the story - the encounter with the SWIFT, for example - as simply sounding "implausible"... 

I'll admit, however, the tide turned for me when the talk started up about him bringing a lawsuit against the skipper for the "mistreatment" he suffered... Sorry, that's when the gloves came off for me... The ocean, and the sport of yacht racing, has no place for the sort of Whiny B*itches who probably shouldn't have been out there to begin with...  I could care less what he chooses to do, whether he had a pleasant trip or a miserable one, but that sort of nonsense is the kind of thing that could ultimately affect us all, or the proud legacy of of a race as grand as the Transpac...


----------



## svHyLyte

chef2sail said:


> Well put.
> 
> Steve,
> 
> No ones got a pudgy for Rock. The skippers weaknesses are obvious. However you seem to want to be an apologist for Rocks choices and behavior.
> 
> You went so far as to try and denegrate the Captain with one of 48 reviews of his business from the Yelp site. The worst one as a matter of fact, and it wasn't representative of the other 48 reviews at all. Why did you do that. Why did you cherry pick that skewed review?
> 
> Have you researched Rocks evaluations from his employees, they are available and aren't very kind. Seems like you are ok with presenting a one sided view here
> 
> It isn't about flying a kite. It's about all the choices including threatening the Captain, hitting him, taking over the boat. Calling the CG, the organizers, and the friging USNavy. he wasnt in iminent danger, he just wasnt getting his way.
> 
> Remember the other crew would have gone with the Captain had their last mate come along.
> 
> By the way I am curious where's the tape, movie we were promised. There is a completely other side to this story I am sure. The TRUTH as we know is probably somewhere in the middle.


I agree with this assessment entirely. The formulas for a disastrous escapade were all quite apparent from the outset of the tale. Start with the simple differences in the cultures of the players and their consequential conflicting expectations, language difficulties making it impossible to communicate in other than a very rudimentary fashion (that subsequently lead to frustration and explosive outbursts of anger), a poorly prepared yacht inadequately provisioned/watered and with nonsensical crew assignments that led to an inexperienced and know-nothing watch team on deck after dark trying to fly, of all things, a spinnaker.

Given the first few paragraphs of part one of the tale, the OP should have had the common sense to simply say "Thanks but No Thanks" at the out-set and chalked the travel to Long Beach up to experience. The tale went down hill from there and has continued a downward spiral since. Moreover, the OP and some contributors have made some fairly slanderous representations about the yacht owner(s) and his/their business on a public forum (where they have not been given the opportunity to respond) that could be perceived as doing tangible, material damage to his/their reputation(s) and business--particularly the comments concerning illegals/immigrants. I submit that given the litigious nature of California, that is unwise for them and, frankly, more so for the sponsors of this forum. Lastly, as other than a precautionary tale, at several hundred comments I think the thread has been a terrific waste of bandwidth, eh?

FWIW...


----------



## outbound

Have not done the Trans pac and probably never will but have done multiple variations of the Bermuda Race. When doing it on my boat only use folks I have done passages with or my watch captains have done passages with. Insist on at least one overnight with full crew prior to race to make sure everyone knows the boat and each other prior to race. Also try to have a dinner together to see how the personalities interact. Usually line up alternative crew so if someone drops out or I ask them not to come have a fall back. When serving as crew so far my captains have employed similar pre race protocols. Seems none of these things were done here with not unexpected results.


----------



## shadowraiths

svHyLyte said:


> Moreover, the OP and some contributors have made some fairly slanderous representations about the yacht owner(s) and his/their business on a public forum (where they have not been given the opportunity to respond) that could be perceived as doing tangible, material damage to his/their reputation(s) and business--particularly the comments concerning illegals/immigrants. I submit that given the litigious nature of California, that is unwise for them *and, frankly, more so for the sponsors of this forum.*


Well, no. Actually. The site owners are protected from defamation suits under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (see 47 U.S.C. § 230). Moreover, it would be quite unlikely for the aggrieved party to even obtain the contact information of the posters in question. In fact, to do so, would require a court order. The best he could do, if he's the suing sort, is to go after rock.

That said, for all practical purposes, sailnet is a fairly tiny community, and merely a drop in the ocean of inet forums. As such, I just do not see a defamation suit being viewed as anything other than a SLAPP suit by local judges. Esp considering the primary negative feedback of this man's business is on yelp, not sailnet. Anyway, jmo. TWYAHTR.


----------



## jackdale

Background - a repeat for those who know me.

I have done no ocean racing, but I have done 4 passages: three on Vic Maui returns (2 as skipper, one as watch captain) and a delivery as watch captain from Newport, RI to St Barths via Bermuda. I have raced with spinnakers on a Tartan 10 on Galveston Bay, San Juan 21s in Calgary, Beneteau 36.7s on Swiftsure and a X-119 on Swiftsure and Van Isle 360. I also instruct folks on using both dip pole and end for end gybes.

On the passages, I was meeting some or all of the crew for the first time. On the races I either knew the skipper/owners or I had to audition. For the X-119 I flew to Seattle for a one race audition.

Some observations:

Long oceans passages require that a crew is harmonious and has a high level of trust. The skippers and watch captains may have to become intermediaries.

Flying spinnakers, especially on dip pole gybes takes a lot of people, a lot of skill and a lot of coordination. 

Spinnakers in heavy air are not for the faint of heart. Round ups and broaches are scary.

Provisioning is both an art and a science. Everyone needs input.

I will jump on race boat with a crew I do not know for a short round the buoys race. 

I really do not think I would have crewed on Aquarius.

I know that these experiences are on a lot folks bucket lists, but I have learned that crew selection and capabilities are paramount. Not everyone is up to the challenge. I have made mistakes. After an ocean or offshore experience most of my students will admit they were glad they did it. A large number would not do it again. They will stick to coastal cruising.

One of my favourite expressions is "Success teachers nothing." I think that the crew of Aquarius has an opportunity to figure out what they learned. Treat it as a teachable moment and move forward.


----------



## shadowraiths

Sanduskysailor said:


> go rent the movie Morning Light


Thanks for mentioning this movie. I just finished watching it. What an incredible story!


----------



## SalNichols94804

Morning light...a perfect example of having an incredibly talented crew each with their own egos coming together for a common goal. Kind of what you'd expect when Roy (rip) is providing you the best sailors on the planet as mentors/coaches.


----------



## SalNichols94804

jackdale said:


> Background - a repeat for those who know me.
> 
> I have done no ocean racing, but I have done 4 passages: three on Vic Maui returns (2 as skipper, one as watch captain) and a delivery as watch captain from Newport, RI to St Barths via Bermuda. I have raced with spinnakers on a Tartan 10 on Galveston Bay, San Juan 21s in Calgary, Beneteau 36.7s on Swiftsure and a X-119 on Swiftsure and Van Isle 360. I also instruct folks on using both dip pole and end for end gybes.
> 
> On the passages, I was meeting some or all of the crew for the first time. On the races I either knew the skipper/owners or I had to audition. For the X-119 I flew to Seattle for a one race audition.
> 
> Some observations:
> 
> Long oceans passages require that a crew is harmonious and has a high level of trust. The skippers and watch captains may have to become intermediaries.
> 
> Flying spinnakers, especially on dip pole gybes takes a lot of people, a lot of skill and a lot of coordination.
> 
> Spinnakers in heavy air are not for the faint of heart. Round ups and broaches are scary.
> 
> Provisioning is both an art and a science. Everyone needs input.
> 
> I will jump on race boat with a crew I do not know for a short round the buoys race.
> 
> I really do not think I would have crewed on Aquarius.
> 
> I know that these experiences are on a lot folks bucket lists, but I have learned that crew selection and capabilities are paramount. Not everyone is up to the challenge. I have made mistakes. After an ocean or offshore experience most of my students will admit they were glad they did it. A large number would not do it again. They will stick to coastal cruising.
> 
> One of my favourite expressions is "Success teachers nothing." I think that the crew of Aquarius has an opportunity to figure out what they learned. Treat it as a teachable moment and move forward.


Actually, once you've rinsed your Windex off a few times, rounding up isn't a big deal. Ease, turn down, trim, go. On a boat like Aquarius, you're better off trimming the kite once, then driving to it along a base course. IOW, heat up in the light spots, and burn off below the base if you ever get the pig to surf.

Round downs are a different story. You have to add a few minutes to the clean up to beat the driver.

One of the reasons that I despise roller furling at sea is that it keeps you from setting a spinnaker net. Nets are your best friend, particularly when the lights are out. If you haven't tried one, do it. The damn kite literally bounces off of it.

BTW, I'm one of the SA old timers that's drifted away. SailNet has expended a lot more mental energy on this than they have. A few of us were waving the b.s. flag pretty early on.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Oh, most of you probably know this, but RD clearly doesn't, never having flown a spinnaker before the start. 

When you wrap that sucker around the head stay, DO NOT DO PULL UPS ON IT, or otherwise yard on it to pull it down. Just gybe the main and ease it out...and WAIT. Be patient. The air coming off of the back of the main will unwrap the kite...eventually. We had one take 40 minutes, but it did unwind. first few wraps are kinda slow, but once it starts unspooling, you're golden. Just don't do anything stupid like lowering the halyard to help it along. Be aware, once the last wrap comes off, it's going to want to fly. Watch your trim, because when it fills, it might detonate. We did this twice in '10 on the Pac Cup, because we were slow learners. ;-)


----------



## outbound

Anybody have experience with the parasail?


----------



## SalNichols94804

There were a couple of guys that tried one out on a Moore 24 on SF Bay about 10 years ago, and it just didn't work out that well. I don't know of any other local attempts since then. You'd have to go into the dark recesses of SA archives to find the related threads. Before 2005.


----------



## rockDAWG

This is just sad. Many members come here to read my experience in my recent voyage to Hawaii. Thanks for those who leave value comment and advice and particular those who wrote encourage words to my inbox. And yet, many were so surprise to read the personal attack against me by a few members here. It was not due this post, but rather my long on-going fight with Chef2sail. I continue to ignore him, refuse to be his lapdog, ignore him when he suggested to do a delivery a sailboat together. The more I ignore him, the more attack I received. He always here on sailnet trolling to make a strike at me. Fortunately, I was able to sail a lot even without a boat, learn lot and sometime get into bad situation, But always happy ending. In the last 4 years, I have crewed with other more than 30 to 40 times. I have impeccable track records and 100% good reference. Some one here suggests me to delete this post. Otherwise, I won't get any crewing position. No, this is not my style, I like 100% disclosure. In fact, the owner I will captain his boat tomorrow to Puerto Rico know about this incidence. He promised me he will not yell. ...LOL.

As for other like "SalNichols94804", he is a troll who registered a few days ago for the purpose of troll this thread. Nothing more, it is shame that he have to hide between a new alias. I am surprised that the Moderator turned a blind eye on this. 

Therefore don't fall into Chef2sail games. Do a search on here. You will see. 

Many kept suggesting me to walk out in this first day. It is not my style. But I will keep that in mind. Or I will keep this post with me, and will show it to the captain that I am about to walk out because my prior bad experience.

I am glad that at least no one questions me if I made up the story up. That was the biggest question Jake and I asking ourselves. No one would believe this could happen in 2013 with a relative new boat, a legitimate businessman, a well spoken manager, TransPac race. IT was great that Jake videoed lot of this.

I thought I will post some pics tonite, but this has side tracked me. 

Dave, you have intimidated me in the last three years. I will continue to ignore you and I am not afraid of you and your lapdogs.


----------



## SalNichols94804

rockDAWG said:


> This is just sad. Many members come here to read my experience in my recent voyage to Hawaii. Thanks for those who leave value comment and advice and particular those who wrote encourage words to my inbox. And yet, many were so surprise to read the personal attack against me by a few members here. It was not due this post, but rather my long on-going fight with Chef2sail. I continue to ignore him, refuse to be his lapdog, ignore him when he suggested to do a delivery a sailboat together. The more I ignore him, the more attack I received. He always here on sailnet trolling to make a strike at me. Fortunately, I was able to sail a lot even without a boat, learn lot and sometime get into bad situation, But always happy ending. In the last 4 years, I have crewed with other more than 30 to 40 times. I have impeccable track records and 100% good reference. Some one here suggests me to delete this post. Otherwise, I won't get any crewing position. No, this is not my style, I like 100% disclosure. In fact, the owner I will captain his boat tomorrow to Puerto Rico know about this incidence. He promised me he will not yell. ...LOL.
> 
> As for other like "SalNichols94804", he is a troll who registered a few days ago for the purpose of troll this thread. Nothing more, it is shame that he have to hide between a new alias. I am surprised that the Moderator turned a blind eye on this.
> 
> Therefore don't fall into Chef2sail games. Do a search on here. You will see.
> 
> Many kept suggesting me to walk out in this first day. It is not my style. But I will keep that in mind. Or I will keep this post with me, and will show it to the captain that I am about to walk out because my prior bad experience.
> 
> I am glad that at least no one questions me if I made up the story up. That was the biggest question Jake and I asking ourselves. No one would believe this could happen in 2013 with a relative new boat, a legitimate businessman, a well spoken manager, TransPac race. IT was great that Jake videoed lot of this.
> 
> I thought I will post some pics tonite, but this has side tracked me.
> 
> Dave, you have intimidated me in the last three years. I will continue to ignore you and I am not afraid of you and your lapdogs.


Seriously? I registered here so I could register my disbelief of your story. Was I aboard? Clearly not. But your story is but one side, and I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the other side, until I hear from them. You see, Dr. Shum, I've done a couple of these races, as the guy paying the bills. I also had YEARS of experience racing, including flying, trimming, and driving under spinnakers before I ever considered myself even remotely qualified to serve as crew on a HI race.

As for being a troll...in 2010 I navigated an electrically DEAD boat to Kaneohe in 9:06:33. Elapsed. By dead I mean, no boat instruments (boat speed, wind direction, wind speed), or weather forecasts from 5 hours after our start. Navigator wasn't my title on the boat entry, it was what I did; in addition to being the crew boss. I also drove, worked the foredeck, trimmed, cooked, and cleaned, right alongside the rest of the team. In 2012, I skippered my own boat over and back. You're not only not qualified to call me names, you're not qualified to do my laundry.

I'm not one of your female office staff that you can bully. Understand?


----------



## Coquina

I used to make a living teaching people to fly and to sail. The hardest thing to teach is judgement, not skills. You STILL don't seem to realize what a horrible choice you made to go on that boat.
Please explain what being a "legitimate businessman" or a "well spoken manager" has to do with sailing a boat offshore 

If your description of the skipper and his girlfriend are even remotely accurate, I wouldn't go for a 1 hour sail with them. Did you think being at sea would magically cure their erratic behaviour? I have been sailing offshore since the 1970s and it is a very rare thing for close quarters and lack of sleep to IMPROVE the personality of nut-cases 



rockDAWG said:


> This is just sad. Many members come here to read my experience in my recent voyage to Hawaii. Thanks for those who leave value comment and advice and particular those who wrote encourage words to my inbox. And yet, many were so surprise to read the personal attack against me by a few members here. It was not due this post, but rather my long on-going fight with Chef2sail. I continue to ignore him, refuse to be his lapdog, ignore him when he suggested to do a delivery a sailboat together. The more I ignore him, the more attack I received. He always here on sailnet trolling to make a strike at me. Fortunately, I was able to sail a lot even without a boat, learn lot and sometime get into bad situation, But always happy ending. In the last 4 years, I have crewed with other more than 30 to 40 times. I have impeccable track records and 100% good reference. Some one here suggests me to delete this post. Otherwise, I won't get any crewing position. No, this is not my style, I like 100% disclosure. In fact, the owner I will captain his boat tomorrow to Puerto Rico know about this incidence. He promised me he will not yell. ...LOL.
> 
> As for other like "SalNichols94804", he is a troll who registered a few days ago for the purpose of troll this thread. Nothing more, it is shame that he have to hide between a new alias. I am surprised that the Moderator turned a blind eye on this.
> 
> Therefore don't fall into Chef2sail games. Do a search on here. You will see.
> 
> Many kept suggesting me to walk out in this first day. It is not my style. But I will keep that in mind. Or I will keep this post with me, and will show it to the captain that I am about to walk out because my prior bad experience.
> 
> I am glad that at least no one questions me if I made up the story up. That was the biggest question Jake and I asking ourselves. * No one would believe this could happen in 2013 with a relative new boat, a legitimate businessman, a well spoken manager, TransPac race. IT was great that Jake videoed lot of this.*
> 
> I thought I will post some pics tonite, but this has side tracked me.
> 
> Dave, you have intimidated me in the last three years. I will continue to ignore you and I am not afraid of you and your lapdogs.


----------



## BentSailor

FWIW, rockdawg, there are more folks than just chef2sail expressing doubt's on the story and/or the thought poor judgement was exercised on your part. Whilst there might be some history between you & chef2sail informing his opinion, he's not the only one expressing the same or similar thoughts on the story given.

I don't have the experience to judge myself, so I haven't & probably won't, but you should consider the fact that there are folks with a lot of experience & wisdom who are express similar sentiments, at least as far as the poor decision to go out on said boat with said crew/skipper. Whatever you feel about chef2sail, it's not worth ignoring the advice & experience offered by others is it?


----------



## caberg

This thread is interesting, but frustrating, because rockdawg cherry picks what he wants to respond to. There's been some good points raised, but they go ignored.

One thing mentioned earlier, that also jumped way off the page for me in the initial post, was how do you leave for this passage without topping off the water tanks. And then, surprise (not really), water had to be rationed. Absolutely mind boggling to me. I would've jumped off the boat and swam to shore if I thought we were leaving without adequate water supply.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Its easy to say "I would have taken one look at the boat and got off".

But thats a big ask when you've paid for your air flights (a lot of crew fly into the Canary Islands for a trans atlanitc and that costs heaps); plus they have taken 2 weeks or more off work... so what do they do now?
In exitement of something new ones enthusiasm overlooks a lot of things.

Its not easy to bail out.


----------



## Minnewaska

It seems pretty clear that mistakes were made. Even the OP indirectly agrees he wouldn't do this the same again.

I just don't get the venom. Regardless of reason, someone survives a two week blue water passage that went to crap and then steams off. So what. It's common response to a traumatic experience.

I have no doubt that the legal/DOL stuff goes away as the emotions subside.

Indeed, every web forum has those certain personalities that have to be ignored, just like in the real world.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Regarding water. H2O is the heaviest item that you put on the boat. The NORMAL water plan is to account for 1 gallon/person/day. In the case of Aquarius, estimating a max 15 day passage * 5 crew =75 gallons. The Jeanneau 43 has a total capacity of 145 gallons. IOW, by topping off the tanks, they would have carrying 70 gallons more than necessary or 560 additional lbs., probably on the wrong side of the boat. Heavy is slow. I left SFO for Oahu with 5 people and 80 gallons, and arrived with 15 in the tank plus my 5 emergency gallons. This s SOP on a race boat amigos. 

You drink it, you don't bathe with it, or wash dishes with it.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

SalNichols94804 said:


> Regarding water. H2O is the heaviest item that you put on the boat. The NORMAL water plan is to account for 1 gallon/person/day. In the case of Aquarius, estimating a max 15 day passage * 5 crew =75 gallons. The Jeanneau 43 has a total capacity of 145 gallons. IOW, by topping off the tanks, they would have carrying 70 gallons more than necessary or 560 additional lbs., probably on the wrong side of the boat. Heavy is slow. I left SFO for Oahu with 5 people and 80 gallons, and arrived with 15 in the tank plus my 5 emergency gallons. This s SOP on a race boat amigos.
> 
> You drink it, you don't bathe with it, or wash dishes with it .


Well, I think thats almost criminally negligent.

Mark


----------



## SalNichols94804

Well Mark, I can pretty much guarantee you that nearly every boat that left LA was provisioned along those lines. But please, next time you step aboard a race boat on a major passage be sure to make your opinion known before you leave the dock.


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> This is just sad. Many members come here to read my experience in my recent voyage to Hawaii. Thanks for those who leave value comment and advice and particular those who wrote encourage words to my inbox. And yet, many were so surprise to read the personal attack against me by a few members here. It was not due this post, but rather my long on-going fight with Chef2sail. I continue to ignore him, refuse to be his lapdog, ignore him when he suggested to do a delivery a sailboat together. The more I ignore him, the more attack I received. He always here on sailnet trolling to make a strike at me. Fortunately, I was able to sail a lot even without a boat, learn lot and sometime get into bad situation, But always happy ending. In the last 4 years, I have crewed with other more than 30 to 40 times. I have impeccable track records and 100% good reference. Some one here suggests me to delete this post. Otherwise, I won't get any crewing position. No, this is not my style, I like 100% disclosure. In fact, the owner I will captain his boat tomorrow to Puerto Rico know about this incidence. He promised me he will not yell. ...LOL.
> 
> As for other like "SalNichols94804", he is a troll who registered a few days ago for the purpose of troll this thread. Nothing more, it is shame that he have to hide between a new alias. I am surprised that the Moderator turned a blind eye on this.
> 
> Therefore don't fall into Chef2sail games. Do a search on here. You will see.
> 
> Many kept suggesting me to walk out in this first day. It is not my style. But I will keep that in mind. Or I will keep this post with me, and will show it to the captain that I am about to walk out because my prior bad experience.
> 
> I am glad that at least no one questions me if I made up the story up. That was the biggest question Jake and I asking ourselves. No one would believe this could happen in 2013 with a relative new boat, a legitimate businessman, a well spoken manager, TransPac race. IT was great that Jake videoed lot of this.
> 
> I thought I will post some pics tonite, but this has side tracked me.
> 
> Dave, you have intimidated me in the last three years. I will continue to ignore you and I am not afraid of you and your lapdogs.


Rockdawg,

Thats is so ridiculous trying to make this personal to deflect your own poor judgement here. Accusing others of falling in with me like they have no free will of their own to have opinions. I didn't post mine for a while.

You made it personal with the Captain accusing him of many things, threatening to sue, impugning his business. Evidently this action struck a cord with others who post here.. It was not me who researched your true identity and posted about the sexual harassment suits as well as poor employer ratings you have gotten all by yourself.

Maybe you should read what the true sailboat racing community is thinking about you. You can start after post 74 when Smackdaddy posted the Sailnet discussion.

I gave you credit for your attempts to gain experience via others people's boats. For you to Captain a boat with your track record and judgement skills is questionable, and for you to continue to fraudulently pose as a "delivery captain" is really an affront to people like Jon or Dave who have worlds of experience and are true professionals.

I would never step foot on a boat with you, after your actions in this instance knowing you are willing to physically confront the Captain of the boat, call the USNavy ( suspect) , Coast Gaurd frivolously when your life is not endanger.

Here are the Sailing Anarchy links

TRANSPAC - and they're off! - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums

Lastly, one thing you are correct about, should I know or see you posting for delivery jobs etc anywhere I will feel it is my obligation for safeties sake to forward this posting to them. Hopefully when they Google search your name it will now appear.


----------



## fryewe

chef2sail said:


> Rockdawg,
> 
> Lastly, one thing you are correct about, should I know or see you posting for delivery jobs etc anywhere I will feel it is my obligation for safeties sake to forward this posting to them. Hopefully when they Google search your name it will now appear.


An angel for every shoulder? Bless you for volunteering...


----------



## fryewe

fryewe said:


> An angel for every shoulder? Bless you for volunteering...


Oops...forgot this...uke


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

SalNichols94804 said:


> Well Mark, I can pretty much guarantee you that nearly every boat that left LA was provisioned along those lines. But please, next time you step aboard a race boat on a major passage be sure to make your opinion known before you leave the dock.


Absolutely. It goes to show how crew can be misinformed.
It also goes to show that race boats are heading back to the Fastnet days of irresponsibility.

What might be fine on a coastal race is, imho, insane on a long voyage to an isolate flock of islands, 2,000 nms from offshore.

I said before tha race is not a trans pacific... but it does go out far enough for prudent skippers to treat the ocean with a bit of respect.

Race boats take only enough meals for their exected race duration? Nothing set aside for an extra month at sea? Proper food, I mean, not just dehydrated crap. (that even if it wasnt crap you couldnt eat it as you would have run out of water.)

Mark


----------



## SalNichols94804

I can't speak for everyone, but we provisioned for 21 days, and we also had an emergency water maker...pur survivor on board. If you'd like, google ORC Offshore Regs for category 1 ocean races. That will give you a decent idea of how our boats are prepared/equipped for these races.


----------



## Minnewaska

The two things I was taught made for a high performing offshore crew were nourishment and hygiene. Not that one would shower while off shore, but crew should not be concerned for their next meal or drink. They remain more alert, willing and able, which has to overcome the weight of a few hundred pounds of water over two weeks. With a large crew, that weight is inside the variable on how much the combined crew themselves may weigh.


----------



## caberg

SalNichols94804 said:


> Regarding water. H2O is the heaviest item that you put on the boat. The NORMAL water plan is to account for 1 gallon/person/day. In the case of Aquarius, estimating a max 15 day passage * 5 crew =75 gallons. The Jeanneau 43 has a total capacity of 145 gallons. IOW, by topping off the tanks, they would have carrying 70 gallons more than necessary or 560 additional lbs., probably on the wrong side of the boat. Heavy is slow. I left SFO for Oahu with 5 people and 80 gallons, and arrived with 15 in the tank plus my 5 emergency gallons. This s SOP on a race boat amigos.
> 
> You drink it, you don't bathe with it, or wash dishes with it.


Well, all we know is that rockdawg made a point of mentioning that they left without topping off the water tanks, and by Day 12 he's writing this:



> Day 12, Friday, July 19:
> .....
> Our water is dangerously low. Jake only given 1.5 L bottle of water to drink each day.


Not to mention that the faucets were apparently being taped shut to prevent water from being used. So unless they were being exceptionally wasteful with their water in the first week, they left without enough water.


----------



## smurphny

Cutting it close with drinking water to compete in a race has got to be one of the most foolish ideas I've heard in a long time. I cannot believe anyone in his/her right mind would do this in search of a shiny pickle dish.


----------



## jackdale

The two Vic Maui boats that I delivered had water makers. In 2010 it failed five days from Victoria. But both tanks were full. 

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4


----------



## SalNichols94804

caberg said:


> Well, all we know is that rockdawg made a point of mentioning that they left without topping off the water tanks, and by Day 12 he's writing this:
> 
> Not to mention that the faucets were apparently being taped shut to prevent water from being used. So unless they were being exceptionally wasteful with their water in the first week, they left without enough water.


Actually, you don't know that. On day 12, they were 818 miles out of Honolulu. At their rate of 100+ miles/day, they were still 7.5 days at best from the finish. If they had provisioned for 15, which is reasonable, that would have left them 5 days short. So, does it not make sense to begin rationing?

The fundamental problem IMHO wasn't the provisioning. They just didn't sail fast enough.


----------



## SalNichols94804

jackdale said:


> The two Vic Maui boats that I delivered had water makers. In 2010 it failed five days from Victoria. But both tanks were full.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4


Deliveries are different. Apples and oranges.


----------



## jackdale

SalNichols94804 said:


> Deliveries are different. Apples and oranges.


True. The race crew ran the water maker and had showers. They are highly competitive. They finished second in their division last year.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4


----------



## caberg

SalNichols94804 said:


> Actually, you don't know that. On day 12, they were 818 miles out of Honolulu. At their rate of 100+ miles/day, they were still 7.5 days at best from the finish. If they had provisioned for 15, which is reasonable, that would have left them 5 days short. So, does it not make sense to begin rationing?
> 
> The fundamental problem IMHO wasn't the provisioning. They just didn't sail fast enough.


Uh, forgive me for being naive, but isn't provisioning a fundamental problem when you are running out of food and water?

I certainly would never step foot on a boat that intentionally cuts it that close. There are no guarantees when it comes to sailing "fast enough" for 2000 nm.


----------



## svHyLyte

SalNichols94804 said:


> Regarding water. H2O is the heaviest item that you put on the boat. The NORMAL water plan is to account for 1 gallon/person/day. In the case of Aquarius, estimating a max 15 day passage * 5 crew =75 gallons. The Jeanneau 43 has a total capacity of 145 gallons. IOW, by topping off the tanks, they would have carrying 70 gallons more than necessary or 560 additional lbs., probably on the wrong side of the boat. Heavy is slow. I left SFO for Oahu with 5 people and 80 gallons, and arrived with 15 in the tank plus my 5 emergency gallons. This s SOP on a race boat amigos.
> 
> You drink it, you don't bathe with it, or wash dishes with it.


The problem with that calculus is that there is very little room for error. I have been on races where we spent a fair amount of time hove too fore-reaching at 2 kn in the wrong direction before being able to resume sailing at a VMG rather less than our target speed. Had we suffered rig damage, or had to proceed under jury-rig, we'd have been far off our estimated average and, potentially, quite thirsty upon arrival. On one race I took part in, one of the yachts (not ours fortunately) came off a wave rather hard and a short while later had water up to the floor-boards--fresh water as a seam had split on one of the two tanks costing half their supply. We met up with them and passed them 5 gallons in a jug for which they were very grateful. Another boat did the same so all was well.

The fact is, having not taken aboard water before the race, the crew had no idea how much water was aboard at departure as I doubt anyone had been keeping track of usage before the race. If anything, they should have topped up and, having done so, could have off-loaded the excess if they felt there was any. (Frankly, on that yacht with that crew, I would not have assumed better than a 5 kn average. Using your numbers that would have required stores of about 110 gallons. The extra 240 lbs or so for a complete fill would have had negligible impact on the performance of the yacht).

The foregoing not withstanding, in my view the behavior of all aboard that yacht was atrocious. They got to Hawaii, largely uninjured, and should have been grateful for that, alone, and simply let the memory of the events be filed in their mental Lessons Learned folder. I surely would not have advertised the events and if so, most surely would not have expected a sympathetic hearing.

FWIW...


----------



## Ajax_MD

rockDAWG said:


> This is just sad. Blah, blah, blah <snip>


Seriously? Anyone in this thread who disagrees with your extremely one-sided telling of this story is a troll, is attacking you, is intimidating you? _"Oh, woe unto me, all of these non-believers are beating me up!_ Better call the Whaam-bulance, my friend.

I've never met Chef2Sail. I'm not his shill, and he says plenty that I disagree with, especially when he gets emotional. I found that I was able to form cogent questions about your story all on my own, without his help. Plenty of experienced mariners here (some of whom I've met in person) have pointed out the clear mistakes that you made.

As expected, you flame on _anyone_ who dares to suggest that maybe, just perhaps, somehow, you might share a tiny bit of blame in the situation you explained to us.

This is the arrogance that I spoke of, earlier in the thread. You might consider that being "Da mos educated *******" isn't quite education enough. Good luck out there dude, you're going to need it.


----------



## Ajax_MD

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Its easy to say "I would have taken one look at the boat and got off".
> 
> *But thats a big ask when you've paid for your air flights* (a lot of crew fly into the Canary Islands for a trans atlanitc and that costs heaps); plus they have taken 2 weeks or more off work... so what do they do now?
> In exitement of something new ones enthusiasm overlooks a lot of things.
> 
> *Its not easy to bail out.*


Not, it's not.
Yes, it is.

If you decide to put yourself out there as professional crew, or even "aspiring" professional crew, forfeiting expenses because the captain turns out to be a screw-up is what's call "occupational hazard".

It's your _life_ we're talking about here. Like Coquina said, he failed to exercise good judgement. As your resume and experience builds, theoretically, you start picking your rides more carefully and these "forfeits" become fewer and fewer. If you're a good, professional crewperson, with good references, you become known in the industry circles and this also helps cut down on bad races and deliveries. I imagine that something will always manage to pass through the filter once in a while though...

If you only value your life at the cost of a few thousand dollars for airline tickets, well...that sounds like a judgement problem to me. Your "risk vs. gain" filter is obviously broken.


----------



## shadowraiths

Interesting discussion over at SA regarding legal ramifications of mutiny, nre 18 USC 107 Seaman and Stowaways


----------



## SailMichigan

Sailing Anarchy has this listed under "Mutinous BS" however there is a Jeanneau 43 in the Transpac, with a Japanese named-skipper, and a co-owner named "Jane"t, and originated from CA. The boat started with the first group, but if you watch the "Yellowbrick" tracing, it had some signficant difficulty, was passed by every other boat, and then bailed at the finish.

Where's the rest of the story? Or .... has something untoward become of the original poster? Could this be the "Blair-Witch" of the high seas?


----------



## SailMichigan

Disregard the comment about the rest of the story. It was not evident from the forum entry point that there were more posts.


----------



## smackdaddy

Coquina said:


> I am a commercial pilot, but have never flown a 727 in my life.
> So if some random 727 flying airline wants me to be a copilot and the pilot has NEVER FLOWN ONE EITHER and is NUTS, you might admire my native flying skills for getting the thing to Hawaii in one piece, but my judgement would be terrible for not jumping right off and running away in the first place
> I suspect J.E and I share bit of the same kind of offshore experience and this trip screamed DISASTER from the first paragraph compared to what a "normal" offshore trip is like.


Again, the problem with your premise here, in relation to this particular story, is that you are assuming a lot. Jake was listed as having a bit of experience - at least in terms of his CG rating. Could he drive with and/or fly a spin? Seemed like it according to the story. But, unless you absolutely know the answer to that question, your premise begins to fall apart - and that decision becomes harder.

Things were more complex than you want to make them. That's all I'm saying.



chef2sail said:


> No ones got a pudgy for Rock. The skippers weaknesses are obvious. However you seem to want to be an apologist for Rocks choices and behavior.
> 
> You went so far as to try and denegrate the Captain with one of 48 reviews of his business from the Yelp site. The worst one as a matter of fact, and it wasn't representative of the other 48 reviews at all. Why did you do that. Why did you cherry pick that skewed review?


Sigh. Chef, you do get tiresome sometimes. I didn't cherry pick anything. That would require effort. As clearly shown in my post, I pulled that from the thread at SA. And I did so because it seemed to back-up the personality portrayed in the story. That's it.

So I didn't "denegrate" [sic] - _anyone_. No big conspiracy dude.



chef2sail said:


> Have you researched Rocks evaluations from his employees, they are available and aren't very kind. Seems like you are ok with presenting a one sided view here


I've seen some of the stuff. But I'm not into outing people like that. You seem to have that market cornered, considering it your job to protect the sailing world by calling CG commanders and sending posts to people looking for crew whom you don't approve...



chef2sail said:


> Lastly, one thing you are correct about, should I know or see you posting for delivery jobs etc anywhere I will feel it is my obligation for safeties sake to forward this posting to them. Hopefully when they Google search your name it will now appear.


I just don't roll like that.

Look, I'm just following the story as it plays out across the forums. Why? Because as I said very early on here - and with my first post at SA...it's a hell of a story. That's really all I care about. Seriously.



JonEisberg said:


> You're right, we have no knowledge of how he or the skipper presented themselves and their qualifications to one another, or what sort of understanding they had...


That's really my main point.



JonEisberg said:


> However, back when I was a kid fresh out of college and looking to do some offshore racing, and walking the docks prior to the LA-Mazatlan, Chicago-Mac, and Marblehead-Halifax races wearing my 'Crew Available' tee shirt, there was simply no freakin' way I would have solicited a berth on a boat without having a fair amount of experience flying the sort of chutes and bloopers common at that time... Now, maybe that's just me... And, while I can't offer proof of that, or document it, I can assure you - _that is a FACT..._


My problem is with your notion that to even _ask_ to crew a TransPac without Experience A, or Qualification Y, or whatever, is "heresy". That's BS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking. Ever. It's _THE SKIPPER'S_ job to do some due diligence and say "yes" or "no" to that ask...for all the reasons you mention above.

By your focusing on the crew's "presumption" (this is what I meant about your "uppity hyperbole"), you're actually fostering a more dangerous situation, deflecting the responsibility from the skipper. You should absolutely focus the perfectly valid ire you have been laying out in your posts _ON THE SKIPPER_. It's ALWAYS his call - not the crew's - as to who gets on his boat. This skipper blew it in every regard. So put the hammer where it's due.

That's all I'm saying.



JonEisberg said:


> As to the veracity of any of this sorry tale, I'd say the jury is still out on that one... To many experienced racers, and the folks over at Sailing Anarchy, it smells like BS, so who knows what is the truth here...
> 
> If you look back at the start of this thread, when everyone couldn't wait for Part II, and some were already pronouncing the story 'epic' and 'best story ever', I was among the first to express my 'doubts'... In retrospect, I'd say I was pretty restrained compared to what followed, pretty much limiting my characterization to certain elements of the story - the encounter with the SWIFT, for example - as simply sounding "implausible"...


I have no idea if it's "true". Several things seem to back up the general thrust of the story. But honestly, I don't give a damn if it's true or not. As I said above (I'm one of the ones you're quoting) I just think it's a damn good story...epic even. And I'm all about good sailing stories.



JonEisberg said:


> I'll admit, however, the tide turned for me when the talk started up about him bringing a lawsuit against the skipper for the "mistreatment" he suffered... Sorry, that's when the gloves came off for me... The ocean, and the sport of yacht racing, has no place for the sort of Whiny B*itches who probably shouldn't have been out there to begin with...  I could care less what he chooses to do, whether he had a pleasant trip or a miserable one, but that sort of nonsense is the kind of thing that could ultimately affect us all, or the proud legacy of of a race as grand as the Transpac...


Again, this is precisely why your ire should be directed at the skipper. His poor decision-making - as a participating TransPac skipper - that led to this fiasco will have a far greater affect on the TransPac itself and even "sailing/racing at large" than some litigious crew-member who couldn't fly a kite.



SalNichols94804 said:


> Morning light...a perfect example of having an incredibly talented crew each with their own egos coming together for a common goal. Kind of what you'd expect when Roy (rip) is providing you the best sailors on the planet as mentors/coaches.


I thought it was all about the Whomper.


----------



## Sal Paradise

I agree with the poster who said there is too much venom and to let the guy blow off some steam. Better to get the whole tale ( or his whole version) and he gets to vent. I have read nothing that actually contradicts his account, slanted though it might be. Let the reader decide. Probably too late for that now as the guy is getting some serious hostility and I wouldn't blame him if he never came back. Everyone slants things a little to make themselves look blameless. Everyone. 

I doubt there will be a lawsuit. I don't really see serious damages on his part, he isn't hurt or permanently disabled. I'm no expert on sailing, but I am somewhat schooled in labor law due to my career as an architect and construction manager.....and its not clear if there is a case, from what I have read. 
I mean, you can sue a ham sandwich iif you want to.


----------



## MedSailor

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Its easy to say "I would have taken one look at the boat and got off".
> 
> But thats a big ask when you've paid for your air flights (a lot of crew fly into the Canary Islands for a trans atlanitc and that costs heaps); plus they have taken 2 weeks or more off work... so what do they do now?
> In exitement of something new ones enthusiasm overlooks a lot of things.
> 
> Its not easy to bail out.


Wow, what an epic story! I just finished reading all the posts and links except for the entire SA thread or any of the personal/restaurant reviews.

First, I'd like to commend RockDawg for posting his story here. Unlike most who come here to tell their tale and then get torn a new orifice, RD has been here long enough that he KNEW that would happen, and yet he chose to share his story and take the grief that would follow. After all, that's what we do at Sailnet right? Monday morning quarterback? 

Personally I think there can be something learned from picking apart a story and discussing it, but I don't get the obsession with assigning blame... "It's the captain's fault", "It's RD's fault", "Everybody's at fault", "It's the 86 y/o lady's fault!". I see absolutely no utility in assigning fault by SailNet Jury (though I have my suspicions about the old lady ).

I see this as a cautionary tale. Yes, in hindsight, he wouldn't have had this experience if he refused to go. BUT he gave up a lot to go. Jumping off the boat at the fuel dock when the tanks weren't filled up? Swim home? Really? What and leave all your stuff there? It sounds like that point was the point of no return.

This experience reminds me of the lesson I keep re-learning about a calendar being the most dangerous item on the boat. *It's not the schedule that gets us, it's the unwillingness to bag the plan regardless of consequences that makes us sail into things we shouldn't.* I see this tale as a reinforcement of that lesson for me.

I also see the lesson of making sure *not to put yourself in that last minute position* by taking the necessary steps to check our your boat/skipper/crew first. I interviewed a boat/skipper in person for a Vic Maui months before the race and declined. They DNF'd a couple days in. I've stepped on enough boats for an afternoon that I'd NEVER want to be on again to risk that kind of thing for an ocean race. Heck, a co-worker at West Marine took a paid delivery crew job and the captain had never sailed before. he refused to turn off the engine (ever) and they ran out of fuel, drifted to the Dominican Republic without permission and my friend ended up in a Dominican jail (where they don't feed you) for a couple days.

To those that don't have the awesome sailing resumes to pick the most pedigreed boats, please exercise even more caution. Experienced skippers can get experienced crew, inexperienced ones often can't. Be careful.

As for the lawsuit, give the guy a break. It's a pretty normal reaction to a stressful situation to want to get back at the guy. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), in our society today, there aren't other good ways of venting that anger. In the ol' days we had pistol duels and fisticuffs. Honor was reclaimed and things were "made right". Now you go to prison for that kind of stuff. I hope he doesn't sue, because lawsuits usually aren't good for the person bringing suit, the one being sued, or anyone else for that matter.

Thanks RockDawg for posting. I think you knew you'd get roasted by SailNet, but your story is valuable and likely will save someone else looking to crew from a similar situation.

MedSailor


----------



## MedSailor

chef2sail said:


> Lastly, one thing you are correct about, should I know or see you posting for delivery jobs etc anywhere *I will feel it is my obligation for safeties sake* to forward this posting to them. Hopefully when they Google search your name it will now appear.


Chef, please don't do this, and PLEASE don't even pretend that you're doing this for the betterment of others and that your motives are pure. Unless you completely lack personal insight you, like the rest of us, can see that you are making this personal and are being vindictive.

You and he disagree, why not keep it here on SailNet?

MedSailor


----------



## Ajax_MD

Med,

Don't pat RD on the back too hard. He obviously posted this story expecting a great deal of sympathy, and once some of the experienced ocean sailors criticized him, he began whining and complaining about trolls and attacks. He's hardly as noble as you paint him.

That being said, I totally agree that we should stay out of his future business and not interfere with his future crewing prospects as Chef suggested. None of us are witnesses to what really happened. I personally, think this story is a totally, one-sided piece of bunk but I have no proof of anything and I'm not about to interfere in RD's personal affairs by blocking his attempts to sail, or make recommendations for/against him based solely on his internet postings.


----------



## Minnewaska

Clearly he was blowing off steam. No one can get in his head and know what he wanted or expected in return.

To threaten to mess with an anonymous blog poster's future, because one doesn't like what he wrote, is disturbed.


----------



## fryewe

Minnewaska said:


> ...is disturbed.


No words can improve on this simple statement.


----------



## smackdaddy

fryewe said:


> No words can improve on this simple statement.


Fryewe.










He doesn't often post. But when he does...it's gold.

(PS - Did you guys know that TMIMITW is a sailor? Bam.)


----------



## poopdeckpappy

fryewe said:


> An angel for every shoulder? Bless you for volunteering...
> 
> .........Oops...forgot this...uke





MedSailor said:


> Chef, please don't do this, and PLEASE don't even pretend that you're doing this for the betterment of others and that your motives are pure. Unless you completely lack personal insight you, like the rest of us, can see that you are making this personal and are being vindictive.
> 
> You and he disagree, why not keep it here on SailNet?
> 
> MedSailor


I had to hand ya both a "like" goodie before Chef used up the "like" allowance is his quest to show his disproval of RD's wild adventure


----------



## smackdaddy

poopdeckpappy said:


> I had to hand ya both a "like" goodie before Chef used up the "like" allowance is his quest to show his disproval of RD's wild adventure











*"Sorry. This adventure is NOT APPROVED."*


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> *"Sorry. This adventure is NOT APPROVED."*


Wait to go Rockdawg, you have been successful in deflecting your actions and your original postings toward me. Most are smart enough to see through this smokescreen and focus on the original thread and your decisions but some took the bait. Saying others are shills for me, hell most of them don't even like me:laugher:laugher, and none of them even know me. They have brains and can see through this crap, unlike some others. For those that can...they get the like button

Smack....you get the thread drift and deflection award for trying to make it about me. You truly pick up the gauntlet as an apologist for Rockdawg. From the misinformation you posted on the Captains business, to posting on Sailing Anarchy to give fresh meat to the lions over there who have ridiculed RD not the Captain, much to your chagrin, to now directing the thread toward me.

None of these personal comments are pertinent and germane to the subject, so turn off the deflect button Rockdawg threw out there and try to stay on course here, its not about me at all.

*Its about the original post*, the tall tales and obvious inconsistencies and the incredible inept Captain ( if we believe half of the story). We have yet to see movies as promised. Where is Jake? We have heard from another crew of experienced racers who have sailed with the Captain twice before and would have a third time had the last member of the crew been allowed to come. Why would they do that if this man was so over the top. We have heard from others with race and long ocean experience here on many aspects of this one sided "fairy tale" told by Rockdawg who have major major questions.

Quite frankly I do not believe this tall tale completely, and neither do some others. And mutiny on a vessel is a big deal.

Chris Carter recent inductee in the pro football Hall of Fame would have a field day with this

Call the US Navy...come on man. They see no problem

Call the CG...come on man. They hang up

Strike the Captain, and brag about it.... come on man...wow.

Fly a spinnaker at night shorthanded( a dangerous feat for experienced sailors, especially when pushing hard and having a crew who had NEVER worked together when having no practice ever having done that...come on man.

Force the Captain to use the autopilot because you think its right even though it automatically DQs him...come on man.

Get on a boat purporting to be the Navigator without researching the Captain or even the rules of the race for a 14 day race, not cruise,...come on man

Leave on the boat without filling the water tanks....come on man

Getting on here with the SOLE purpose of ruing the Captain and his reputation. Remember it was Rockdawg who wanted vengeance all along through lawsuit and this forum.

The poor judgment exercised by Rockdawg whose bravado and lack of experience finally caught up with him posing as a delivery Captain, are apparent to many others as they are apparent to me.

The "need" to build a resume far outweighed following prudent procedures as outlined through the whole thread. Its really that simple.

Yes the Captain should be avoided for his inexperience and decisions...and many suggested posting warnings to others about the Captain if I recall. In fact that was one of if not the main reason for Rockdawg writing here really, to ruin his reputation. He was going to ruin him here on SN and then bring suit against him also. He penned this by his own hand.

So its not so far a fetch to warn others who want to employ or travel with Rockdawg about his boastful mutiny. Its a taste of the same medicine he sought to bring upon the Captain.

Stay focused on the thread and the actions of Rockdawg and the Captain. I am not part of this story, just one single sailor with an opinion like or unlike yours.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Reading some of the replies on here from sailors/racers who have some what more experience and who seem to be a tad harsh on RD, I thought I would throw this in here, really has nothing to do with sailing but....

Two days ago we had a birthday party on the beach for my son who wasn't supposed to see his next BD, there was over 30 people there. We had canopies, big a$$ BBQ and herd of burgers to cook & all the fixings and then some. Next to us was two young couples with their little kids and they too were doing a BBQ. Problem was, in their rush to get to the beach, they forgot a bag that had most of their BBQ stuff.

The guys doing our BBQ were feeding over 30 people like a full on catering service, never missed a beat. The group next to us? not so well, he was trying to cook without BBQ tools, picking hot food off the grill with his fingers and dropping some in the sand 

Seeing this, did we bash them for being ill perpared? No, we leant them our extra tools and gave them our extra condiments, they were very thankful, we were glad to help and we knew ( because they said ) next time they'll be better perpared.

What's this have to do with RD's adventure? Maybe not a F'n thing but then maybe it does. We don't need to beat our fellow sailors down for a bad judgement call, anymore than we need to beat down a fellow beach goer for being ill- perpare to BBQ, Hell, as well setup as we were? I know CruisingDad would have schooled us on the art of fine BBQ'ing.

I guess the point is, no matter how much a expert you think you are, there is someone out there that we'll school ya, so tread lightly on your brothers.


OH!!!, btw, here's the best part, I think; Sitting on the seas wall was a young homeless guy, propably hadn't eat'n in days, Levi ( our head chef ) cooked the guy a big fat juicy doulbe decker cheese burger, the famlies next to us, the ones we helped, Well, they played it foward by fixing him a plate of beans and potato salad.

We didn't bash him either.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

That had to be the longest worthless post I've done here, I've done short and worthless but not long and worthless


----------



## oceangirl

poopdeckpappy said:


> That had to be the longest worthless post I've done here, I've done short and worthless but not long and worthless


Nope.


----------



## killarney_sailor

SalNichols94804 said:


> Regarding water. H2O is the heaviest item that you put on the boat. The NORMAL water plan is to account for 1 gallon/person/day. In the case of Aquarius, estimating a max 15 day passage * 5 crew =75 gallons. The Jeanneau 43 has a total capacity of 145 gallons. IOW, by topping off the tanks, they would have carrying 70 gallons more than necessary or 560 additional lbs., probably on the wrong side of the boat. Heavy is slow. I left SFO for Oahu with 5 people and 80 gallons, and arrived with 15 in the tank plus my 5 emergency gallons. This s SOP on a race boat amigos.
> 
> You drink it, you don't bathe with it, or wash dishes with it.


There is a different mindset between cruisers and full-blown (yes, I know) racers. We became acquainted with a Kiwi who raced a custom mini-Transat. To my mind you have to be a bit nuts to want to race a 22 footer from France to Brazil but to each person ...

Anyway, after his first such race (well back in the pack) he asked a French guy who was the superstar of such racing how to improve. The first suggestion was to throw out 2/3 of the mandated water supply immediately after starting the race. He did this next time and had a much better result. Of course this is in a race boat where everything is made out of carbon to keep the weight down.


----------



## JonEisberg

chef2sail said:


> Saying others are shills for me, hell most of them don't even like me:laugher:laugher, and none of them even know me.


Yeah, believing people like myself, or SalNichols, are "lapdogs", or "minions" of yours, requires a vivid imagination, indeed... 

One can only imagine how much of that quality went into the telling of the original tale, to begin with... 

rockDAWG, I hope your next trip goes better than the last... So, as navigator, have you figured out where the notorious Hour Glass Shoal is yet?

Hint: its position is indicated on a chart of the Mona Passage... If you need further clarification, I suggest you consult Don Street, or Steve Pavlidis...


----------



## Flybyknight

There is one good thing about this thread, and that is, it exposed several unpleasant owners whom I would politely decline crewing for. 
We're in this game to have fun, remember?
And I nominate *poopdeckpappy* for Sail-Net's Best Skipper Award.


----------



## Slayer

Hey Rockdog.....thanks for the great story and generating this entertaining thread. I have one question just for clarification. When you started using the autopilot had you already abandoned the race and doing it for safety?


----------



## Classic30

Flybyknight said:


> And I nominate *poopdeckpappy* for Sail-Net's Best Skipper Award.


But... but.. he doesn't even race!! 

(Read post #189)


----------



## lancelot9898

Classic30 said:


> But... but.. he doesn't even race!!
> 
> (Read post #189)


He doesn't need to race since he has one of the best cruising boat ever built.


----------



## Classic30

lancelot9898 said:


> He doesn't need to race since he has one of the best cruising boat ever built.


So.. someone who owns "the best cruising boat ever built" (and that's totally debateable, btw) is automatically also the Best Skipper ever?? 

Whatever floats your boat..


----------



## JonEisberg

poopdeckpappy said:


> Reading some of the replies on here from sailors/racers who have some what more experience and who seem to be a tad harsh on RD, I thought I would throw this in here, really has nothing to do with sailing but....
> 
> Two days ago we had a birthday party on the beach for my son who wasn't supposed to see his next BD, there was over 30 people there. We had canopies, big a$$ BBQ and herd of burgers to cook & all the fixings and then some. Next to us was two young couples with their little kids and they too were doing a BBQ. Problem was, in their rush to get to the beach, they forgot a bag that had most of their BBQ stuff.
> 
> The guys doing our BBQ were feeding over 30 people like a full on catering service, never missed a beat. The group next to us? not so well, he was trying to cook without BBQ tools, picking hot food off the grill with his fingers and dropping some in the sand
> 
> Seeing this, did we bash them for being ill perpared? No, we leant them our extra tools and gave them our extra condiments, they were very thankful, we were glad to help and we knew ( because they said ) next time they'll be better perpared.
> 
> What's this have to do with RD's adventure? Maybe not a F'n thing but then maybe it does. We don't need to beat our fellow sailors down for a bad judgement call, anymore than we need to beat down a fellow beach goer for being ill- perpare to BBQ, Hell, as well setup as we were? I know CruisingDad would have schooled us on the art of fine BBQ'ing.
> 
> I guess the point is, no matter how much a expert you think you are, there is someone out there that we'll school ya, so tread lightly on your brothers.
> 
> OH!!!, btw, here's the best part, I think; Sitting on the seas wall was a young homeless guy, propably hadn't eat'n in days, Levi ( our head chef ) cooked the guy a big fat juicy doulbe decker cheese burger, the famlies next to us, the ones we helped, Well, they played it foward by fixing him a plate of beans and potato salad.
> 
> We didn't bash him either.


That's a nice story, you are quite obviously a generous and compassionate man, with an admirable willingness to forgive the sort of mistakes any of us can make, at any time... Glad to hear your son is doing well, of course...

But I suspect you're right, and the day you've described has not much relevance to what's transpired in this thread... 

To make an analogy between the respective lack of preparation for a beach barbecue, and a 2,000+ mile offshore passage seems just a bit of a stretch... It's one thing to lend tools or advice to a group in an adjacent barbecue pit, but quite another to receive similar assistance - whether it be the gift of an extra 50 gallons of water, or putting crew aboard to unsnarl a spinnaker, or offer some kite-flying 'instruction' - midway between LA and Hawaii...

I'm sorry, but the OP has reaped much of what he's sown in this thread... Much of his account as posted seems questionable, and in the process he has quite likely impugned the reputation of members of the Transpac Race Committee, and the command of the US Navy's SWIFT, among others. I simply find it highly unlikely that Dave Cort "hung up on him" in the manner in which that phrase is generally used, and I seriously doubt the encounter with the naval vessel went down precisely as he described...

But again, it was when he started talking of potential legal action, that the tide changed for me... Might your attitude towards your neighbors at the beach the other day possibly have been a bit different, if they had been blaming the Parks Department for not supplying grilling tools with the barbecues for their own lack of preparation, for example? And, when he reaffirms his belief that a lawsuit in the case of the RULE 62 is not justified, and might make it more difficult for him to find crewing positions, but that in this event, he might feel entitled to compensation for his "mistreatment", well... the depth of such hypocrisy is stunning...

So, no, I don't see this thread as being primarily about "bashing a fellow sailor"... Sure, it's become personal on some levels, but the tone of the OP laid much of that groundwork from the outset (he himself did a pretty good job of "bashing a fellow sailor" who is not here to tell his side of the story, ofter all), and the fact that he still thinks that much of the blowback he's received is due to an ongoing feud with another poster here, is pretty clear evidence that he still doesn't get it, what his mistakes might have been, or his own responsibilities towards accepting them...


----------



## tlinehan

After this thread Captains will require all crew to sign non-disclosure agreements...


----------



## blowinstink

JonEisberg said:


> But again, it was when he started talking of potential legal action, that the tide changed for me... And, when he reaffirms his belief that a lawsuit in the case of the RULE 62 is not justified, and might make it more difficult for him to find crewing positions, but that in this event, he might feel entitled to compensation for his "mistreatment", well... the depth of such hypocrisy is stunning...


I generally think your post above was really unnecessary at this point Jon. I don't know if its just Monday morning or maybe your dog bit you or something. The need to restate the negative tone in response to Poopdeck's post is so depressingly normal around here. I find it weird that you begin by saying (repeating really because you've said the same thing already in this thread) that you don't accept the OP's story -- but yet you seem to have conjured up enough "facts" to replace it. I just don't get it. Personally, I am happier with a whole lot less judgement and certainly less fire and brimstone. If you have an opinion about what a would be crew member should do prior to agreeing to sign-on with a skipper maybe you could say so. It is really easy to simply criticize and often it is also inaccurate. RD made one really big mistake in deciding to board the boat. However, absent the owner's alleged misconduct -- that same "can do / I'm here to sail" quality that got RD on the boat -- would have been an asset in almost every situation.

What I really wanted to comment on, however, was the quote above because *your opinion* of a legal distinction is not in dispute. You think that the allegedly _negligent decision_ by the skipper of RULE 62 and the alleged_ intentional conduct_ by the owner of the RD's Transpac boat are the same and that it is "the height of hypocrisy" to distinguish between them (which BTW is what RD did -- you inaccurately accuse him of raising the prospect of legal action -- someone else brought that up RD responded). Jon - you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. And, you have some fine things to say about boats now and again here on SN. But your opinion about the law -- and more importantly about the facts underlying the legal distinction between intentional conduct and mistakes -- is ignorant. You would do well to think about the distinction between the conduct at issue; the actor's choices; their abilities to do differently or correct their conduct; as well as the impact which holding them responsible for their conduct might have on others. If you still don't get it, maybe it would help you to inform your self about the legal distinctions since courts have spent hundred if not thousands of years expounding on these questions. As Poop said . . . they might even school you.


----------



## smurphny

The most disturbing aspect of this discussion is how quickly it went to the lawsuit topic. If there is one thing you can put your finger on that is an absolute menace to our culture it is the lawsuit-happy mindset of people. Everyone wants to get on the sue-you bandwagon to instant riches. Makes me nauseous.


----------



## Coquina

Poopdeck's post was a nice read. He sounds like a great guy to have next to you on the beach or in the marina. Willing to lend a hand and a kind word. It has little relevance to being more than 1,000 miles from the nearest supplies. Forgetting half your stuff at the beach means at worst someone has to drive back to the nearest store. Forgetting half your stuff sailing to Hawaii is not an "oopsie darn the luck" kind of thing. It is life threatening. Kind of like the difference between running your car out of gas and running your airplane out of gas


----------



## JonEisberg

blowinstink said:


> What I really wanted to comment on, however, was the quote above because *your opinion* of a legal distinction is not in dispute. You think that the allegedly _negligent decision_ by the skipper of RULE 62 and the alleged_ intentional conduct_ by the owner of the RD's Transpac boat are the same and that it is "the height of hypocrisy" to distinguish between them (which BTW is what RD did -- you inaccurately accuse him of raising the prospect of legal action -- someone else brought that up RD responded). Jon - you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. And, you have some fine things to say about boats now and again here on SN. But your opinion about the law -- and more importantly about the facts underlying the legal distinction between intentional conduct and mistakes -- is ignorant. You would do well to think about the distinction between the conduct at issue; the actor's choices; their abilities to do differently or correct their conduct; as well as the impact which holding them responsible for their conduct might have on others. If you still don't get it, maybe it would help you to inform your self about the legal distinctions since courts have spent hundred if not thousands of years expounding on these questions. As Poop said . . . they might even school you.


That's certainly a fair point, I would be the first to concede my understanding of the legal complexities of these respective examples might only rise to the level of any layman, at best... I was simply pointing out the _'coarsest'_ distinction between the two - namely that one involved a _fatality_ to a crewmember, while the other involved little more than _ unpleasantness_ to a sailor who has survived to sail again...

You're right, in the letters of the law, it is perhaps best left to the experts to explain those subtle distinctions... For example, such as why the decision by the skipper of RULE 62 to enter that Bahamian cut that night could merely be adjudged a _mistake_ instead of _intentional conduct_, whereas the failure, say, to top off the water tanks on AQUARIUS prior to departure would likely have been _intentional conduct_, and not simply a _mistake_...


----------



## smackdaddy

tlinehan said:


> After this thread Captains will require all crew to sign non-disclosure agreements...


Dude - this is your first post in 11 years???? That's impressive right there.


----------



## Slayer

smackdaddy said:


> Dude - this is your first post in 11 years???? That's impressive right there.


Haha. This is a very moving thread!


----------



## kjango

I hesitate to comment , but since I've read this thread I can't stop thinking about anyone trying to confine me to my bunk & there being no critical care for a thousand miles . Lord have mercy . What has sailing come to ??? Is confined to your bunk like time out . Good thing I sail alone If that's how it is now . Right or wrong , someone tries to confine me to my bunk.....I put the clown in time out to where his clothes are out of style when he regains consciousness . Don't get me started about that suing crap & what a shoe clerk idea that is.


----------



## SalNichols94804

kjango said:


> I hesitate to comment , but since I've read this thread I can't stop thinking about anyone trying to confine me to my bunk & there being no critical care for a thousand miles . Lord have mercy . What has sailing come to ??? Is confined to your bunk like time out . Good thing I sail alone If that's how it is now . Right or wrong , someone tries to confine me to my bunk.....I put the clown in time out to where his clothes are out of style when he regains consciousness . Don't get me started about that suing crap & what a shoe clerk idea that is.


And if you had already demonstrated (as RD described in his rant) a willingness to physically assault the owner/captain? What then?


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> And if you had already demonstrated (as RD described in his rant) a willingness to physically assault the owner/captain? What then?


Was this at the part where the o/c is swinging a winch handle at the other crew's head? So your cool with that?


----------



## shadowraiths

blowinstink said:


> you inaccurately accuse him of raising the prospect of legal action -- someone else brought that up RD responded.


Agreed. However:



chucklesR said:


> Should stop at a lawyers office and start a suit for reckless endangerment, both on Harry and on the Transpac race organization.


is a far cry from:



rockDAWG said:


> My secretary did some work for me regarding the Labor Law in CA. I can file three complaints against the company
> 
> •Violation (for not providing sufficient safety and welfare of the employee, water, etc.)
> 
> •Retaliation (for threatening after you called CG)
> 
> •Wage (for not reimbursing the expenses to go home)
> 
> The boat is in the name of the corporation, was used as a tax write off, we were the employee of the company and were protected by the labor law of California. All three complaints are well documented in our correspondings (emails), video, pictures, and voice recordings. If DOL is sided on our case, the legal action will follow.


and:



rockDAWG said:


> Not yet, one step at a time.
> 
> 1. Filing the compliants
> 2. DOL reviews the case and evidences
> 3. DOL takes action if any
> 4. DOL open mediation and compensation
> 4. DOL grants the right to sue
> 5. Looking for a lawyer
> 
> This will take months and years perhaps, Patience is a virtue. Even they win, they will lose big time.


and the smug tone contained therein.

While there will always be monday morning quarterbacking (_and I've certainly done my share in that aspect_), and in fact, suggestions to bring legal action, in any thread involving retellings of this or that "_misadventure_," I proffer that the more negative comments in this thread are in response to the "_victim-hero_" tone that rock set in his posts.



rockDAWG said:


> Post Note:
> Shortly I got home. I heard from the news that tropical storm Floosie is on its way to Hilo. I guess Jake and I save the boat and her owners. [/url]


People tend to be quite forgiving of mistakes made and admitted. It is when a person blames everyone and everything else while painting themselves as a faultless victim, or in this case a faultless victim/fearless hero, where charity tends to fall by the wayside.

Anyway, jmo. As always, TWYWAHTR.


----------



## oceangirl

Classic30 said:


> So.. someone who owns "the best cruising boat ever built" (and that's totally debateable, btw) is automatically also the Best Skipper ever??
> 
> Whatever floats your boat..


You racers are sooo competitive!  I bet you cut your toothbrush in half to save weight.


----------



## hellosailor

Employees of the corporation now?? Gee, even in Cali with nutso labor laws, I can't see that being likely unless you got hired and paid. And then if you were paid and that made oyu into paid CREW on a documented vessel, that would trigger a whole set of admiralty laws about seamen under the Jones Act(s), something way more complex than a Cali labor department matter.

Not to mention, whether this was or wasn't corporate use of what was or wasn't a corporate asset, which might lead to a whole tax audit and other consequences.

Rockdawg, if you want to pursue those options you might wind up owning a sushi house and a boat. But it ain't gonna be pretty following that road. If the guy is nutso and dangerously so, Cali must have a way to order a 48-hour lockup psych evaluation for him as well.


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> Was this at the part where the o/c is swinging a winch handle at the other crew's head? So your cool with that?


Day 7 ..."warned him that I made no apology of my behavior of rising hell if he ever endangers my life again".

"Endangering his life" consisted of multiple trips up the rig to effect a repair.

Days 8-12 consist of sailing and a nightly spinnaker wrap. RD makes a point of having to douse the kite in 17 kts. Well princess, you're going downwind at 7.5, meaning you have 9.5 apparent. BFD. If you knew anything about dousing a kite, you could have letterboxed it if the breeze was too much for you. There is just so much bloody whynging from this guy.

Day 12..."Mutiny is the only way to survive. I begged Harry to use the autohelm to control the spinnaker or we quit. We gladly put our lives on the line so many times (6) and we were only half way to Hawaii. We could not do this anymore. Like all the other times, they refused to use autohelm. I instructed Jake to use my satphone to call Dave Cort (Race Committee) The boat's satphone was no Longer accessible to us. I spoke to Dave begging him to help us to resolve the problem. He refused and claimed that is not their problem and we must resolve ourselves. I told him that this had become a safety issue for the crew members. I asked him to contact the CG for us and have the CG to call the owner. He hung up on me.

Because of poor reception, we moved up to cockpit to call the CG. Harry came behind and attacked Jake and use his arm around his neck and tried to get our sat phone and throw it over board. I struggled with him and he turned around and picked up the winch handle trying to strike Jake's head. I blocked his arm from hitting Jake. I dared him to strike me. But I was in a combat mode to block and struck his nose. He hesitated for a second and I grabbed and threw the handle away. Jane jumped in the midst of this for our phone, I grabbed her hands and pushed her to the starboard side of the cockpit and sat still. I told Jake to escape into the v-berth with the phone. 
I shouted both of them with fouled language that they were no match with my strength and speed. 'Don't be stupid'!!!"

Now keep in mind that ALL of this drama is happening because of a few midnight spinnaker wraps, and our Mr. RD feels that it's dangerous to work on deck at night in 17 kts of true wind. Guess what? The same **** is happening on half the boats in the fleet, and all hands toss on their foulie bottoms harness and boots and fix the problem. Is it dangerous? Hell yes, but you do it. IMHO, RD was completely over his head with regards to the 24/7 nature of a major ocean race. I'm not saying that Harry was competent, he clearly couldn't drive at night. That isn't uncommon btw.

You asked me if I was "ok with that". Personally sir, if my crew tried to commandeer my boat, I'd be fine with shooting them.


----------



## SalNichols94804

oceangirl said:


> You racers are sooo competitive!  I bet you cut your toothbrush in half to save weight.


Winning is kind of the point now, isn't it.


----------



## svHyLyte

oceangirl said:


> You racers are sooo competitive!  I bet you cut your toothbrush in half to save weight.


That would be silly. FYI--Each watch has their own toothbrush that is just shared. With two 3-crew watches, that eliminates 4 unnecessary toothbrushes.


----------



## caberg

svHyLyte said:


> That would be silly. FYI--Each watch has their own toothbrush that is just shared. With two 3-crew watches, that eliminates 4 unnecessary toothbrushes.


Yea, but I doubt there's an extra drop of water to brush, so what's the point.


----------



## shadowraiths

hellosailor said:


> If the guy is nutso and dangerously so, Cali must have a way to order a 48-hour lockup psych evaluation for him as well.


Fwiw, and fyi, the 5150 psych hold is for a max of 72-hours and must be initiated by a peace officer. This guy's behavior, even if accurately described by rock, does not even remotely meet the requirements for initiating such a hold.


----------



## svHyLyte

caberg said:


> Yea, but I doubt there's an extra drop of water to brush, so what's the point.


Jeeze--Don't you guys know nut'n about racing? Baking soda and salt water are perfect for brushing ones teeth. Keep's em white. Who'd waste fresh water on teeth brushing?


----------



## casey1999

This thread brings up some interesting points. Maybe I missed the answers, but here are my questions:

Say you are on a race or cruise and either you or one the crew wants to get off the boat and you are 1,000 miles from land. What are the options? What if the reasons to get off the boat are due to violent actions by captain or one of the crew? In cases like this what action should one take?


----------



## Donna_F

Classic30 said:


> So.. someone who owns "the best cruising boat ever built" (and that's totally debateable, btw) is automatically also the Best Skipper ever??
> 
> Whatever floats your boat..


I read that as a reflection on his obvious humanitarianism in that situation on the beach, not on his skills as a skipper or what type of sailing he does. I think it was meant metaphorically.


----------



## ShoalFinder

Sailing light on water for the sake of weight makes great sense for the vessel we're talking about. Fresh off their America's Cup victory they were hell bent for leather, or Hawaii- whichever comes first. This crew- they eat when the boat docks and sleep when they die, that hard salty lot does.

A crew that hardcore only needs two cups of water a day, because a gallon a day is for chumps who like to cook and wash their crack now and again. First they went to wet-wipes, but felt guilty after realizing they were forcing the captain to haul dead weight and so they started squeezing the moisture out of them dockside. Hell, the 100 year old lady doesn't need much water. You can skip her water ration on odd days because she'll forget about it anyway. At her age, she's on the way out any day now, so don't sweat it. The old broad sure can handle a spinnaker, though!

Poor RD had no idea he was supposed to donate blood the day before the race to save weight and spray PAM on his underpants because this tub doesn't haul toilet paper. 

This is the big leagues, RD! Hell's Kitchen goes to sea! You want to navigate?  Here's your course, 'wog... head West until the seagulls speak Tahitian, and if they start to speak Tagalog then turn around! Shape up or ship out, matey!


----------



## SalNichols94804

casey1999 said:


> This thread brings up some interesting points. Maybe I missed the answers, but here are my questions:
> 
> Say you are on a race or cruise and either you or one the crew wants to get off the boat and you are 1,000 miles from land. What are the options? What if the reasons to get off the boat are due to violent actions by captain or one of the crew? In cases like this what action should one take?


If its a crewed boat, it's ez enough to diffuse by swapping watches. If you're two up, writing snarky messages to one another with a felt pen on the mainsail works. You just NEVER threaten anyone. Once you do that, as RD did on Day 7, you've opened Pandoras Box.


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> Day 7 ..."warned him that I made no apology of my behavior of rising hell if he ever endangers my life again".
> 
> "Endangering his life" consisted of multiple trips up the rig to effect a repair.
> 
> Days 8-12 consist of sailing and a nightly spinnaker wrap. RD makes a point of having to douse the kite in 17 kts. Well princess, you're going downwind at 7.5, meaning you have 9.5 apparent. BFD. If you knew anything about dousing a kite, you could have letterboxed it if the breeze was too much for you. There is just so much bloody whynging from this guy.
> 
> Day 12..."Mutiny is the only way to survive. I begged Harry to use the autohelm to control the spinnaker or we quit. We gladly put our lives on the line so many times (6) and we were only half way to Hawaii. We could not do this anymore. Like all the other times, they refused to use autohelm. I instructed Jake to use my satphone to call Dave Cort (Race Committee) The boat's satphone was no Longer accessible to us. I spoke to Dave begging him to help us to resolve the problem. He refused and claimed that is not their problem and we must resolve ourselves. I told him that this had become a safety issue for the crew members. I asked him to contact the CG for us and have the CG to call the owner. He hung up on me.
> 
> Because of poor reception, we moved up to cockpit to call the CG. Harry came behind and attacked Jake and use his arm around his neck and tried to get our sat phone and throw it over board. I struggled with him and he turned around and picked up the winch handle trying to strike Jake's head. I blocked his arm from hitting Jake. I dared him to strike me. But I was in a combat mode to block and struck his nose. He hesitated for a second and I grabbed and threw the handle away. Jane jumped in the midst of this for our phone, I grabbed her hands and pushed her to the starboard side of the cockpit and sat still. I told Jake to escape into the v-berth with the phone.
> I shouted both of them with fouled language that they were no match with my strength and speed. 'Don't be stupid'!!!"
> 
> Now keep in mind that ALL of this drama is happening because of a few midnight spinnaker wraps, and our Mr. RD feels that it's dangerous to work on deck at night in 17 kts of true wind. Guess what? The same **** is happening on half the boats in the fleet, and all hands toss on their foulie bottoms harness and boots and fix the problem. Is it dangerous? Hell yes, but you do it. IMHO, RD was completely over his head with regards to the 24/7 nature of a major ocean race. I'm not saying that Harry was competent, he clearly couldn't drive at night. That isn't uncommon btw.
> 
> You asked me if I was "ok with that". Personally sir, if my crew tried to commandeer my boat, I'd be fine with shooting them.


Look, Sal, I don't disagree that there's a lot of whinging in RDawg's posts. He obviously got in over his head and didn't handle things very well from the start. And, yes, he's got an attitude in this story...one I don't completely agree with.

That said, you seem to have this unwavering "Skipper Is God" mentality with your viewpoint. Yet, simultaneously, you absolve the skipper and blame the whingy crew. Sorry - I don't buy it.

From all your quotes above, show me where RDawg...



SalNichols94804 said:


> ...demonstrated a willingness to physically assault the owner/captain...


...prior to a winch handle being wielded by the very Ungodly Captain Furious. I don't see it. And if you don't either, you really shouldn't be cool with any skipper/owner physically assaulting his crew. Period.

It just seems to me that you're ignoring quite a few "facts" (at least as presented in the story) to conjure up some drama of your own.


----------



## smackdaddy

svHyLyte said:


> Jeeze--Don't you guys know nut'n about racing? Baking soda and salt water are perfect for brushing ones teeth. Keep's em white. Who'd waste fresh water on teeth brushing?


Why brush at all? It's only two weeks. Leave the boat's half-brush at home and save the 1.5 ounces!


----------



## outbound

Good question for an admiralty lawyer. Had one experience where one crew(and owner) lost it after blowing out a through hull while dealing with a storm. His brother contained him in the forward berth and we forgot about him until our pressing issues were dealt with. All people on the boat by explicit or tactic action agreed with the move. That individual realized it was the right move afterward as well. Think you do what you to have to do to keep everyone safe ( including the violent person) and worry about the lawyers afterward. Isolate and contain the person without injury( maybe sleeping bags and duck tape are an option or locking them in a stateroom if layout allows). If issue is unhappiness and immediate safety not involved personally would let crew have access to SSB or satphone and work things out him/herself. Suspect if an outside person explained their limited options they would chill and make the best of it or be gone if it could be arranged. Either would be good. Would view it as their problem so they should work it out. Issue in this scenario seem to also included perception of danger due to water and behavior. More problematic. Would probably take them off watch schedule in attempt to quite things down. Another reason to choose wisely before such events occur. Sounds like all souls made landfall so don't know legalities or what action I would suggest. Would follow prudent man line of thinking. My 2 cents.


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> Look, Sal, I don't disagree that there's a lot of whinging in RDawg's posts. He obviously got in over his head and didn't handle things very well from the start. And, yes, he's got an attitude in this story...one I don't completely agree with.
> 
> That said, you seem to have this unwavering "Skipper Is God" mentality with your viewpoint. Yet, simultaneously, you absolve the skipper and blame the whingy crew. Sorry - I don't buy it.
> 
> From all your quotes above, show me where RDawg...
> 
> ...prior to a winch handle being wielded by the very Ungodly Captain Furious. I don't see it. And if you don't either, you really shouldn't be cool with any skipper/owner physically assaulting his crew. Period.
> 
> It just seems to me that you're ignoring quite a few "facts" (at least as presented in the story) to conjure up some drama of your own.


Smackdad, RD expressed his willingness to escalate the conflict on Day 7. That after being hoisted up the rig 4x to repair the head foil. I'm not conjuring here, it's in his words.

As for the skipper being god, well there you have it. My boat, my rules. If you don't like them, stay ashore or stfu and sail the boat. I'll ask for opinions, but there's only one vote.

Btw, I've said all along that everybody but the old lady had a part in this mess.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Ok, well, here is my take on this whole thing (after kicking it around for a while and reading other posts):

First, I think RD screwed up getting on that boat. I have been in that situation before and I declined to go. Come to find out the boat nearly sank twice too... so a good decision I guess. 

I also think it is really easy for a lot of us to sit here on SN and SAY 'RD, you should not have gotten on that boat' versus being there in that position and not doing it. Reality is that most people would have done exactly what he did... especially those without boats. My personal situation is that I own my boat, can go anywhere I want to, am fulltime cruising (and have a family I raise on board), so I can look at the boat and tell you to screw off and mean it... I got my own ride. Dont need yours. I sail or am on a boat everyday. 

Another point is that I do not believe RD should even be discussing suing someone over this. I mean, really, what are you going to get? And is it even worth the headache? And if I was dead-set on suiing someone, I sure as hell wouldnt be mentioning it on SN or any other large forum! Just let it be, RD, let it go. 

So do I think RD screwed up on that boat? Wasn't there, but yes, I think he can probably take some blame. He could have split up the watches, he could have helped educate the capt, he could have taken the leader position, kept his fists at bay, tried reasoning more, tried being more subsidiary to the captain(s), etc. A simple, "You are the captain, you are the boss," might have gone a long way. Maybe not?? but that's the truth.

ALl that said, the absolute responsibility for the survival and safety of that crew rests solely with the captain (note, I did not say happiness, but that may or may not happen too). The captain of that boat, no matter what kind of crew hes got, was still HIS Crew and HIS responsibility. HE PICKED THEM! I think people fail to realize the incredible responsibility placed on the captain of a boat. I will give you an example:

Just got back from Key West cruise a few weeks ago (as everyone knows). I took a large group out (My kids, wife, and eight other adults) about twenty miles NW of Key West for a diving trip on my boat. As we approached the reef, a waterspout formed behind us and approached us. We were put into a position of having to decide where to go and what action to take. Everyone had an opinion, but in the end, it was all mine. I had the responsibility for everyone on that boat and my decision is what we would do. Turns out the WS missed us, but the point is that when someone gets on your boat, you, as the captain, are responsible for them and their lives. I knew that and so did those travelling with me.

Given that, I hold the captain of that boat primarily at fault. He should have checked out Jake further and known that RD had no kite experience. He should have accounted for the water and for how the crew would function together. He should have known his short comings flying a kite at night. When things got rough, he should have stepped up like a man and become a leader that calmed the situation down and kept control of his vessel... and RD should have heeded to that authority as well as everyone else. As much as it was RD's fault for getting on that boat to begin with, it was the captains fault for not having control of the situation from beginning to end. Period. 

But I suspect that is the difference between a professional crew and one that is thrown together. I think that is why we are seeing the differences in opinion between Sal, RD, Chef, Smack, and many others. Quite frankly, the failure of that crew not getting along was not RD's fault, it was the captains, and one he should have had a grip on long before that boat set off for 2000 miles of open ocean.

I am not condoning what RD did or did not do, I am simply putting the blame where it should be - the man in charge. Because in the end, he still has and had ultimate responsibility for everyone's lives.

My opinions as a MMQ.

Brian


----------



## ParallaxView

The subject about brushing your teeth.
I saw a racer brush his teeth in the morning, open a can of beer.
Took a mouth full.
swished, gargled and swallow.
no water wasted
no beer wasted


----------



## poopdeckpappy

DRFerron said:


> I think it was meant metaphorically.


Yeah, as weak as it was...............the Dalai Lama I'm not

It wasn't about our humanitarianism as much as it was about how easy it is to show a little that resulted in someone in the background getting something needed.

You would hope that would happen in threads like this, where someone in the background benefits without someone else getting hammered first.

Yours truely

The Dalai Madison


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> Smackdad, RD expressed his willingness to escalate the conflict on Day 7. That after being hoisted up the rig 4x to repair the head foil. I'm not conjuring here, it's in his words.
> 
> As for the skipper being god, well there you have it. My boat, my rules. If you don't like them, stay ashore or stfu and sail the boat. I'll ask for opinions, but there's only one vote.
> 
> Btw, I've said all along that everybody but the old lady had a part in this mess.


Okay. That sounds more reasonable. RDawg did indeed, according to the Day 7 story, "explode", "stop working" and "refuse to apologize for raising hell". That can definitely be seen as escalating the conflict. I'll grant you that. My point was that it _doesn't_ indicate _"a willingness to physically assault"_ the guy. Very, very different (and important) bag of clams.

As for you being god on your boat and there being only one vote - no argument here. That's the way it should be.


----------



## smackdaddy

ParallaxView said:


> The subject about brushing your teeth.
> I saw a racer brush his teeth in the morning, open a can of beer.
> Took a mouth full.
> swished, gargled and swallow.
> no water wasted
> no beer wasted


Yeah, but have you ever tasted Spearmint Flavored Pabst Blue Ribbon? Nasty.


----------



## outbound

Agree with CD completely. As owner/captain you are responsible-end of discussion. Another reason to be very careful who you let on board. Still, Casey raises an interesting question. Would be very interested in others answer to his question.


----------



## Sal Paradise

I think it goes without saying that you might be GOD up until people think they are going to die because of your actions. Then they do what they think they need to do to survive. At least I hope they do. No one is going to willingly die of thirst because the captain is a Farquaad.
Its up to a point. It has to be. Who determines where that point is? Where the danger or the certainty of death gets to the point that the captain has no more authority? 

The people on the boat. 

No?


----------



## Slayer

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, but have you ever tasted Spearmint Flavored Pabst Blue Ribbon? Nasty.


I knew you were a PBR drinker.  Personally, I don't drink beer very often, but when I do, its to chase the tequilla!


----------



## GeorgeB

Cruising Dad, with your admonishment, does this mean the thread is “over”? Can I do one last thread hijack and ask a couple of questions on their spinnaker operation? So this Jeaneau had a symmetric. RD, can you go over the operational aspects such as how it was launched, gybe’d, and taken down? Who did what job? I’m beginning to think that “Harry” was racing his house? Or was this boat a bare bones “plain Jane”? Was the owner’s intent to sail it back, ship it or hire a delivery crew?

In the ’08 PacCup, we had a water maker and left with full water tanks. Our provisioning plan was 1 gal per person-day, but we had factored into our planning something like three weeks to allow for unforeseen circumstances like becalmed, rudder issues or god forbid, a rig failure. The gallon per crew emergency water was intended for life raft use only and we figured we would be afloat a couple of days waiting for a pick-up. IMHO, the 1 gallon rule is a little skimpy. You should be drinking that amount just to keep your brain hydrated, kidneys flushing and digestive tract properly working. Add up all the “drinking” water along with coffee/tea/soup water, and water consumed in the cooking process and you are easily over the 1 gallon/day metric. Oh, and by the way, even though we were “heavy” when we started on ‘08, carrying all that “extra” water, we did manage second place in the race and beat the third place boat by over a day.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Sal Paradise said:


> I think it goes without saying that you might be GOD up until people think they are going to die because of your actions. Then they do what they think they need to do to survive. At least I hope they do. No one is going to willingly die of thirst because the captain is a Farquaad.
> Its up to a point. It has to be. Who determines where that point is? Where the danger or the certainty of death gets to the point that the captain has no more authority?
> 
> The people on the boat.
> 
> No?


No. If you cannot accept that there's one person making those decisions for the greater good, and that includes the necessary rationing of water, deciding when to shorten sail, when to abandon, then stay ashore. It isn't a democracy or a debating society. Harry clearly lacked leadership skills on top of his lack of sailing skills. I agree with smack et al., that the command vacuum was probably the greatest contributor to the saga. That said, an experienced skipper probably would have sussed out RD's own issues before they cast off and left him high and dry.


----------



## mstern

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, but have you ever tasted Spearmint Flavored Pabst Blue Ribbon? Nasty.


Yeah, but I think they add flouride to that now, so there's that.


----------



## Flybyknight

cruisingdad said:


> ok, well, here is my take on this whole thing (after kicking it around for a while and reading other posts):
> 
> First, i think rd screwed up getting on that boat. I have been in that situation before and i declined to go. Come to find out the boat nearly sank twice too... So a good decision i guess.
> 
> I also think it is really easy for a lot of us to sit here on sn and say 'rd, you should not have gotten on that boat' versus being there in that position and not doing it. Reality is that most people would have done exactly what he did... Especially those without boats. My personal situation is that i own my boat, can go anywhere i want to, am fulltime cruising (and have a family i raise on board), so i can look at the boat and tell you to screw off and mean it... I got my own ride. Dont need yours. I sail or am on a boat everyday.
> 
> Another point is that i do not believe rd should even be discussing suing someone over this. I mean, really, what are you going to get? And is it even worth the headache? And if i was dead-set on suiing someone, i sure as hell wouldnt be mentioning it on sn or any other large forum! Just let it be, rd, let it go.
> 
> So do i think rd screwed up on that boat? Wasn't there, but yes, i think he can probably take some blame. He could have split up the watches, he could have helped educate the capt, he could have taken the leader position, kept his fists at bay, tried reasoning more, tried being more subsidiary to the captain(s), etc. A simple, "you are the captain, you are the boss," might have gone a long way. Maybe not?? But that's the truth.
> 
> All that said, the absolute responsibility for the survival and safety of that crew rests solely with the captain (note, i did not say happiness, but that may or may not happen too). The captain of that boat, no matter what kind of crew hes got, was still his crew and his responsibility. He picked them! I think people fail to realize the incredible responsibility placed on the captain of a boat. I will give you an example:
> 
> Just got back from key west cruise a few weeks ago (as everyone knows). I took a large group out (my kids, wife, and eight other adults) about twenty miles nw of key west for a diving trip on my boat. As we approached the reef, a waterspout formed behind us and approached us. We were put into a position of having to decide where to go and what action to take. Everyone had an opinion, but in the end, it was all mine. I had the responsibility for everyone on that boat and my decision is what we would do. Turns out the ws missed us, but the point is that when someone gets on your boat, you, as the captain, are responsible for them and their lives. I knew that and so did those travelling with me.
> 
> Given that, i hold the captain of that boat primarily at fault. He should have checked out jake further and known that rd had no kite experience. He should have accounted for the water and for how the crew would function together. He should have known his short comings flying a kite at night. When things got rough, he should have stepped up like a man and become a leader that calmed the situation down and kept control of his vessel... And rd should have heeded to that authority as well as everyone else. As much as it was rd's fault for getting on that boat to begin with, it was the captains fault for not having control of the situation from beginning to end. Period.
> 
> But i suspect that is the difference between a professional crew and one that is thrown together. I think that is why we are seeing the differences in opinion between sal, rd, chef, smack, and many others. Quite frankly, the failure of that crew not getting along was not rd's fault, it was the captains, and one he should have had a grip on long before that boat set off for 2000 miles of open ocean.
> 
> I am not condoning what rd did or did not do, i am simply putting the blame where it should be - the man in charge. Because in the end, he still has and had ultimate responsibility for everyone's lives.
> 
> My opinions as a mmq.
> 
> Brian


*bingo*


----------



## Sal Paradise

you know what?

I'm not interested in escalating this argument.

Sal


----------



## SalNichols94804

Hey, we're all pretty much in violent agreement, largely because we can't imagine something like this happening on our boats. It does kind of stagger the imagination. What it does is serve as an objective lesson about picking your crew or boat. Not everyone is a perfect match. Recognizing that, and understanding that those differences will not improve 1000 miles out, and being able to say no thanks is what we should take away.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Cruisingdad said:


> ... Quite frankly, the failure of that crew not getting along was not RD's fault, it was the captains, and one he should have had a grip on long before that boat set off for 2000 miles of open ocean.
> 
> I am not condoning what RD did or did not do, I am simply putting the blame where it should be - the man in charge. Because in the end, he still has and had ultimate responsibility for everyone's lives.
> ...


I couldn't agree more.

No matter how much others may have screwed up (and I think RD and "Jake" made some pretty questionable decisions), if the skipper could realistically have prevented or resolved the problems, then (as I said earlier in this thread) the buck stops at the skipper of the boat. In this case I think it's pretty obvious that the skipper sure as hell could have done just that. In fact, unless RD's version of events is radically inaccurate*, the skipper contributed to the problems far more than he helped to prevent or resolve them.

* - RD's account has the ring of truth to me. And even if his version of events is fairly biased I would still come down pretty hard on the skipper in this case. But I would love to hear the story from "Harry" and "Jane's" perspective.


----------



## jackdale

I have questions for RockDawg.

Did you pay for the ride? Was it a free ride? Were you paid? Were expenses covered?

The reason I ask is that I am paid to deliver Vic Maui boats. I was also paid to be a watch captain on Newport to St Barths. I provided instruction and certification on all trips.

However the crews paid for the privilege. Vic Maui race crews also pay (a lot more) for the privilege.

If you have a monetary stake, you may have a stronger incentive to get on board.


----------



## BentSailor

Wouldn't paying for the trip rule out using the Dept of Labor as a stepping stone to suing the skipper? Thought they only dealt with employment disputes and the like?

Not being facetious, simply inquiring as to whether there is a rule of law regarding paid passage that still makes one an "employee" rather than a "customer/client"?


----------



## jackdale

Bent

That is why I asked.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4


----------



## BentSailor

OK, cool. At least I'm not missing something obvious. 

I too would be interested in the answer - it would most certainly shed more light on the initial decision to go despite early misgivings. A wasted plane ticket is one thing, but the amount some people pay to crew in some of these races easily eclipses the cost of a domestic flight.


----------



## SlowButSteady

The whole deal about whether RD was an "employee" or a "guest" or something in between is rather tricky. Some of the statements in RD's narrative seem to indicate that "Harry" considered RD an employee, based at least in part on the notion that the boat was a "company boat". I suspect that "Harry" has the boat in the company's name both for tax purposes and in an attempt to limit his personal liability. He may have even officially hired "Jake" and RD for the TransPac race. As such, it would serve him right to have a "labor suit" brought against his company for his (in)actions as skipper. However, as I and others have said before, legal action isn't likely to get anyone much of anything but headaches (except for the lawyers, of course). RD and "Jake" might even open themselves up to all manner of legal jeopardy based on the fact that they did participate in a "mutiny" (not a trivial point).


----------



## chef2sail

Mutiny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Mutiny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority; especially : concerted revolt (as of a naval crew) against discipline or a superior officer. - mutiny intransitive ...

Mutiny, a word which is chilling to anyone who has ever sailed away from safe harbor with strangers. Certainly something which would make a Captain of any boat uneasy if they saw the signs of it happening 1000 miles away from shore.

Mutiny the conscious planned act of takeover against established authority.

In Rockdawgs own words he planned, executed, and was proud of his mutiny. He saw it his right to take over this mans boat, force him to succumb to his methods of sailing, force him to retire from he race. This in spite of Rockdawgs obvious lack of experience,as a racer, lack of experience in sail (never flown a spinnaker) , lack of knowledge of the race rules.

He proudly boasted her how he took over, confronted, escalated, physically intimidated not only the Captain but the other owner a woman. BTW His other posts and threads have shown complete disrespect of women so he's consistent. Sexual harassment lawsuits (public record), photoshops of women's asses, chauvinistic comments...all public reord. This bravado over this rings false. Threatened lawsuits etc.

Brian hit the nail on the head with his post, The Captain had many many shortcomings even if half of what Rockdawg said was true, but there was another experienced racing crew who would have gone along with him as they had two times before, had he accepted the last member. Now they had experience with this as well as offshore racing experience and never would ave decided to go if they had thought they had to mutiny.

Brian was right, many faults by both committed, but mutiny. Suppose those on his boat mutinied when they saw he water pouts and didn't like his decision.

Mutiny. Taking over someone else's boat. Mutiny taking the authority away from the Captain. It's a control power move taking the Captain/ owners vessel away from them.

Rockdawg is lucky the Captain was a paper tiger. Had he tried to force his will on a stronger Captain or one who was armed and tried to hit him or take over his boat he would have met with a more dramatic fate.

I have been in situations with a maniac captain on a delivery once. I did my best to not escalate his ire. I knew it would end when we reached shore. But to mutiny or plan mutiny, no way. Another bad judgement

Mutiny should only be when in real danger, which in this instance was not he case. Yes thy were uncomfortable. So what. The Coast Guard, the race organizers were apprised and watching their position and didn't want to intervene. They were in no danger. Rockdawg escalated the danger on board in his own admission.

Yes Brian and others were right ultimately the Captain was responsible. He was ill prepared to make this race with such an inexperienced crew. He showed lack of leadership many times. He also owned the boat.

He should have throttled Rockdawg for taking over. He should have bound and tied him up and called the race organizers to get him off the boat. But he had no balls and his backup were two women, one 86.

Can you imagine being offshore on your boat with a strange crew, and having them mutiny, threaten you , and take over your boat. Now that's a real threat.

To all you who feel are looking to blame someone blame them all. All but the 86 year old.

Still waiting for the alleged promised movies, even though it will only prove the Captain was a lunatic, which we have had corroborated already. Still doesnt mean danger. This whole story reeks of inconstancies and falsehoods.

Mutiny, a strong word not o be taken lightly. Neither are the mutineers.

Lets see how many invite the mutineer offshore with them. Go armed just in case he repeats himself. And stay away from the Sushi Captain, unless you are in or an uncomfortable adventure with volume....just saying


----------



## davidpm

outbound said:


> Good question for an admiralty lawyer. Had one experience where one crew(and owner) lost it after blowing out a through hull while dealing with a storm. His brother contained him in the forward berth and we forgot about him until our pressing issues were dealt with.


Care to share some more details of that incident.


----------



## opc11

"Get on a boat purporting to be the Navigator without researching the Captain or even the rules of the race for a 14 day race, not cruise,...come on man"

how many times is this stupid point going to be made? you really think the guy walked on the boat and started dictating what his title would be pre-race? obviously, it was assigned to him and as best I can tell he got them there a heck of a lot faster than the captain would have.

...back to lurking mode.


----------



## chef2sail

opc11 said:


> "Get on a boat purporting to be the Navigator without researching the Captain or even the rules of the race for a 14 day race, not cruise,...come on man"
> 
> how many times is this stupid point going to be made? you really think the guy walked on the boat and started dictating what his title would be pre-race? obviously, it was assigned to him and as best I can tell he got them there a heck of a lot faster than the captain would have.
> 
> ...back to lurking mode.


Yep your right

oops...not to mention his tactics also got them disqualified. heres the key point you missed while lurking...*.its a race not a cruise.* Did you not get that point? The Captain didn't want the auto plot because it meant automatic disqualification. He didn't want to fly the spinaker when he was at the helm because he wasn't good at it. Seems like a logical decision to me..and a safe one.

Why should Mr Navigator care anyway, he had not read the rules and also had no money invested in the race. No skin off his back

Besides since when is not the Captain the ultimate authority on the boat. Let me answer for you....when he endangers them not when they don't go fast enough, 
So yes they finished faster...and we're kicked out of the race.


----------



## gamayun

Now that this has been bashed around a bit, does anyone know whether the TransPac organizers plan to do a post mortem on the whole situation? It seems there could be some lessons learned on both sides (for captains and crews) and perhaps even for the rest of the peanut gallery. The rules, the safety check lists, etc., are already probably long and detailed enough, so this is not to suggest the outcome would be used to bulk them up even more. It seems there would be plenty of researchers out there who might be interested in how things can get completely unhinged during these types of amped up and stressful situations.


----------



## Classic30

gamayun said:


> Now that this has been bashed around a bit, does anyone know whether the TransPac organizers plan to do a post mortem on the whole situation? It seems there could be some lessons learned on both sides (for captains and crews) and perhaps even for the rest of the peanut gallery. The rules, the safety check lists, etc., are already probably long and detailed enough, so this is not to suggest the outcome would be used to bulk them up even more.


I very much doubt it - and why should they? There was no official Protest (or grounds for one), no-one was killed or injured and the yacht in question didn't sink, get dis-masted or even have to call for help. I'm sure you'll find that the vast majority of the yachts in that race were crewed by capable and professional racing types who put their teams together properly, trained for the event properly, prepared properly, thoroughly enjoyed it and will be back again next time regardless.

In a large enough fleet anywhere in the world you're bound to get one or two who aren't quite up to standard and are only in it for the "fun of it" (define "fun"!). Wasting people's time by holding an enquiry into some cat-scratching aboard a rookie entrant purely for the satisfaction of a few arm-chair quarterbacks isn't going to achieve anything positive for anyone involved from the Race Committee down to the 86-year-old lady. Best forget it and move on..


----------



## opc11

try to deflect all you wish. race, no race; auto pilot or not - this one made me laugh out loud....a funny deflection as if had the guy been the cook, he wouldn't have insisted on the autopilot. you think he or someone else willing to take control cares what title was bestowed upon them by the nut, skipper...or what the race rules are....or that they're even in a race? lol nice try, but won't work with me. At the point someone makes this type of decision to mutiny, the past is the past and the only question I would think on someone's mind is whether they want the past to be the future too; especially if you feel your life is in jeopardy.

the bottom line is that the captain gave him that duty. what his background was or wasn't apparently was of no concern of the captain. the CAPTAIN ASSIGNED HIM THAT RESPONSIBILITY. PERIOD.


----------



## CatMan22

OK, after re-reading all 37 pages I really find it kind of amusing the way this has turned from a "let me tell you what happened to me" thread into a "this guy (RD or the skipper) had his head up his arse and is totally wrong" thread. Even more than that it amazes me to watch the internet commandos come out under the anonymity of thier protected spaces and fire verbal lobs of how they would do this or that in the situation and then threaten other posters with physical retribution if they had done it on their boat. I sail because I love to sail, I come on here for entertainment or specific advice if I ask for it and since he did not come on seeking advice it would seem his original post was for entertainment values (think professional wrestling) and should be taken as such. I will say this though I would pay money to watch a goold old fashioned Texas Cage Match between RockDawg and Chef2Sail though.


----------



## chef2sail

CatMan22 said:


> OK, after re-reading all 37 pages I really find it kind of amusing the way this has turned from a "let me tell you what happened to me" thread into a "this guy (RD or the skipper) had his head up his arse and is totally wrong" thread. Even more than that it amazes me to watch the internet commandos come out under the anonymity of thier protected spaces and fire verbal lobs of how they would do this or that in the situation and then threaten other posters with physical retribution if they had done it on their boat. I sail because I love to sail, I come on here for entertainment or specific advice if I ask for it and since he did not come on seeking advice it would seem his original post was for entertainment values (think professional wrestling) and should be taken as such. I will say this though I would pay money to watch a goold old fashioned Texas Cage Match between RockDawg and Chef2Sail though.


Nice comment.

Trouble is I am not one of the internet commandos which need anonymity from a protected space. A fair number of people on here have met me in person, unlike you or Rockdawg so your description was a bit of a self prophecy.. I don't need to hide from my comments. You may not like how they read, or even agree with them, but suffice it to say I have my own boat, sail it regularly here on the Chesapeake, and enjoy this passion regularly. I try and regularly contribute in many of the forums.

Not looking for a fight with Rockdawg, just stating my opinions for that matter. They are worth what you paid for them. Sometimes my opinions are very much in a minority, that's life.

Glad we offer entertainment for you. My purpose on here is not unlike yours, in addition to the 3000 nm I sail every year.


----------



## Minnewaska

I believe the OP has actually received a fairly balanced reaction to his story, if you consider that all only get one vote. There are those that sympathize and would have pounded the Captain, those that consider it entirely RDs fault and those, like me, that believe there is more to the story, but understand that an outcry is first stage PTSD.

However, some that consider it RDs fault keep repeating themselves and voting over and over and over again, even reportedly threatening him themselves. They don't count twice.


----------



## smurphny

This situation was certainly brought on by the captain. It should be paramount in these quick-crew situations for the one in charge to make everyone aware of his/her personality. RD would likely never have stepped foot on the boat in the first place had he known the nature of the person he was committing to. It's an interesting relationship on a pleasure boat between captain and crew. It is quite unlike the perceived "military" relationship between officers and crew. It's one in which the captain really needs to qualify him/herself in a short period of time to the satisfaction of crew. No respect can result in things like this. How this can be accomplished is something to think about. How do you integrate strangers to being confined with each other for a long time in a small space? It's an exercise in psychology and reminiscent of '60s era group therapy.


----------



## Sal Paradise

*....where wise men fear to tread.*

Its inaccurate and unfair to charecterize this as a personality conflict. As if RD had a tantrum on a daysail. It was a situation. For the crew it was a scary situation.They had to walk a fine line. It wasn't too long ago many here werel bemoaning the fact that the first mate on the Bounty hadn't confronted _his _captain and that by just standing up and being confrontational he could have saved two lives and the ship.

Its not the personalities which caused the conflict, although they contributed to the blow up. It was fear. Fear when the " captain " steered them in the wrong direction, fear when he couldn't drive the boat, hadn't provisioned, rationed the water, tangled the sails. Fear that as the extra days went by a storm would come, or that something worse could or would happen and in the absense of leadership they were very vulnerable.


----------



## smurphny

*Re: ....where wise men fear to tread.*



Sal Paradise said:


> Its inaccurate and unfair to charecterize this as a personality conflict. As if RD had a tantrum on a daysail. It was a situation. For the crew it was a scary situation.They had to walk a fine line. It wasn't too long ago many here werel bemoaning the fact that the first mate on the Bounty hadn't confronted _his _captain and that by just standing up and being confrontational he could have saved two lives and the ship.
> 
> Its not the personalities which caused the conflict, although they contributed to the blow up. It was fear. Fear when the " captain " steered them in the wrong direction, fear when he couldn't drive the boat, hadn't provisioned, rationed the water, tangled the sails. Fear that as the extra days went by a storm would come, or that something worse could or would happen and in the absense of leadership they were very vulnerable.


If this captain had acquainted himself with the crew, it likely would have raised some red flags. In getting involved in something like this (which I would not), I'd be VERY concerned as to whether I could get along with everyone. It would be the primary consideration. As captain, a conscious attempt at screening crew has got to be a big responsibility. As crew, screening the captain and other crew members has got to be the responsibility. You simply can't just throw any random group of people together in a cramped space, under adverse conditions without EXPECTING that fireworks may ensue. There was no situation that could not have been easily solved had these folks been able to cooperate.


----------



## HeartsContent

This appears to be an example of what happens when there is a lack of competent leadership. Where there is no leadership, a void is created. How this void is filled can vary wildly.

In this case, it appears the captain was both not fully capable but also unwilling to accept input or assistance. The captain withdrew and essentially shutdown communications with the crew and became hostile. It appears he finally had a realization near the end of his shortcomings.

I would credit RD and his friend with the safe delivery of this vessel to its destination. RD's expertise and a large cup of luck kept this from becoming a dangerous situation.

RD's talk of a lawsuit did him no good. There was no actual loss or injury, just bent feelings. I would have walked at the 1st shouting match while on shore - it's a clear sign of how this captain operates under stress. Prepping a boat to get underway is very stressful - especially for a trip of this size.

This boat was never really in a race.


----------



## Coquina

I am not an anonymous poster and have thousands of offshore miles as skipper and crew. I would not run a boat like the skipper did and would not act like RD did as crew.

I think it went like this:
Skipper - the chute is dangerous and I don't want it up. It scares me.
RD - not having the chute is dangerous because we are so slow with jib and main we'll starve and/or die of thirst before we get to Hawaii.

So combine scared inexperienced people, a small space, and no way to get off and you get this mess 

Still want to know what grandma thought of this mongolian cluster.



CatMan22 said:


> OK, after re-reading all 37 pages I really find it kind of amusing the way this has turned from a "let me tell you what happened to me" thread into a "this guy (RD or the skipper) had his head up his arse and is totally wrong" thread. Even more than that it amazes me to watch the internet commandos come out under the anonymity of thier protected spaces and fire verbal lobs of how they would do this or that in the situation and then threaten other posters with physical retribution if they had done it on their boat. I sail because I love to sail, I come on here for entertainment or specific advice if I ask for it and since he did not come on seeking advice it would seem his original post was for entertainment values (think professional wrestling) and should be taken as such. I will say this though I would pay money to watch a goold old fashioned Texas Cage Match between RockDawg and Chef2Sail though.


----------



## LetsGo

Hi everyone. I'm the "Jake" in rockDAWG's narrative. Just wanted to say for now that it's really, really nice to see such an outpouring of interest in this. It gives me hope that this nasty story can serve a purpose. 

I'm embarrassed it's taken me this long to check this out. This was such a wretched adventure I've just sort of fled in the opposite direction and preferred not to think about this too much. But now I'm ready to dive in and talk about it… and try to do something about it, too, maybe help others avoid similar dire situations.

They say hell is other people. In this case, nothing could be truer. The weather was fine, the wind good (or would have been IF our incompetent skipper had listened to us and followed it), the ocean gorgeous, and it would have been a fun first major crossing for me. What crazy luck that my first such experience would be almost unprecedented in its nastiness.

What rockDAWG writes is all true. Also, I want to add that he's a fantastic partner to have on a crew, even under the worst (the WORST) conditions—great at many things, great company, always ready with a (sometimes good) joke. 

More about that later. Shortly I'll have some details to add to this story for those who want them—more about the weather routing part of it, about the Transpac committee's total unresponsiveness and refusal to do the least thing to help us, about the insane dynamic between "Harry" and "Jane," about "Sheryl," about my own coping mechanisms under these insane circumstances, and bits and bobs about everything else. 

Onwards!
"Jake"


----------



## smackdaddy

Cool. I look forward to the bits and bobs.

Welcome to SN dude.


----------



## jorgenl

smackdaddy said:


> Cool. I look forward to the bits and bobs.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ****e, I first read that as "tits and boobs".
> 
> Was looking forward to it.
> 
> Dang.


----------



## Coquina

Jake - welcome.
I am curious about a lot of things, but start with this one:
Did you all talk to any experienced people before leaving?
Given you say " and it would have been a fun first major crossing for me", RD admits to having never flown a spinnaker, and the owner seems inexperienced *at best*, there was no real way for this trip to go well. Flying a chute at night 2 up is a challenge in anything but near calm weather for experienced crew, let alone people new to chutes and offshore sailing. 

Second question: What exactly should the Transpac RC have done? The Bermuda races I have done had minimum qualifications for crew you all would not have met. They could have - if they were smart - denied your entry. Other than that, what could they possibly do? Seriously? Go out in a plane and parachute more crew? Drop water to you? Or ?????

Once again, thanks for posting.


----------



## smackdaddy

jorgenl said:


> ****e, I first read that as "tits and boobs".
> 
> Was looking forward to it.
> 
> Dang.


That would be a MUCH better story.


----------



## caberg

Jake-- I think everyone is interested in seeing some video.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

LetsGo said:


> What rockDAWG writes is all true. Also, I want to add that he's a fantastic partner to have on a crew, even under the worst (the WORST) conditions-great at many things, great company, always ready with a (sometimes good) joke.
> 
> Onwards!
> "Jake"


Hi Jake,

Welcome aboard!

To have a great partner under the worst conditions who is still able to make a joke is what is so difficult to find in any avenue of life.

Thanks for giving support to your friend at this time. He has been copping a load in this thread and needed your timely arrival!

A man who says things like you say about a man is, indeed, a man.

Onwards


----------



## Cruisingdad

LetsGo said:


> Hi everyone. I'm the "Jake" in rockDAWG's narrative. Just wanted to say for now that it's really, really nice to see such an outpouring of interest in this. It gives me hope that this nasty story can serve a purpose.
> 
> I'm embarrassed it's taken me this long to check this out. This was such a wretched adventure I've just sort of fled in the opposite direction and preferred not to think about this too much. But now I'm ready to dive in and talk about it&#8230; and try to do something about it, too, maybe help others avoid similar dire situations.
> 
> They say hell is other people. In this case, nothing could be truer. The weather was fine, the wind good (or would have been IF our incompetent skipper had listened to us and followed it), the ocean gorgeous, and it would have been a fun first major crossing for me. What crazy luck that my first such experience would be almost unprecedented in its nastiness.
> 
> What rockDAWG writes is all true. Also, I want to add that he's a fantastic partner to have on a crew, even under the worst (the WORST) conditions-great at many things, great company, always ready with a (sometimes good) joke.
> 
> More about that later. Shortly I'll have some details to add to this story for those who want them-more about the weather routing part of it, about the Transpac committee's total unresponsiveness and refusal to do the least thing to help us, about the insane dynamic between "Harry" and "Jane," about "Sheryl," about my own coping mechanisms under these insane circumstances, and bits and bobs about everything else.
> 
> Onwards!
> "Jake"


Jake,

Welcome to Sailnet. You and RD have quite a story.

For the time being, until we can discuss it as Mods, please keep the true names of the individuals hidden as RockDawg has done.

Thanks. Look forward to your point of view also.

Brian
(Moderator)


----------



## LetsGo

Cruisingdad said:


> Jake,
> 
> Welcome to Sailnet. You and RD have quite a story.
> 
> For the time being, until we can discuss it as Mods, please keep the true names of the individuals hidden as RockDawg has done.
> 
> Thanks. Look forward to your point of view also.
> 
> Brian
> (Moderator)


Thanks Brian, I will!


----------



## LetsGo

Hi Coquina,



Coquina said:


> Jake - welcome.
> I am curious about a lot of things, but start with this one:
> Did you all talk to any experienced people before leaving?


Yes, we did talk to plenty of experienced people before leaving-no one who knew these owners well, but plenty who knew the conditions of the race, and one (the sailmaker) who knew the boat and the specific sails we had (he had sold the owners their spinnakers and spinnaker net). I also received a full briefing from that sailmaker about those sails.

But the point here is: There was nothing difficult about this crossing, nothing tricky at all. In retrospect, it is completely clear to me that technically, rockDAWG and I could have done it quite easily, just the two of us. The weather was fine, the wind was good when we had it (and almost never too strong for comfort), the boat was solid (except for a couple of things the owner had neglected to fix, or maybe he didn't notice them), and the sails were fine.

What made the crossing nightmarishly difficult was the incompetence, arrogance, bullheadedness, and misguided ambition of the owners.

For one thing, weather routing: rockDAWG had studied previous race routes, we both attended and understood the weather briefing ("Harry" basically slept through it), we both knew how to get and work with GRIB files. But no matter how many times we explained to "Harry" where we needed to go, he insisted, with absolute confidence (i.e. stupidity), that we needed to simply stick to the rhumb line. That's why we got becalmed.

Funny (in retrospect only) detail: At one point, AFTER we'd been predictably becalmed, I explained for the umpteenth time to "Harry" that we needed to head south for a day or so to be sure of decent wind, and showed him the charts with the GRIB files and their predictions for the next several days. About an hour later he told me that he had just tried going south, and that the wind was the same: he had simply turned the boat to 180° and found that it didn't sail any faster than at 240° or whatever our rhumb line course was. The guy simply didn't get it.



Coquina said:


> Given you say " and it would have been a fun first major crossing for me", RD admits to having never flown a spinnaker, and the owner seems inexperienced *at best*, there was no real way for this trip to go well. Flying a chute at night 2 up is a challenge in anything but near calm weather for experienced crew, let alone people new to chutes and offshore sailing.


I have lots of spinnaker experience, and was the one who showed "Harry" how to set up the chute. He never actually got it, though, and rockDAWG and I were the ones who had to set it up each time "Harry" fouled it.

There was actually nothing difficult about flying the chute at night, even when the wind picked up, and even during the little squalls we encountered.

The only thing is, we needed to use autohelm liberally. In fact, during the periods we used autohelm as needed, there was not one single incident involving the chute. It was only when "Harry" came on and attempted to sail without autohelm that he lost control. (And that happened like clockwork, pretty much every time he turned off the autohelm and insisted on sailing it manually. He was simply unable to maintain concentration well enough, and would spin out after as little as 30 minutes. I believe that rockDAWG or I could have held stable for a whole lot longer, but there was no reason on earth to do so, at night, undercrewed as we were.)



Coquina said:


> Second question: What exactly should the Transpac RC have done? The Bermuda races I have done had minimum qualifications for crew you all would not have met. They could have - if they were smart - denied your entry. Other than that, what could they possibly do? Seriously? Go out in a plane and parachute more crew? Drop water to you? Or ?????


Good question. Long answer:

At a certain point, rockDAWG and I both realized that, given the cumulative skill level of the three of us who could helm (myself, rockDAWG, and "Harry"), plus our small number, the ONLY way we could get through each night with the spinnaker up (which we needed to do in order to get to Hawaii in a timely fashion, and not run out of water) was to use autohelm liberally.

Again, when we used autohelm, at night or not, there was not one single incident. And each time the owner took over and sailed manually during the night, we had trouble almost immediately-trouble that rockDAWG and I had to fix by going out on the foredeck at night, at our own personal risk.

Now, using autohelm was technically against the race rules, except for double-handed boats. However, it was also clear from the race rules that uses of autohelm would be subject to a penalty, and would not lead to disqualification. This was laid out with great clarity in the race rules. And it was quite obvious that the Transpac would have no interest in disqualifying a boat that was already in last place.

The problem is, "Jane" had a truly crazy attitude about this. For some reason, she believed that we were in the running for some kind of trophy, even long after it was obvious we were in last place by far. She thought were serious racers, headed for glory, and that we should act like serious sailors (like the boats that had ten ultra-experienced crew, I suppose) and not violate any of the rules no matter what.

(Side note: "Jane's" mother "Sheryl" is 86 years old and apparently the oldest person ever to do the Transpac (though all she did was provide ever-cheerful company). "Jane" had arranged with the Transpac to give Aquarius a trophy for this. "Sheryl," however, had no idea of this arrangement, or of the role that she was playing in her daughter's racing ambitions. I found this unspeakably pathetic. More on this later&#8230;.)

Anyhow, "Jane's" insisted that we, the crew, not use autohelm, even though it should have been clear (even to a non-sailor such as herself) that safety demanded it. She was not open to reason in this regard, and insisted that we would be disqualified, even after I pointed out the specific section of the race rules that prescribed "penalties." (Disqualification was prescribed only for "gross misconduct"-which Jane bizarrely insisted the use of autohelm would be.)

"Jane's" attitude rubbed off on "Harry"; even though he was officially the skipper, he deferred to "Jane" in many regards.

Finally I wrote the Transpac commodore, gave full details of our situation, and begged him to let "Jane" know that using autohelm would almost certainly entail only a penalty. The commodore did not write back at all; when I wrote again with more urgency, he wrote back very curtly that the Transpac could not get involved (for legal reasons, I assume). At one point I called the commodore directly and asked him whether the use of autohelm would indeed be a penalty. He was sympathetic, confirmed that it would surely NOT mean disqualification, and even said "There are no hard and fast rules," but he still refused to address this to "Jane" directly, even when I wrote yet another begging email, indicating the full danger of the situation.

I assume the Transpac had legal reasons to avoid getting involved more. But the fact is, a simple communication to the owners about this would have saved us several life-threatening incidents, our days of struggle, and the physical altercation that rockDAWG describes. We would also not have had to get the Coast Guard involved.

Hope that clarifies it.
Jake


----------



## poopdeckpappy

There's been a lot of questioning as to why you and rock even left the dock with the owner.

How did all that play out and what was going threw your mind


----------



## Coquina

Word....
After the coffee filter thing I would be "have a nice trip, I'll be walking down the dock looking for another ride with a sane skipper"


----------



## Barquito

I'm sure there are some ocean racing crews that do not know each other well prior to the race. I could imagine that if I were in that situation, there would be a battle raging in my head between the guy who has a lot invested, both emotionally, and maybe financially, and the guy who thinks my skipper is bat sh!t crazy.


----------



## LetsGo

poopdeckpappy said:


> There's been a lot of questioning as to why you and rock even left the dock with the owner.
> 
> How did all that play out and what was going threw your mind


Very good question. Several other potential crew members did see the obvious, and walked away in the weeks before the race (there were at least 3 of these). They, however, had the good fortune of being local, and getting to meet the owners well in advance. Both rockDAWG and I had come from the East Coast, and only rock had actually spoken with "Harry" himself (but since he speaks very limited English even after 17 years here, that conversation was very limited). For my part, I had only spoken to "Jane"-and although she was clearly a bit batty, it didn't seem like toxic battiness. Whoops.

Once I was there at the boat, I did come very close to walking away. Obviously I should have, but there were three reasons I didn't:

1. I'd come from far away and was excited about my first offshore experience.

2. I wasn't worried about the trip itself. I knew it was not a hard trip to do (it wasn't, technically at least). I saw right away that rockDAWG was more than capable of captaining the boat by himself, let alone with me co-crewing.

3. I figured the crazy personal stuff was manageable. It wasn't. That was just wishful thinking. I can't speak for rockDAWG, but I know he'd done dozens of offshore deliveries and other trips, and had never run into a big personal problem with anyone-which perhaps explained his confidence in this regard.

Of course it's easy for me to see now how stupid it was of me to not walk away, but that's hindsight.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

_"Now, using autohelm was technically against the race rules, except for double-handed boats. However, it was also clear from the race rules that uses of autohelm would be subject to a penalty, and would not lead to disqualification. This was laid out with great clarity in the race rules. And it was quite obvious that the Transpac would have no interest in disqualifying a boat that was already in last place."_

Jake I am sorry to hear that you had to endure the race on the ship of fools but your statement quoted above is a bit bothersome. As soon as you turned on the autopilot you were in violation of rule 52 of the 2013-16 rules of racing. There is no penalty or exoneration for breaking that rule, only disqualification. What clarity was there in the Transpac NOR regarding this? Exception 1.6 pertains only to the double handed class regarding autopilots. It is no different than turning on your motor, putting it in gear and motoring. Not cool and definitely not kosher no matter how far behind you were. It is not the responsibility of the Transpac Committee to enforce this. It is incumbent on yourself to call it on yourself. Hopefully you don't teach sailboat racing along with the sailing classes you give.


----------



## hellosailor

So how did you guys from the east coast find out Harry needed crew? Ad in the back of...?

I mean, I've seen guys on the dock before a big race wearing sandiwch boards, with a cv on the back side and a "RIDE WANTED" on the front, seabag in hand. But usually, boats pick up crew by referral and word of mouth. That a skipper couldn't fill his crew that way, or was choosing not to, would be a caution to me.

Of course I'm just ******* born on a small island infested with tourists, but I've also got a problem with anyone who lives somewhere for years without picking up _some _of the native language.

Sandusky-
"Jake I am sorry to hear that you had to endure the race on the ship of fools but your statement quoted above is a bit bothersome. As soon as you turned on the autopilot you were in violation of rule 52 of the 2013-16 rules of racing. There is no penalty or exoneration for breaking that rule, only disqualification."
Actually, the racing rules have alwys allowed the event rules of override them in all ways at all times during an event. So if the event rules allowed use of the auto with just a penalty, the skipper can certainly use it and take the penalty without being dsq'd. Or has this changed in the 2013 version?


----------



## smackdaddy

The 2013 NOR, does specifically layout out the restrictions of the AP per 1.6, but it also mentions class rules that can override the RRS beyond the NOR itself. So who knows?


----------



## poopdeckpappy

> Hopefully you don't teach sailboat racing along with the sailing classes you give.


Hopefully we can avoid this course, it's a wee bit gratuitous


----------



## hellosailor

Well, smack, since a dsq is a penalty, I suppose one can read it both ways. The event rules take priority, as they always do, and they can also penalize you by dsq'ing you, which would harmonize with the racing rules.

That would be the RC's choice, to apply a penalty of points, or a full dsq. But since they say "penalty" and do not expressly say "dsq", I don't think that would hold.

A navigator normally does not need to know the rules of the race, he just needs to say "go here" and the skipper can let him know if that's a problem. But I'd be really surprised in the skipper, navigator, tactician, and watch lead didn't all attend every meeting, simply because there's always something relevant and more heads on the boat that understand the bigger picture, usually means a better outcome.

Ain't rocket science, the event rules _always _have been the final word. Anyone who is not a USSA member can puzzle themselves about that, or join USSA and then they're obligated to tell you "Yeah, that's how it works" since they are the governing body of sail racing in the US.

Unless of course the racing rules say "this is not a USSA sanctioned event and no USSA policies etc shall apply of govern here." Never seen that, but it would be possible.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

So what class rule excepts Rule 52? Certainly not any of the ORR rules. Unless it is spelled out explicitly that the rule or parts of rule 52 does not apply it applies. There aren't time penalties for breaking a fundamental rule. As stated before there is no penalty for motoring- you are out. Same for the autopilot. Use it and you are out.

Ignorance of the rules doesn't cut it. ORR class rules don't allow it either. http://offshore.ussailing.org/Assets/Offshore/2012+ORR+Rule+Book+June+22.pdf


----------



## poopdeckpappy

> However, it was also clear from the race rules that uses of autohelm would be subject to a penalty, and would not lead to disqualification. *This was laid out with great clarity in the race rules*.


So and until someone can rebut this, ya gotta go with it, he was there


----------



## Coquina

From the 2013 NOR:

1.6 Auto pilot use is only permitted for double handed boats.

13.3 For infractions of the Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions, the Race Committee may protest and the Jury
may penalize the offending yacht by adding a time penalty


For a boat that was going to be DFL anyway, it seems like the RC might just demote them to even more DFL. But then again, 13.3 leaves a lot more weasel room than I am used to in a NOR.


----------



## smackdaddy

Coquina said:


> From the 2013 NOR:
> 
> 1.6 Auto pilot use is only permitted for double handed boats.
> 
> 13.3 For infractions of the Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions, the Race Committee may protest and the Jury
> may penalize the offending yacht by adding a time penalty
> 
> For a boat that was going to be DFL anyway, it seems like the RC might just demote them to even more DFL. But then again, 13.3 leaves a lot more weasel room than I am used to in a NOR.


Well there you go. And as LetsGo called it in and got the verbal ruling which fits the above...what's the issue?

"Even More DFL". Best thing to come out of this thread yet.

PS - Coquina, this is an insane photo:










We had a similar thing on our old boat on Lake Travis:










Not quite as nasty looking as yours!


----------



## Sanduskysailor

This isn't about "_For infractions of the Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions, the Race Committee may protest and the Jury_" It is about breaking a rule of Sailing (Rule 52) The RC can except certain Rules of Sailing but must do so in the NOR or amendments.

Using an autoplilot in a crewed racing division would be highly unusual. Now if you are talking about classes that allow motoring, it is pretty common to also allow autopilots. That applies to specific "cruising classes" normally. To my knowledge, none of those classes existed in the Transpac outside of the double handed class.

The statement that got my antenna up is " I doubt they would disqualify a boat that was so far behind". Really! Obeying the rules is not relative to your position on the course.


----------



## hellosailor

Sandusky,--
Forget about Rule 52. Read the 2013 Introduction, which tells you that "Changes to the Rules The prescriptions of a national authority,
class rules or the sailing instructions may change a racing rule only
as permitted in rule 86."

And then go to Rule 86.

And then keep reading, it specifically lists Rule 52 as being one that can be changed by the event rules.

Forget the trees, look at the forest.

USSA policy has always been that the _event _rules govern the event. You got a problem with the event rules, you take it up with the sponsor before the race.

This is why it pays for everyone above "rail meat" to attend the meetings, read the papers, and generally be aware of the full circumstances of the race.

Before there was a handy dandy internet to download rules from (and before the ISF got generous about posting them) it was worth joining USYRU just to ge tthe pocket-sized copy of the rules. Which made for good reading while on the rail.

I've never heard a skipped complain when anyone on the boat expressed an interest in learning or applying the Rules, because there's always a way to misread them.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

I know all about rule 86 having dealt with it in regards to exceptions to class rules. This isn't a rule 86 issue since the RC did not explicitly exempt anyone from the Rules of Racing in a general way other the the DH class. Most likely the intent was to penalize boats for missing call ins and other rules specific to this race not to violations to the Rules of Racing. .


----------



## LetsGo

Sanduskysailor said:


> _"Now, using autohelm was technically against the race rules, except for double-handed boats. However, it was also clear from the race rules that uses of autohelm would be subject to a penalty, and would not lead to disqualification. This was laid out with great clarity in the race rules. And it was quite obvious that the Transpac would have no interest in disqualifying a boat that was already in last place."_
> 
> Jake I am sorry to hear that you had to endure the race on the ship of fools but your statement quoted above is a bit bothersome. As soon as you turned on the autopilot you were in violation of rule 52 of the 2013-16 rules of racing. There is no penalty or exoneration for breaking that rule, only disqualification. What clarity was there in the Transpac NOR regarding this? Exception 1.6 pertains only to the double handed class regarding autopilots. It is no different than turning on your motor, putting it in gear and motoring. Not cool and definitely not kosher no matter how far behind you were. It is not the responsibility of the Transpac Committee to enforce this. It is incumbent on yourself to call it on yourself. Hopefully you don't teach sailboat racing along with the sailing classes you give.


Perhaps to accommodate our class of "racer," the Transpac NOR defined penalties as below. (Only the bolded part is completely relevant here.) It is effectively saying that violation of most of the rules will likely involve either a penalty, or no penalty, but probably not disqualification-except in the specific examples cited.

Again, confirming that I read this correctly, when I asked the commodore on the phone whether using autohelm would lead to disqualification, he said that was very unlikely.

Surely if we had been in anything other than class 8-the Aloha class, basically boats not really meant for racing-the interpretation might be quite different. At least I imagine there would be little excuse for a well-crewed boat in serious contention for trophies to be using autohelm much if at all. But for ours....

I do, incidentally, know that it is generally a disqualification to use autohelm. In fact, some races enforce this by various means.

13 PENALTIES 
When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule and is not exonerated, *it may impose an elapsed time penalty or impose no penalty at all*. If an elapsed time penalty is imposed, its magnitude will be at the protest committee's discretion. This penalty also is applied to elapsed time, Class and Fleet standing trophies. However, 
(a) if the boat caused injury or damage to another boat that affected the other's racing 
ability or gained a significant advantage in the race by her breach, she will be disqualified. 
(b) if the boat is found to have broken rule 69.1(a), the protest committee shall follow 
rule 69.2(c). Willfully reporting a false position or false weather will be considered 
gross misconduct and dealt with under rule 69.2.
(c) if the protest committee decides that a breach of rule 41 was committed to insure 
the safety of a boat or her crew, the protest committee will impose no penalty.
(d) a boat will receive an elapsed time penalty of two hours if the protest committee 
determines that she 
(1) is on the course side of the starting line at her starting signal and does not 
return to the pre-start side of the line and start, or 
(2) touches a starting or finishing line mark and does not take a One-Turn 
Penalty as described in rule 44.2.


----------



## chef2sail

LetsGo said:


> Hi Coquina,
> 
> Yes, we did talk to plenty of experienced people before leaving-no one who knew these owners well, but plenty who knew the conditions of the race, and one (the sailmaker) who knew the boat and the specific sails we had (he had sold the owners their spinnakers and spinnaker net). I also received a full briefing from that sailmaker about those sails.
> 
> But the point here is: There was nothing difficult about this crossing, nothing tricky at all. In retrospect, it is completely clear to me that technically, rockDAWG and I could have done it quite easily, just the two of us. The weather was fine, the wind was good when we had it (and almost never too strong for comfort), the boat was solid (except for a couple of things the owner had neglected to fix, or maybe he didn't notice them), and the sails were fine.
> 
> What made the crossing nightmarishly difficult was the incompetence, arrogance, bullheadedness, and misguided ambition of the owners.
> 
> For one thing, weather routing: rockDAWG had studied previous race routes, we both attended and understood the weather briefing ("Harry" basically slept through it), we both knew how to get and work with GRIB files. But no matter how many times we explained to "Harry" where we needed to go, he insisted, with absolute confidence (i.e. stupidity), that we needed to simply stick to the rhumb line. That's why we got becalmed.
> 
> Funny (in retrospect only) detail: At one point, AFTER we'd been predictably becalmed, I explained for the umpteenth time to "Harry" that we needed to head south for a day or so to be sure of decent wind, and showed him the charts with the GRIB files and their predictions for the next several days. About an hour later he told me that he had just tried going south, and that the wind was the same: he had simply turned the boat to 180° and found that it didn't sail any faster than at 240° or whatever our rhumb line course was. The guy simply didn't get it.
> 
> I have lots of spinnaker experience, and was the one who showed "Harry" how to set up the chute. He never actually got it, though, and rockDAWG and I were the ones who had to set it up each time "Harry" fouled it.
> 
> There was actually nothing difficult about flying the chute at night, even when the wind picked up, and even during the little squalls we encountered.
> 
> The only thing is, we needed to use autohelm liberally. In fact, during the periods we used autohelm as needed, there was not one single incident involving the chute. It was only when "Harry" came on and attempted to sail without autohelm that he lost control. (And that happened like clockwork, pretty much every time he turned off the autohelm and insisted on sailing it manually. He was simply unable to maintain concentration well enough, and would spin out after as little as 30 minutes. I believe that rockDAWG or I could have held stable for a whole lot longer, but there was no reason on earth to do so, at night, undercrewed as we were.)
> 
> Good question. Long answer:
> 
> At a certain point, rockDAWG and I both realized that, given the cumulative skill level of the three of us who could helm (myself, rockDAWG, and "Harry"), plus our small number, the ONLY way we could get through each night with the spinnaker up (which we needed to do in order to get to Hawaii in a timely fashion, and not run out of water) was to use autohelm liberally.
> 
> Again, when we used autohelm, at night or not, there was not one single incident. And each time the owner took over and sailed manually during the night, we had trouble almost immediately-trouble that rockDAWG and I had to fix by going out on the foredeck at night, at our own personal risk.
> 
> Now, using autohelm was technically against the race rules, except for double-handed boats. However, it was also clear from the race rules that uses of autohelm would be subject to a penalty, and would not lead to disqualification. This was laid out with great clarity in the race rules. And it was quite obvious that the Transpac would have no interest in disqualifying a boat that was already in last place.
> 
> The problem is, "Jane" had a truly crazy attitude about this. For some reason, she believed that we were in the running for some kind of trophy, even long after it was obvious we were in last place by far. She thought were serious racers, headed for glory, and that we should act like serious sailors (like the boats that had ten ultra-experienced crew, I suppose) and not violate any of the rules no matter what.
> 
> (Side note: "Jane's" mother "Sheryl" is 86 years old and apparently the oldest person ever to do the Transpac (though all she did was provide ever-cheerful company). "Jane" had arranged with the Transpac to give Aquarius a trophy for this. "Sheryl," however, had no idea of this arrangement, or of the role that she was playing in her daughter's racing ambitions. I found this unspeakably pathetic. More on this later&#8230;.)
> 
> Anyhow, "Jane's" insisted that we, the crew, not use autohelm, even though it should have been clear (even to a non-sailor such as herself) that safety demanded it. She was not open to reason in this regard, and insisted that we would be disqualified, even after I pointed out the specific section of the race rules that prescribed "penalties." (Disqualification was prescribed only for "gross misconduct"-which Jane bizarrely insisted the use of autohelm would be.)
> 
> "Jane's" attitude rubbed off on "Harry"; even though he was officially the skipper, he deferred to "Jane" in many regards.
> 
> Finally I wrote the Transpac commodore, gave full details of our situation, and begged him to let "Jane" know that using autohelm would almost certainly entail only a penalty. The commodore did not write back at all; when I wrote again with more urgency, he wrote back very curtly that the Transpac could not get involved (for legal reasons, I assume). At one point I called the commodore directly and asked him whether the use of autohelm would indeed be a penalty. He was sympathetic, confirmed that it would surely NOT mean disqualification, and even said "There are no hard and fast rules," but he still refused to address this to "Jane" directly, even when I wrote yet another begging email, indicating the full danger of the situation.
> 
> I assume the Transpac had legal reasons to avoid getting involved more. But the fact is, a simple communication to the owners about this would have saved us several life-threatening incidents, our days of struggle, and the physical altercation that rockDAWG describes. We would also not have had to get the Coast Guard involved.
> 
> Hope that clarifies it.
> Jake


Simple question....did the Captain not want to fly the spinnaker? Did he not want to fly it on his shift? Did he not feel comfortable flying it at night? Did he express either of these feelings?


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, the NOR couldn’t have been more clear. It restricts the use of an auto helm. DSQ. The “Class Rules” does not apply as this particular Jeaneau was not racing as a one design class nor did the governing authority for the Jeaneau one design association submit their class rules prior to the race. I have experience in this area insomuch as I was the chief measurer for my class association and am well aware what you have to do to get your rules accepted by YRA sanctioned events. You cannot make up or change the rules as you go along. If the RC was going to allow auto helms from a certain point onward, they will have to announce it to the rest of the fleet so they too, could take advantage of the rule change. Remember, rules must be applied fairly and equally to all competitors.

Jake, help me out a little bit… How many days before the race did you arrive? When the sail maker showed you the kite, why didn’t he show you how the net was to be rigged on the boat? How did you guys fly the kite? For example, did it have a sock? Please walk me through the gybing procedure. Why didn’t you guys pole out the genoa at night so Harry could sail wing-on-wing? What was the watch schedule? Did you guys ever have to sail through a squall?


----------



## cruisingdream

Who cares about the auto pilot when you are in last place!


----------



## LetsGo

chef2sail said:


> Simple question....did the Captain not want to fly the spinnaker? Did he not want to fly it on his shift? Did he not feel comfortable flying it at night? Did he express either of these feelings?


I think "Harry" saw rockdawg and me flying it competently and felt he could too-and was far too macho to admit that he needed it taken down.

And even after it sank in that we needed to use autohelm, Harry still maintained, against all evidence, that autohelm really couldn't be used for flying a spinnaker. (This guy had a truly massive machismo problem.) That's why he didn't, and kept messing it up, even after July 19.



GeorgeB said:


> How many days before the race did you arrive? When the sail maker showed you the kite, why didn't he show you how the net was to be rigged on the boat? How did you guys fly the kite? For example, did it have a sock? Please walk me through the gybing procedure. Why didn't you guys pole out the genoa at night so Harry could sail wing-on-wing? What was the watch schedule? Did you guys ever have to sail through a squall?


There was no formal watch schedule-Harry was far too disorganized for that, and it wasn't the sort of environment where rockdawg or I could propose one. We did sail through squalls. See above answer for wing-on-wing answer. Kite had a sock, and there was a net, but after the net got fully tangled once (thanks to some remarkable, net-proof mess-up of Harry's), we stopped using it. (Perhaps this was a mistake.)


----------



## Minnewaska

There is substantive controversy here for sure. In the circumstances, I find the technicality of the NOR to be pretty deminimis. People were fearing for their well being from physical threats to deprivation of food and water on an ill prepared boat. 

Did anyone see the movie Naked Gun many years ago, when OJ Simpson's character gets shot hundreds of times but doesnt' go down, until he finally keeps backing up and puts his hand on the stove, then pulls it back and says "ouch". Slapstick humor that the stove shouldn't have mattered. The autopilot was the stove in this story.


----------



## aeventyr60

Minnewaska said:


> There is substantive controversy here for sure. In the circumstances, I find the technicality of the NOR to be pretty deminimis. People were fearing for their well being from physical threats to deprivation of food and water on an ill prepared boat.
> 
> Did anyone see the movie Naked Gun many years ago, when OJ Simpson's character gets shot hundreds of times but doesnt' go down, until he finally keeps backing up and puts his hand on the stove, then pulls it back and says "ouch". Slapstick humor that the stove shouldn't have mattered. The autopilot was the stove in this story.


Never understood this part of the equation. The boat/ crew were wounded. Why not triage and use all the resources to mitigate the injury? Seems like they were out of the race on day one. Who would have known if they used the auto pilot anyway? Or care? DSQ?DNF? Sounds like they never started. Dysfunction on all levels for this boat. I guess each got what they deserved.
Last place.


----------



## Classic30

Minnewaska said:


> Did anyone see the movie Naked Gun many years ago, when OJ Simpson's character gets shot hundreds of times but doesnt' go down, until he finally keeps backing up and puts his hand on the stove, then pulls it back and says "ouch". Slapstick humor that the stove shouldn't have mattered. The autopilot was the stove in this story.


I, for one, beg to differ: It sounds to me like the autopilot was THE rule-breaker in the minds of both the Skipper and "Jane" and they resented the crew demanding it be used.

Can someone kindly explain why using an autopilot whilst under spinnaker would be somehow safer than manual steering? Unless you've got a total novice on the helm I just don't get why it was even considered...


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> There is substantive controversy here for sure. In the circumstances, I find the technicality of the NOR to be pretty deminimis. People were fearing for their well being from physical threats to deprivation of food and water on an ill prepared boat.


^^^^This!

I think the interest in the rules is not so much to find fault with RDawg/Jake over even Cap'n Furious - but to try to see how the TransPac RA dealt with this situation vis-a-vis those rules. At least that's the angle I see.

In any case, the _use_ of the AP in relation to the rule is not the real issue...it's the _penalty_ for that use that's at question here. And the "Penalties" notice LetsGo posted above leaves a tremendous amount of squish on that issue. Assuming an automatic DSQ is errant I would say.


----------



## svHyLyte

Classic30 said:


> I, for one, beg to differ: It sounds to me like the autopilot was THE rule-breaker in the minds of both the Skipper and "Jane" and they resented the crew demanding it be used.
> 
> Can someone kindly explain why using an autopilot whilst under spinnaker would be somehow safer than manual steering? Unless you've got a total novice on the helm I just don't get why it was even considered...


Running off, a spinnaker will tend to oscillate somewhat. An auto pilot will ignor this and steer a relatively steady course. A novice driver will tend to "chase" the spinnaker, aggravating the oscillation and, in short order, leading to a wipe-out. Frankly, leaving the owner and his erstwhile crewlady driving with the spinny up was asking for problems.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Classic30 said:


> Unless you've got a *total novice *on the helm I just don't get why it was even considered...


From what both RD and Jake have said ( more than once ) that was the issue

Also, by what Jake recently posted, the use of A/P was a non-issue as far as the rules and being DQ'ed. Personally, based only on what RD and Jake posted, the skipper was operating under diminished capacity and the crew did what was necessary to bring the boat and her crew in unharmed.


----------



## chef2sail

So the Captain of the ship, the owner of the vessel, who has the most to lose and has to pay for a broken boat says he doesn't feel comfortable using it, yet you believe how you and Rockdawg "feel" and "know better" even though neither of you have any prior experience, trumps the Captain and owners wishes on his own boat. How does that work?

Its his boat, not yours. Where do you get off telling him what to do with it. You've got no skin in the game.

Don't feed me that line of crap your lives were in danger either, neither the race organizers nor the CG nor the US Navy believed that or they would have truly intervened. 

Sure your were uncomfortable, sure you had an incompetent yelling verbally abusive Captain who you willingly signed up for without doing due diligence. You knew eventually youd land and get away from him. He didn't put you guys in danger really...he just ran a slow boat to Hawaii. He never threatened you or Rockdawg till you escalated things and tried to seize control of his boat No one else wanted either of you as you had a lack of experience not only overall, but with them.

Here's what really happened. You and Rockdawg couldn't find a ride with the legitimate racers because you neither had experience nor had raced previously on well formed teams who knew each other. Ill bet they looked at your and Rockdawgs previous experience if you even applied to others and passed. So you found this boat....and in your rush to gain experience and his to build his resume ignored many many red flags. 

If it was your first really blue water and his first race why wouldn't you wait and go on a boat where you could learn from more experienced crew? Hopefully you teach that to others. Instead you pick the LEAST experienced captain with suspect crew making you the most experienced people on the boat. 

Didn't that scare you, deter you before you even got on to leave the dock. You and Rockdawg with virtually no experience being the two most experienced on the boat. What did you guys think you were going for a day sail. Its an open ocean race. For many days, but you seem to minimize that. Another sign of lack of judgment...you finished last before you even left the dock because of your disadvantage to the rest of the fleet in experience.

Once underway you dont like the yelling, you don't like the direction and of course you know better.....with someone else's property in someone else's race he paid money to enter. Maturity would b to try and calm the situation deal with it until landfall. It seems you just waved meat at the tiger though and forced confrontations left and right till some got physical. Her we go...two abled bodied men vs. an old slight Captain, a woman whose his business partner, and HIS 86 year old mother. Did it ever occur to you he was scared for his life once you started trying to rest control of the vessel from him? 

This has read like Aesops fairy tale from the beginning, with lawsuits, calls to the US Navy etc. Imagine had you tried this with 3 able bodied seamen who didn't want to listen to your whining and shut of your water and wouldn't fly the spinnaker. Would you have struck them and tried to mutiny. I doubt it. You know you could against the feeble man and his 86 year old mother, so you did. 

Your lucky he didn't have a gun, your lucky he didn't have you arrested if the story is true as told once you hit land. You lucky there was no injury from getting on what we know now was an ill prepared boat and just as bad a completely novice crew. 

I guess what I really cant understand What possessed you to risk you life knowing the experience of this crew, which you knew before you left was berift of talent to cross 2000 miles of open ocean. In a race no less, not a cruise.

I spend more preparation time for my boat and my trip planning on my annual trip from the Chesapeake to Long Island where I can duck in if the weather, conditions or the boat breaks or if its too bad than you did. And you teach people to sail.

To me the experience we all should learn from this is not the fairy tale which has more than your sides to it or race rules Safety first....not recklessness. You both broke the cardinal rule.....safety first. Part of safety is having enough experience on board to handle the trip and any emergencies which could occur. If there are doubts about the boat or the crews readiness safety dictates you don't go. You both had doubts and went...doubts you overrode for who knows why. You could have said no and not put yourselves in the situation...you weren't enslaved to go, but you took a risk. Risk avoidance is also part of safety.


----------



## LetsGo

svHyLyte said:


> Running off, a spinnaker will tend to oscillate somewhat. An auto pilot will ignor this and steer a relatively steady course. A novice driver will tend to "chase" the spinnaker, aggravating the oscillation and, in short order, leading to a wipe-out. Frankly, leaving the owner and his erstwhile crewlady driving with the spinny up was asking for problems.


Totally agreed. RD and I did try to helm all night, but each time, the owner insisted on taking over, often around 4am - after which would wipe out exactly as you describe.

RD and I both always tried to get the owner to go back to sleep. I guess you had to be there to understand how impossible it was to insist more than we did, or to put our foot down. (We were not allowed feet.)


----------



## chef2sail

svHyLyte said:


> Running off, a spinnaker will tend to oscillate somewhat. An auto pilot will ignor this and steer a relatively steady course. A novice driver will tend to "chase" the spinnaker, aggravating the oscillation and, in short order, leading to a wipe-out. Frankly, leaving the owner and his erstwhile crewlady driving with the spinny up was asking for problems.


Knowing that why would the "experienced crew" of Jake and Rockdawg, first time spinnaker flyers insist on flying it on the Captains watch when he didn't feel comfortable.

I actually don't trust my Spinaker to my autopilot. A lot of sail area up to get in a knockdown or wrap with a gust of wind from another direction or squall as someone put it. Also at night when I cant see as well I tend to reduce sail area up so the boat is more easily controlled and no one has to do any foredeck work in the dark in a lonely ocean. This of course unless there is a large crew tending it.

I am interested, How many on here who have real ocean experience flying a spinnaker do so at night with a crew watch of two?

I an not an experienced long distance spinnaker flier so I err on the side of caution and safety


----------



## chef2sail

LetsGo said:


> Totally agreed. RD and I did try to helm all night, but each time, the owner insisted on taking over, often around 4am - after which would wipe out exactly as you describe.
> 
> RD and I both always tried to get the owner to go back to sleep. I guess you had to be there to understand how impossible it was to insist more than we did, or to put our foot down. (We were not allowed feet.)


Maybe because you weren't in charge......you were crew. Not only was he the Captain...he owned the boat.


----------



## LetsGo

chef2sail said:


> So the Captain of the ship....


I really don't understand the reason for the tone of your post, whoever you are. I don't know what kind of history you and RD have, but please don't direct that **** at me.


----------



## LetsGo

chef2sail said:


> Knowing that why would the "experienced crew" of Jake and Rockdawg, first time spinnaker flyers....


Also, please actually read my posts to find out whether I am a "first time spinnaker flyer." Sheesh. WTF.


----------



## chef2sail

LetsGo said:


> Also, please actually read my posts to find out whether I am a "first time spinnaker flyer." Sheesh. WTF.


He was self admittedly.

Im sorry you don't like my tone, but like the Captain this is the real world and not everyone agrees or feels sorry for you. I am glad you both are safe however

And as far as my " history" with Rockdawg", that has nothng to do with anything. Dont try and deflect with that false front. If the Cpatian came on here and posted I would be just as "up front" and opinionated about his misdoings. Two wrongs doesn't mean anyone is in the right here.

The facts still remain the facts.

You tried to take someones elses boat over and there was physical force used.

You exercised bad judgement in going knowing you both were the most experienced on the boat.

This doesn't exonerate the Captain at all he has many many issues. He should never have taken two newbies and an 86 year old woman as crew across 2000 miles of open ocean. He obviously has no preparation skills for what he was doing, to the point of potentially eventually endangering everyone on board should there have been a true emergency. His interpersonal skills have no bearing on anything. There is no qualification saying a Captain has to be politically correct all the time or even anytime.


----------



## SalNichols94804

LetsGo said:


> I think "Harry" saw rockdawg and me flying it competently and felt he could too-and was far too macho to admit that he needed it taken down.
> 
> And even after it sank in that we needed to use autohelm, Harry still maintained, against all evidence, that autohelm really couldn't be used for flying a spinnaker. (This guy had a truly massive machismo problem.) That's why he didn't, and kept messing it up, even after July 19.
> 
> There was no formal watch schedule-Harry was far too disorganized for that, and it wasn't the sort of environment where rockdawg or I could propose one. We did sail through squalls. See above answer for wing-on-wing answer. Kite had a sock, and there was a net, but after the net got fully tangled once (thanks to some remarkable, net-proof mess-up of Harry's), we stopped using it. (Perhaps this was a mistake.)


Wait a minute champ. You're saying that you and RD HAD to use the AP when flying the kite? IOW, neither of you two superstars could hand drive the boat under the kite as required by the rules?


----------



## poopdeckpappy

LetsGo said:


> please actually read my posts to find out whether I am a "first time spinnaker flyer." Sheesh. WTF.


Yeah really, WTF, I think you just met Harry's brother


----------



## chef2sail

SalNichols94804 said:


> Wait an f-ing minute champ. You're saying that you and RD HAD to use the AP when flying the kite? IOW, neither of you two superstars could hand drive the boat under the kite as required by the god damned rules?


Yep that's what he said....but be careful how you talk to them as the political correct police have arrived. I can feel another BBQ lesson story coming


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> So the Captain of the ship, the owner of the vessel, who has the most to lose and has to pay for a broken boat says he doesn't feel comfortable using it, yet you believe how you and Rockdawg "feel" and "know better" even though neither of you have any prior experience, trumps the Captain and owners wishes on his own boat. How does that work?
> 
> Its his boat, not yours. Where do you get off telling him what to do with it. You've got no skin in the game.
> 
> Don't feed me that line of crap your lives were in danger either, neither the race organizers nor the CG nor the US Navy believed that or they would have truly intervened.


If the water situation was as reported, it's not crap. It IS life-threatening. And your life is about as much "skin in the game" as you can possibly give. This is where you and Sal are dead wrong. Any conclusions you try to draw beyond that flawed calculus are just as wrong.

In the situation as portrayed, these guys absolutely did the right thing. Period. Everyone made it home safely.


----------



## Coquina

Open ocean spinnaker flying at night can be done with 2 people on watch if the weather isn't too bad. Once you get to the point of needing sheet in and main in and sheet out and main out 4 is minimal and steering more than one hour very tough. We have - with a crew of 6 good people - switched to the genoa at night so two people could handle jibes and everyone else could get some rest.


----------



## SalNichols94804

I have a bunch of questions and you're not going to like my tone. Deal with it. I've worn out the carpet racing to and delivering home from Hawaii.

1). Who was responsible for navigating?
2). What navigation tools were available? Did you use a race routing program like Expedition?
3). We're there any boat polars aboard?
4). Did you two ALWAYS use the AP while the kite was up?
5). Why did you NOT use the spinnaker net if you had one available?
6). How often did you download weather data? What form did that data take? We're they gribs or iso charts? If they were gribs, did you have the tools to correct the, to local/observed weather? Do you even know this is possible?
7). Can you please describe to me how working on the foredeck was so life endangering?
8). Do you know how to clear a wrap by gybing the boat?
9). Do you understand the implications of the use of the word "mutiny"?
10). Do you think being involved in a mutiny will hurt your shot at getting another ride?
11). Could you two have done anything at all without the autopilot?

Seriously, I am not either of yours greatest fans, nor do I think that the Harry, Jane, mom team belonged out there. I don't care if you thought it was easy, you MADE IT EASY by using the Bloody autopilot! I just don't see where you two get off thinking that you're entitled to take command of someone's boat. Working on a foredeck is what sailors do. We do it at night, and we do it when it's blowing a lot more than 17 kts. Personally, you're a pair of whining kittens.

Nick Salvador
Richmond, CA


----------



## SalNichols94804

Coquina said:


> Open ocean spinnaker flying at night can be done with 2 people on watch if the weather isn't too bad. Once you get to the point of needing sheet in and main in and sheet out and main out 4 is minimal and steering more than one hour very tough. We have - with a crew of 6 good people - switched to the genoa at night so two people could handle jibes and everyone else could get some rest.


Never had more than two people on deck flying a kite, including through the squalls. And we didn't use the damn AP. over trim it just a touch, then drive to it. The second person is there to run the sheet if you screw up. This ain't brain surgery.


----------



## fryewe

poopdeckpappy said:


> Yeah really, WTF, I think you just met Harry's brother


I tried to "like" this repeatedly but unfortunately the system will only take one. Damn near broke my keyboard...and did split a gut!!!:laugher


----------



## SalNichols94804

chef2sail said:


> Yep that's what he said....but be careful how you talk to them as the political correct police have arrived. I can feel another BBQ lesson story coming


Holy Moly! I'm just waiting for either one of these autopilot drivers to put their names on the Pac Cup crew list. "We're life saving rockstars", but we can't drive a boat downwind, night or day, without using the bloody autopilot.

My apologies. Harry and Jane are idiots. Both for their lack of self awareness, and for bringing these two along for the ride.

Q 12: how many gallons of water were on board when you departed? The boat has three tanks, containing 145 gallons total. What were the gauges reading? Yeas, I know that they're notoriously inaccurate. What was the water consumption plan? How many showers did each of you take?


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> I have a bunch of questions and you're not going to like my tone. Tough sh$t, deal with it. I've worn out the carpet racing to and delivering home from Hawaii.
> 
> 1). Who was responsible for navigating?
> 2). What navigation tools were available? Did you use a race routing program like Expedition?
> 3). We're there any boat polars aboard?
> 4). Did you two ALWAYS use the AP while the kite was up?
> 5). Why did you NOT use the spinnaker net if you had one available?
> 6). How often did you download weather data? What form did that data take? We're they gribs or iso charts? If they were gribs, did you have the tools to correct the, to local/observed weather? Do you even know this is possible?
> 7). Can you please describe to me how working on the foredeck was so life endangering?
> 8). Do you know how to clear a wrap by bing the boat?
> 9). Do you understand the implications of the use of the word "mutiny"?
> 10). Do you think being involved in a mutiny will hurt your shot at getting another ride?
> 11). Could you two have done anything at all without the autopilot?
> 
> Seriously, I am not either of yours greatest fans, nor do I think that the Harry, Jane, mom team belonged out there. I don't give a sh$t if you thought it was easy, you MADE IT EASY by using the F!cking autopilot! I just don't see where you two get off thinking that you're entitled to take command of someone's boat. Working on a foredeck is what sailors do. We do it at night, and we do it when it's blowing one hell of a lot more than 17 kts. Personally, you're a pair of whining pussies.
> 
> Nick Salvador
> Richmond, CA


Heh-heh. You definitely freed NoStrings Nick!

I guess I just can't see why you keep overlooking the water situation. In my opinion, that's the crux of everything.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

chef2sail said:


> . I can feel another BBQ lesson story coming


No wories, I won't be wasting another one on ya


----------



## SalNichols94804

Finally you goofball, using the A.P. IS AGAINST THE BLOODY RULES on a crewed boat. It amazes me that 1). We need to say this to you; and 2) that you're choosing to argue the point. You're lucky that I wasn't on that boat. Harry and Jane would have been the least of your problems.


----------



## CalebD

Guys, guys! 
All this hair splitting over what?
They never crossed the finish line! They were 'dnf' before they could be 'dsq'-ed. 
Who cares if they ran their motor the whole way?
Never crossed the finish line. 
None of this other stuff matters much since there was no 'finish'.


----------



## fryewe

SalNichols94804 said:


> I have a bunch of questions and you're not going to like my tone. Tough sh$t, deal with it. Personally, you're a pair of whining pussies.
> 
> Nick Salvador
> Richmond, CA


Personally I hope he tells you to take your questions and go piss up a rope.

Whining pussies? Don't remember anybody whining to you ...perhaps you have them confused with one of *your* crew.

And personally I wouldn't have your overbearing ass aboard my boat for a beer at the pier let alone underway.

I would consider that perhaps they had a better go of it with Harry than to have been at sea with a shipmate with your attitude.

Now flame back at me. You seem to be highly qualified for that. Doesn't have to be now...perhaps after you finish showing Neptune his way around the Eastern Pacific.


----------



## Coquina

Maybe on your boat. In heavy air and big waves my boat is a very big handful for 2 people under chute. I singlehand under chute all the time too, so it isn't like I don't know how it works 












SalNichols94804 said:


> Never had more than two people on deck flying a kite, including through the squalls. And we didn't use the damn AP. over trim it just a touch, then drive to it. The second person is there to run the sheet if you screw up. This ain't freaking brain surgery.


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. Man I love the smell of napalm in the morning!


----------



## smackdaddy

Coquina said:


> Maybe on your boat. In heavy air and big waves my boat is a very big handful for 2 people under chute. I singlehand under chute all the time too, so it isn't like I don't know how it works


You're lucky Sal wasn't on that boat Mister!

PS - Isn't coming in DFL against the RRS as well?


----------



## SalNichols94804

Smackers, until I get an answer on the water question, I'm reserving judgement. That boat should have been able to sail during the hours of darkness under a poled out jib and maintained 6-7.5 kts. Insisting that the kite be flown by someone who couldn't was asking to lose sleep. It's the Aloha Class, take the night off. Secondly, it doesn't pay for slow boats to wander around the Pacific chasing breeze, particularly when you're light on water (if they truly were). The Great Circle route is the shortest distance between LA and HON. Not only that, if you were really in trouble, you're only about two hours from being run over by a parade of shipping. Fast boats can take the jogs south because they can make up the miles by planing. Aquarius isn't that kind of boat. Neither were Dorade and Westward, and you didn't see them digging south. So Jake and RD are actually clueless when it comes to course selection. As for Harry taking that hitch north? That's what people do when they chase boat speed in light air. We call it "spinning out", and everyone knows not to do it, and we've all done it once. I'm just mortified by the absolute arrogance and self serving nature of these two. They didn't die, they weren't even close.


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> Smackers, until I get an answer on the water question, I'm reserving judgement. That boat should have been able to sail during the hours of darkness under a poled out jib and maintained 6-7.5 kts. Insisting that the kite be flown by someone who couldn't was asking to lose sleep. It's the Aloha Class, take the night off. Secondly, it doesn't pay for slow boats to wander around the Pacific chasing breeze, particularly when you're light on water (if they truly were). The Great Circle route is the shortest distance between LA and HON. Not only that, if you were really in trouble, you're only about two hours from being run over by a parade of shipping. Fat boats can take the jogs south because they can make up the miles by planing. Aquarius isn't that kind of boat. Neither were Dorade and Westward, and you didn't see them digging south. So Jake and RD are actually full of crap when it comes to course selection. As for Harry taking that hitch north? That's what people do when they chase boat speed in light air. We call it "spinning out", and everyone knows not to do it, and we've all done it once. I'm just mortified by the absolute arrogance and self serving nature of these two. They didn't die, they weren't even close.


Okay - cool. That's the explanation I needed. Makes sense.

But taping the taps shut and hiding the bottled water? That's just freakin' psycho.


----------



## SalNichols94804

fryewe said:


> Personally I hope he tells you to take your questions and go piss up a rope.
> 
> Whining pussies? Don't remember anybody whining to you ...perhaps you have them confused with one of *your* crew.
> 
> And personally I wouldn't have your overbearing ass aboard my boat for a beer at the pier let alone underway.
> 
> I would consider that perhaps they had a better go of it with Harry than to have been at sea with a shipmate with your attitude.
> 
> Now flame back at me. You seem to be highly qualified for that. Doesn't have to be now...perhaps after you finish showing Neptune his way around the Eastern Pacific.


Yeah, who are you again? You're right about one thing...they were much better off with Harry. I wouldn't have taken their (is b.s. ok?) for a minute.


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - cool. That's the explanation I needed. Makes sense.
> 
> But taping the taps shut and hiding the bottled water? That's just freakin' psycho.


Clearly rationing was necessary...which could have been communicated differently then that, I agree.


----------



## aeventyr60

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - cool. That's the explanation I needed. Makes sense.
> 
> But taping the taps shut and hiding the bottled water? That's just freakin' psycho.


I wonder about the entire water issue. Most dirt dwellers and those who have not sailed/raced long distance use an extraordinary amount of water. Could it have been that the inexperienced crew were using way too much? Was the Captain taking steps to ensure adequate supplies in light of a slower then anticipated passage? Was the water conservation effort the only way the Captain could retain some control?

Too much weird stuff here....


----------



## SalNichols94804

Coquina said:


> Maybe on your boat. In heavy air and big waves my boat is a very big handful for 2 people under chute. I singlehand under chute all the time too, so it isn't like I don't know how it works


Mine is similar, Baltic37, C&C design. I'll admit to fiddling about a bit to tame the beast. Deeper carbon fiber rudder, and asymmetrical kites, A4, A5, and a .5 and .75 symmetric. The a kites are the workhorses. Flown off the pole like a symmetrical kite, less rolling, and definitely less of a tendency to head the wrong direction. We only woke people up to change, douse, or gybe...though two up gybing the akite is simple.


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> I wonder about the entire water issue. Most dirt dwellers and those who have not sailed/raced long distance use an extraordinary amount of water. Could it have been that the inexperienced crew were using way too much? Was the Captain taking steps to ensure adequate supplies in light of a slower then anticipated passage? Was the water conservation effort the only way the Captain could retain some control?
> 
> Too much weird stuff here....


Agreed. I'm in the middle of teaching my two young boys all about conserving water on the boat. You just have no clue until you get out there.

So, yeah, these are the primary questions in my book. Because as I said above, the water issue is where an _actual threat to life_ potentially existed. And wherever the negligence for that threat lies is where the actions taken in this story are either justified or not.

From all accounts, it's easier for me to believe the story than assuming that Captain Furious was being as responsible as you lay out above. After all, he apparently left the dock for a SLOW 2K run without making sure the tanks were sufficiently full.


----------



## aeventyr60

Responsible or irresponsible hard to tell on this one. However, in light of diminishing supplies something had to be done by somebody. Maybe there was enough and it was just part of the "survivor" type game being played out. What say you tribe?


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> Agreed. I'm in the middle of teaching my two young boys all about conserving water on the boat. You just have no clue until you get out there.
> 
> So, yeah, these are the primary questions in my book. Because as I said above, the water issue is where an _actual threat to life_ potentially existed. And wherever the negligence for that threat lies is where the actions taken in this story are either justified or not.
> 
> From all accounts, it's easier for me to believe the story than assuming that Captain Furious was being as responsible as you lay out above. After all, he apparently left the dock for a SLOW 2K run without making sure the tanks were sufficiently full.


Therein lies the rub eh? I would have departed with 80 gallons, split p&s just to be safe. (I had all 75 of mine in three bladders all on stbd). I would have disabled all of the showers and pressure water pumps though. Foot pumps only. Harder to waste water and easier to monitor use.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Almost every post in this thread make me happier that I neither race, nor sail with ANY of the knuckleheads who have posted here. It's pretty obvious that the entire line-up on that boat (Skipper, crew, and 86 y.o.) constituted its own "Perfect Storm" for a 2000+ nm passage; although I still think special attention has to be paid to the skipper's shortcomings. But I think we all need to take a deep breath and tone it down a notch (or three, or five). How about concentrating more on *constructive* criticism, rather than name-calling and chest-thumping?

Whatever happened to sailing as a nice relaxing pastime?


----------



## aeventyr60

Or maybe strategies to deal with the myriad events that happen out here? 
Easy to identify the faults after the fact. Solutions en enroute for this group? Not So.

I"m not a knuckle head either....


----------



## smurphny

Manual pumps for water are definitely a good idea, even on standard cruising boats. I keep my electric pump off at all times unless it's being used. It's too damned easy for a fitting to let go and dump all your fresh water in the bilge before you know it. I have a wrist band attached to the water pump switch. Anyone using the pressurized water system puts the clunky wrist band on, me included. The water switch needs to stay OFF. The use of bottles, manual pumps for salt water (on my to-do list), even pails of salt water below for things like dish washing are ways to save the precious fresh water. I can understand Harry taping off the faucets but taking the fuse out or just switching off the water circuit would have accomplished the same thing.


----------



## Slayer

chef2sail said:


> this is the real world and not everyone agrees or feels sorry for you.


The funniest thing I've read on this thread. There seems to be a few who really believe this is the real world because they are getting pretty worked up.


----------



## Coquina

All I can say is if they hit the kind of weather I have had to contend with offshore they would all be dead.


----------



## blowinstink

Coquina said:


> All I can say is if they hit the kind of weather I have had to contend with offshore they would all be dead.


I dunno. RD can come across as an idiot on the forum sometimes (some of the things he doesn't know are surprising to me). But my sense is that he is probably pretty capable. He certainly proved to be an asset in getting this boat into port safely (IMO). I admire his willingness to do it under less than perfect circumstances (and when it is someone else's boat it is always less than perfect).

But yeah - the absence of any weather issues is pretty notable. Damn -- that woulda been an even better story!


----------



## jackdale

SalNichols94804 said:


> Never had more than two people on deck flying a kite, including through the squalls. And we didn't use the damn AP. over trim it just a touch, then drive to it. The second person is there to run the sheet if you screw up. This ain't freaking brain surgery.


End for end or dip pole. Big difference.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Coquina

In really bad stuff you'll need teamwork with people that trust each other and know each other's moves.

Handling a really dangerous situation with a divided crew that does not trust, like, or respect each other *AT BEST* is a nightmare I would never want to experience.


----------



## Plumbean

chef2sail said:


> Yep that's what he said....but be careful how you talk to them as the political correct police have arrived. I can feel another BBQ lesson story coming


You two could stand to tone it down a bit. From what I see of Jake's post, he and RDawg flew the spin just fine on their own, and it was the Captain who couldn't handle it. Further, it sounds like they tried to convince him to let them continue to steer but he ignored them and then screwed it up every time.

And Sal, if you ever threatened me with a winch handle, it wouldn't matter if it was your boat and you were the captain. This is not the British Navy in 1700.

I still think there is lots to this story that we don't know, and I suspect that cooler heads could have resulted in a less contentious outcome, but it certainly sounds like the captain was grossly incompetent.


----------



## JonEisberg

smurphny said:


> Manual pumps for water are definitely a good idea, even on standard cruising boats. I keep my electric pump off at all times unless it's being used. It's too damned easy for a fitting to let go and dump all your fresh water in the bilge before you know it. I have a wrist band attached to the water pump switch. Anyone using the pressurized water system puts the clunky wrist band on, me included. The water switch needs to stay OFF. The use of bottles, manual pumps for salt water (on my to-do list), even pails of salt water below for things like dish washing are ways to save the precious fresh water. I can understand Harry taping off the faucets but taking the fuse out or just switching off the water circuit would have accomplished the same thing.


Manual pumps are by no means failsafe, however... Especially, foot pumps that can get inadvertently stepped on or kicked in boisterous conditions...

I know a guy who had to abandon their Pacific Cup race about 700 miles out, after someone accidentally cracked the plastic/nylon housing on a galley foot pump, and allowing most of their water into the bilge before anyone noticed... I was a tough call to quit, they still had plenty of emergency rations in bottles, but the right one...

Good on them, they came back and won their division in the next edition of the race...

It's a good practice to keep a pressure water pump off when not in use, of course - but I don't worry too much about the integrity of my system... I always keep one of the two FW tanks shut off at the tank anyway, so worst case scenario I'll only lose half of what I have aboard... That's one of the few advantages of a shallow bilge like mine as well, even the most modest loss of FW will show itself immediately on my boat...


----------



## LetsGo

chef2sail said:


> The facts still remain the facts.
> You tried to take someones elses boat over


Um, no we didn't. We considered it because all our lives were in danger. But they ended up finally realizing that we did need to use autohelm, and did it themselves. No threats were involved. (Please reread the posts, or cite whatever gave you this false impression.)



chef2sail said:


> and there was physical force used.


Um, you mean when the owner tried to hit me over the hit with a winch handle? And rockDAWG deflected it? Yes, that's right. That's when there was physical force used. Sorry. Should he not have deflected it?



chef2sail said:


> You exercised bad judgement in going knowing you both were the most experienced on the boat.


There, you may actually have a point.

So, _one_ of the facts still remains a fact. The others you seem to have made up, for some reason I cannot understand.


----------



## smackdaddy

LetsGo said:


> So, _one_ of the facts still remains a fact. The others you seem to have made up, for some reason I cannot understand.


Forget it. He's rolling.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

LetsGo, you eluded to a trophy deal a bit ago, what was that all about


----------



## tdw

Good people, some of the language is getting a bit rich for an OnTopic forum. This isn't the sewer nor are we in the halls of the anarchists. Please try and keep it vaguely civil or at least limit the astericks. 

Do carry on.


----------



## davidpm

It is interesting how different people react to stress. No one knows for sure how they would react to a stressful situation. I'm pretty sure based on past experience how I would have reacted.

I'm pretty respectful of the chain of command. 

The following is my code:

If the owner/captain wants to sail down the middle I would attempt to explain the alternatives once, twice at the most.

If the owner didn't want to fly the spin I wouldn't fly it.
If the owner wanted to fly the spin and wrapped it up in the middle of the night and I felt I could retrieve it I would.
If I was not able to safely retrieve it I would respectfully say so and decline.

If the owner didn't want to use the autohelm I wouldn't use it.

I would use the water given me but might squirrel a little away just in case of a future emergency.

If however we actually ran out of water I would use my sat phone to alert the coast guard regardless of what the captain said.

If I had to drink tank water instead of bottled water I would do so.
From the story it is not clear if they were running out of tank water or bottled water or both.

My thinking is:

1. The captain is the boss and I do what he says with two exceptions.

2. The captain can not order me to do something I can't safely do. I'm the only one who knows what I can safely do. This exception is not about what I like to do or want to do but only about what I can't physically do without incapacitating injury or death. If for example if a captain ordered me to deal with a hose clamp in a deep bilge where I knew I would get scratched and cut by hose clamps I would do it as that would be painful and annoying but not incapacitating.

3. If the boat or people were in serious trouble, out of water, food or sinking or serious illness are the only ones I can think of I would use my sat phone not to call in a MayDay but to put them on notice as to our situation. This one I really don't like. I would really hate it if some nervous nelly hid in the forepeak and called a Mayday on my boat if I was the captain. If I was the captain I would calm the nervous person by making the call myself. Typically in case of a difference of opinion I suspect the cc would require a check-in every few minutes until everyone was on the same page.

In the OP's situation it might have taken a week longer. They may have indeed run out of water, maybe not though. 
I think that the above conduct would make the responsibility for any outcome good or bad rest clearly where it belongs.

I think RD was very lucky.

The owner could have been a little bigger and actually hurt him
The owner could have killed him quietly in his sleep, tossed the body and said he fell off the boat.
The owner could have had a weapon
The owner could have, and may yet charge him, with mutiny.

I believe that the chain of command is more important than running the boat right.

I think the Coast Guard's admonition to "de-escalate the situation" was a very succinct way of saying what this long post said.
In other words "stand-down soldier". 

I have crewed on may Sail Netters boats and would like to crew on all of them.
I'm interesting in you experienced captains if you agree with this code or think it should be amended in some way.

In fact when taking on crew maybe a discussion of this sort is in order. Part of selecting a compatible crew.


----------



## aeventyr60

tdw said:


> Good people, some of the anguage is getting a bit rich for an OnTopic forum. This isn't the sewer nor are we in the halls of the anarchists. Please try and keep it vaguely civil or at least limit the astericks.
> 
> Do carry on.


Nobody's broke water yet! But some are pissing ourselves with laughter...


----------



## LetsGo

poopdeckpappy said:


> LetsGo, you eluded to a trophy deal a bit ago, what was that all about


"Jane" was obsessed with the idea we could win something, even when it was completely obvious we were dead last and getting laster.

Her ace in the hole was her mother, who, at 86, was the oldest Transpac crew (ever? not sure). Apparently the Transpac had prepared a trophy for this. Her mother, interestingly, knew nothing of this, and really couldn't have cared less about staying in the race. She just wanted to get to Hawaii, and quickly, please, if possible.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Ahh, that's a shame. hopefully she'll get some kind of recognition for it and hopefully she wasn't being used


----------



## chef2sail

LetsGo said:


> Um, no we didn't. We considered it because all our lives were in danger. But they ended up finally realizing that we did need to use autohelm, and did it themselves. No threats were involved. (Please reread the posts, or cite whatever gave you this false impression.)
> 
> Um, you mean when the owner tried to hit me over the hit with a winch handle? And rockDAWG deflected it? Yes, that's right. That's when there was physical force used. Sorry. Should he not have deflected it?
> 
> There, you may actually have a point.
> 
> So, _one_ of the facts still remains a fact. The others you seem to have made up, for some reason I cannot understand.


No one is making facts up except you guys...just reiterating your and his story. So many holes in it, so many questions.

You make it sound like you saved everybody from some terrible fate, instead of enduring a fate of less than ideal conditions on board which would have ended at landfall. Did Harry, Jane, and the 86 thank you profusely for saving their lives upon arrival?

So would you care to tell us all about your encounter with the US Navy?

Where are the videos Rockdawg promised?

How come neither of you double checked to make sure the tanks were filled. Oh that's right you were aboard for ballast and your resumes so you didn't have that responsibility to yourself or others. BTW what were you specifically responsible for checking on and getting the boat ready, or were you just prepared to hop aboard like a cruise line passenger. Did you have some kind of checklist for yourself to make sure you were taking a safe passage, or did you just blindly abrogate that responsibility to fate. What type of preparation did you do before the journey for the rest of your team?

So how were your lives in danger. I still don't get that. Just because you couldn't swim in water or take a bath? How much water was really left? How much do you need daily? 4 liters or approximently 1 gallon per day is the minimum optimal requirement.Remember you usually get 1 liter from the foods you eat. So with 5 people that's 15 liters or about 4 gallons. 14 days is 56 gallons in the tank. I think read that the vessel carried full tank 145 plus whatever bottled stuff. How much was in the tank when you started? 1/3 full? How much did you hit the shore with?






Danger to me means you will die or be hurt. Is that what you are claiming? You were going to die of lack of water with the race committee following you. That's absolutely a preposterous fabrication.

Surely you can substantiate your claim of lack of water and tell us how you knew you would run out of water with empirical figures and know that you were short of water? Or was this another one of your "feelings" without evidence. I mean this was the reason you took over the boat right....water????? So what are the figures that show you were going to come up short.

So let me ask the obvious question....could you have called the CG or the race committee or the US Navy if you ran completely out of water and were going to die from no water? You mean Harry wouldn't have allowed that. Of course he would. Of course you could.

You were not in any imminent danger you were uncomfortable. He just wouldn't listen to you. He just didn't want to do it your way. He decided to conserve as was his right to make that decision as the Captain. You didn't agree so you mutinied. He wasn't going to murder you. You and Rockdawg against a 60 year old man, a woman and an 86 year old woman. and you were in danger, ...please spare me. 

Just let me remind you that all the others on the scene didn't think you were in danger either. The race committee, the CG and the US Navy. This was in your mind only...you made it up to justify your actions of mutiny. Really doesn't make any difference what the people on SN or SA think, the professional people who were there monitoring the situation with you don't agree with your acccessment

Face it you let you emotions get the best of you. You allowed the ranting's of the Captain to get to you and exacerbated the situation until you till mutinied and bullied the owner/ Captain out of the way with force, which you seem proud of. By your partners own statement on the thread...you mutinied and are proud of it. You took his boat from him and ran it your way

Buy a ticket on a cruise line next time you want to go to Hawaii


----------



## blowinstink

I'm not sure I agree with everything below (I definitely agree with an awful lot of it and need to chew on some of the rest). But this is one of the best posts in the thread - IMO -- just for form, usefulness, constructive dialogue, etc. What I like best is that you spoke from your experience and your views on the issue presented - rather than postulating and or / ripping the posters. Probably much more persuasive (as well as palatable) form of rhetoric as well. Thanks David!



davidpm said:


> It is interesting how different people react to stress. No one knows for sure how they would react to a stressful situation. I'm pretty sure based on past experience how I would have reacted.
> 
> I'm pretty respectful of the chain of command.
> 
> The following is my code:
> 
> If the owner/captain wants to sail down the middle I would attempt to explain the alternatives once, twice at the most.
> 
> If the owner didn't want to fly the spin I wouldn't fly it.
> If the owner wanted to fly the spin and wrapped it up in the middle of the night and I felt I could retrieve it I would.
> If I was not able to safely retrieve it I would respectfully say so and decline.
> 
> If the owner didn't want to use the autohelm I wouldn't use it.
> 
> I would use the water given me but might squirrel a little away just in case of a future emergency.
> 
> If however we actually ran out of water I would use my sat phone to alert the coast guard regardless of what the captain said.
> 
> If I had to drink tank water instead of bottled water I would do so.
> From the story it is not clear if they were running out of tank water or bottled water or both.
> 
> My thinking is:
> 
> 1. The captain is the boss and I do what he says with two exceptions.
> 
> 2. The captain can not order me to do something I can't safely do. I'm the only one who knows what I can safely do. This exception is not about what I like to do or want to do but only about what I can't physically do without incapacitating injury or death. If for example if a captain ordered me to deal with a hose clamp in a deep bilge where I knew I would get scratched and cut by hose clamps I would do it as that would be painful and annoying but not incapacitating.
> 
> 3. If the boat or people were in serious trouble, out of water, food or sinking or serious illness are the only ones I can think of I would use my sat phone not to call in a MayDay but to put them on notice as to our situation. This one I really don't like. I would really hate it if some nervous nelly hid in the forepeak and called a Mayday on my boat if I was the captain. If I was the captain I would calm the nervous person by making the call myself. Typically in case of a difference of opinion I suspect the cc would require a check-in every few minutes until everyone was on the same page.
> 
> In the OP's situation it might have taken a week longer. They may have indeed run out of water, maybe not though.
> I think that the above conduct would make the responsibility for any outcome good or bad rest clearly where it belongs.
> 
> I think RD was very lucky.
> 
> The owner could have been a little bigger and actually hurt him
> The owner could have killed him quietly in his sleep, tossed the body and said he fell off the boat.
> The owner could have had a weapon
> The owner could have, and may yet charge him, with mutiny.
> 
> I believe that the chain of command is more important than running the boat right.
> 
> I think the Coast Guard's admonition to "de-escalate the situation" was a very succinct way of saying what this long post said.
> In other words "stand-down soldier".
> 
> I have crewed on may Sail Netters boats and would like to crew on all of them.
> I'm interesting in you experienced captains if you agree with this code or think it should be amended in some way.
> 
> In fact when taking on crew maybe a discussion of this sort is in order. Part of selecting a compatible crew.


----------



## chef2sail

poopdeckpappy said:


> LetsGo, you eluded to a trophy deal a bit ago, what was that all about


It was the Best BBQ story trophy but I am afraid Brian ( CD) has a lock on that.:laugher:laugher:laugher


----------



## chef2sail

This story gets better and better....its like a cross between Mutiny on the Bounty and Gilligan's Island


----------



## MedSailor

Chef (and Sal),

Why does this make you so mad? What's the nerve they hit?

Your ire is up so high that you've even stated that you're willing to try and sabotage RD's future crewing prospects (but curiously not the sushi chef's) *in the real world* for what he's posted here.

RD has done nothing to you. Neither did the sushi chef, and you weren't anywhere near what has transpired. You are witness to the telling of a story, not the grand judgement of St. Peter.

Seriously, are you willing to share what is is about this that bug you so much? Can I buy you enough strong rum drinks to calm that nerve that's been struck?

MedSailor


----------



## shadowraiths

LetsGo said:


> chef2sail said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts still remain the facts.
> You tried to take someones elses boat over
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no we didn't. We considered it because all our lives were in danger. But they ended up finally realizing that we did need to use autohelm, and did it themselves. No threats were involved. (Please reread the posts, or cite whatever gave you this false impression.)
Click to expand...

It's in the telling of the story.



rockDAWG said:


> Me and jake tried to dominate at helm as much as we could.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Day 12, Friday, July 19:
> Mutiny at dawn
> 
> [...]
> 
> Mutiny is the only way to survive.
> 
> [...]
> 
> If we don't take control for the boat and sail her properly, our sails will suffer more damage and water supply will become an issue.





LetsGo said:


> chef2sail said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there was physical force used.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, you mean when the owner tried to hit me over the hit with a winch handle? And rockDAWG deflected it?
Click to expand...

And then proceeded to punch the guy in the nose as well as physically grabbing and pushing Jane.



rockDAWG said:


> Harry came behind and attacked Jake and use his arm around his neck and tried to get our sat phone and throw it over board. I struggled with him and he turned around and picked up the winch handle trying to strike Jake's head. I blocked his arm from hitting Jake. I dared him to strike me. But I was in a combat mode to block and struck his nose. He hesitated for a second and I grabbed and threw the handle away. Jane jumped in the midst of this for our phone, I grabbed her hands and pushed her to the starboard side of the cockpit and sat still.


Btw, and fwiw, here is, at least, one of the apparent threats.



rockDAWG said:


> I shouted both of them with fouled language that they were no match with my strength and speed. 'Don't be stupid'!!!


Add to the above, that rock titled this thread "_Mutiny at Dawn_"? Based upon his title and telling of the story, sure reads like someone was trying to take the guy's boat over.

As for the "_lives in danger_" bit? I am admittedly still scratching my head on that one. Perhaps you'd be willing to elaborate what, exactly you two mean by that? Bc, frankly speaking, am just not seeing anything in the story that remotely supports such a claim.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

chef2sail said:


> ...please spare me.


Please spare us all Chef and give it a rest


----------



## shadowraiths

I, personally, want to see the videos.



rockDAWG said:


> Yes, he has lot of footage and recorded through out the voyage. He had three film crews for two days filming the preparation and departure. I also mentioned that he had a film crew in Hilo filming our arrival in Hio.


----------



## LetsGo

shadowraiths said:


> It's in the telling of the story.....


Shadowraiths, what you cite is mutiny verbiage (rockDAWG does like his verbiage) and reaction (pushing Jane away after she tried to get HIS satphone from me; tapping Harry on the nose a bit after the [expletive here] tried to [expletive again] hit me over the head with a [third expletive] winch handle).

As for the danger, we figured that what with the underfilled tank (that had been Harry's responsibility to fill, and that we only found out when we were well underway he hadn't filled), we had enough water to last us maybe 18 days. At the rate we were going, it was clear it could take a good deal longer than that, and the owners just didn't seem to care.

Sure, we weren't in _imminent_ danger, but we didn't want to find ourselves in imminent danger, either, and it was looking to end up that way.

Of course the constant yelling and abuse didn't help our state of mind, either.


----------



## LetsGo

shadowraiths said:


> I, personally, want to see the videos.


I'll look for good stuff, but honestly it's not very dramatic, since I didn't usually have the energy to shoot when there was drama going on. I wish I'd thought to put on the head-mount during one of the night-time spinnaker dramas, but I didn't.

I have some audio files of Harry's ranting and raving. I'll look for a good one.


----------



## shadowraiths

LetsGo said:


> what you cite is mutiny verbiage (rockDAWG does like his verbiage)


And, puffing up. Apparently. But, yeah, I took some of rock's story with a grain of salt. People tend to embellish when telling a story. Regardless of how bad, or for that matter, good, the experience is.



LetsGo said:


> Sure, we weren't in _imminent_ danger, but we didn't want to find ourselves in imminent danger, either, and it was looking to end up that way.


So, this was more a psychological fear, than one based in fact? If so, I certainly can see how, being stuck in the middle of the ocean in less than optimal circumstances could magnify the fear of imminent danger.


----------



## shadowraiths

LetsGo said:


> I'll look for good stuff, but honestly it's not very dramatic, since I didn't usually have the energy to shoot when there was drama going on. I wish I'd thought to put on the head-mount during one of the night-time spinnaker dramas, but I didn't.
> 
> I have some audio files of Harry's ranting and raving. I'll look for a good one.


Would be nice to see the video of the 2 day pre-race preparation that your film crew taped. It seems like that might provide some insight to what you guys faced when deciding to proceed. Of course, you don't *have to* show it. Just would be nice.


----------



## SalNichols94804

MedSailor said:


> Chef (and Sal),
> 
> Why does this make you so mad? What's the nerve they hit?
> 
> Your ire is up so high that you've even stated that you're willing to try and sabotage RD's future crewing prospects (but curiously not the sushi chef's) *in the real world* for what he's posted here.
> 
> RD has done nothing to you. Neither did the sushi chef, and you weren't anywhere near what has transpired. You are witness to the telling of a story, not the grand judgement of St. Peter.
> 
> Seriously, are you willing to share what is is about this that bug you so much? Can I buy you enough strong rum drinks to calm that nerve that's been struck?
> 
> MedSailor


Yes sir, I'll try. First off, this entire tale, as told by these two makes it sound like an episode of Sharknado, where but for their magnificent skills, everyone would have perished. So one of them had to go up the rig? Someone ought to be doing that every few days anyway. Life threatening? No more than an uninspected rig falling on your head. Back up with a second halyard and what's the big deal? Dousing a fouled kite on the foredeck is risking life and limb? On one hand there isn't enough wind, on the other this task is a life and death struggle. Sails go up and down day and night on these races, I don't understand the life threatening drama. This behavior just drives me over the edge. youre on a sailboat in the middle of the Pacific. You're crew, sails go up and down 24/7. It's your job boys!

These boys started the race upset and continued to escalate the problems by bullying a weak and ineffective captain, to the point that they saw fit to take command of his boat. Then they've come to your community crying woe is me seeking sympathy. It's telling to me that they didn't try posting their story of misery on SA.

They were uncomfortable. It's an ocean race, it happens. You don't eat as you normally would, you're sleep deprived, and you're crammed into a living situation that would be illegal in any prison outside of Florida. It means that you have to be flexible, particularly to the wishes of the owner. And calling everyone on the planet to whine is just so...I'm at a lack for words to describe it.

This entire tale of victim/hero bravado described under the proud title of Mutiny reeks of a lack of character, not a trait that I would be comfortable with offshore.

Lastly, I'll admit to no small bit of frustration with some of the opinions expressed by the non racing members of the forum regarding the way things are done on racing yachts. Neither of us is wrong, and neither of us are unsafe. We just have different priorities.

Trust me, I'm not defending Harry and Jane, they were over their head. I didn't express this as well as shadowraith, but that's the nut of it.


----------



## LetsGo

shadowraiths said:


> So, this was more a psychological fear, than one based in fact?


It was definitely based in fact - the running-out-of-water wasn't going to happen tomorrow, but it was certain to happen if we didn't move faster.


----------



## SalNichols94804

What mode was the ap in when you guys were flying the kite? Compass, Wind, or Waypoint? How about when Harry was sailing with the AP? It's kind of an important question. Also, do you know if the compass had been swung when the ap was commissioned?


----------



## SalNichols94804

Btw, by the rules, that boat had to have 5 additional gallons on board, each gallon or two depending upon how you buy it, in a factory sealed container...I.e. not taped up Clorox bottles, or a five gallon jerry. It's part of the pre race inspection. Using them during the race is an automatic DSQ.


----------



## shadowraiths

The whole water bit seems to be their main sticking point. Yet, from the description (_i.e., Jane taping up the faucet & hiding the bottled water, complaints about only getting 1.5L of water a day_), I was left with the impression that they were acting like rebellious teens trying to sneak water above and beyond whatever they were being rationed. Which, in turn, begs the question, if they were so worried about running out of water, why were they trying to sneak extra water? Idunno. Maybe it's just me but the logic seems rather circular.


----------



## Minnewaska

We seems to have two basis for emotions here.

1. Those who feared for their life on a boat in the middle of the Pacific.

2. Those that can't control themselves reading a story on a computer screen sitting in their living room.

Which sounds like the bigger woosie.


----------



## rgscpat

Some of Sal's questions were answered previously and some of the others would be for the captain/owner to answer.


----------



## SlowButSteady

This whole water kerfuffle mystifies me. The boat in question tips the scales at about 10 tons. Somehow I really SERIOUSLY doubt that filling the tanks would have made much of difference in her performance. I think the skipper just forgot to top them off before he left. He sure doesn't seem to have put a whole lot of thought into much else (like a decent sail inventory, organizing a shakedown cruise or two, making sure that HE knew how to fly a spinnaker, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera).

For that matter, why did "Good Ol' Skippy" opt to go to the Big Island, rather than Oahu? At the time he made that decision they were far enough north that the difference between going to Hawaii and going to Oahu couldn't have been more than half a day or so.

Finally, how is "Skippy" going to get his boat back to SoCal? Is Chef gonna crew for him?


----------



## Classic30

SlowButSteady said:


> This whole water kerfuffle mystifies me. The boat in question tips the scales at about 10 tons. Somehow I really SERIOUSLY doubt that filling the tanks would have made much of difference in her performance. I think the skipper just forgot to top them off before he left. He sure doesn't seem to have put a whole lot of thought into much else (like a decent sail inventory, organizing a shakedown cruise or two, making sure that HE knew how to fly a spinnaker, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera).


It *does* affect trim... quite a lot... and if you're in race mode, you certainly don't want to carry water in the wrong place if you can help it at all because, depending on where the tanks are located, it can definitely slow you down.

Never mind the water, I've known people to shift their entire *engine* and drivetrain a couple of inches forward or back just to get the balance right.. and then use Velcro tape to hold up ceiling linings just to save the weight of screws. 



SlowButSteady said:


> Finally, how is "Skippy" going to get his boat back to SoCal? Is Chef gonna crew for him?


:laugher :laugher :laugher


----------



## chef2sail

MedSailor said:


> Chef (and Sal),
> 
> Why does this make you so mad? What's the nerve they hit?
> 
> Your ire is up so high that you've even stated that you're willing to try and sabotage RD's future crewing prospects (but curiously not the sushi chef's) *in the real world* for what he's posted here.
> 
> RD has done nothing to you. Neither did the sushi chef, and you weren't anywhere near what has transpired. You are witness to the telling of a story, not the grand judgement of St. Peter.
> 
> Seriously, are you willing to share what is is about this that bug you so much? Can I buy you enough strong rum drinks to calm that nerve that's been struck?
> 
> MedSailor


Med,

I think your reading an emotion into my pst that isn't there. It may appear that I am mad, but I am not at all. I have nothing againt RD personally and have given him credit for beginning to obtain sailing experience on his trips.

In addition I fing great fault with the Captain and his ultimate responsibility. However he is not posting here and whining and trying to shift blame from himself, nor is he threatening to sue


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> We seems to have two basis for emotions here.
> 
> 1. Those who feared for their life on a boat in the middle of the Pacific.
> 
> 2. Those that can't control themselves reading a story on a computer screen sitting in their living room.
> 
> Which sounds like the bigger woosie.


Great contribution


----------



## Coquina

Funny thing was everyone was worried about rafting up and no one saw the waterspout but me. I was like "Hey guys, why don't we unraft right now" and everyone wanted to know why so I pointed aft and the crew action sped up a LOT :laugher



smackdaddy said:


> Well there you go. And as LetsGo called it in and got the verbal ruling which fits the above...what's the issue?
> 
> "Even More DFL". Best thing to come out of this thread yet.
> 
> PS - Coquina, this is an insane photo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had a similar thing on our old boat on Lake Travis:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite as nasty looking as yours!


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> Manual pumps are by no means failsafe, however... Especially, foot pumps that can get inadvertently stepped on or kicked in boisterous conditions...
> 
> I know a guy who had to abandon their Pacific Cup race about 700 miles out, after someone accidentally cracked the plastic/nylon housing on a galley foot pump, and allowing most of their water into the bilge before anyone noticed... I was a tough call to quit, they still had plenty of emergency rations in bottles, but the right one...
> 
> Good on them, they came back and won their division in the next edition of the race...
> 
> It's a good practice to keep a pressure water pump off when not in use, of course - but I don't worry too much about the integrity of my system... I always keep one of the two FW tanks shut off at the tank anyway, so worst case scenario I'll only lose half of what I have aboard... That's one of the few advantages of a shallow bilge like mine as well, even the most modest loss of FW will show itself immediately on my boat...


I only have one large tank, built right into the hull. It's very low, right above the keel, which is good for stability but it'ss not easy to check for water level. I have a counter-level hand pump which is the main pump when out cruising. For drinking water, I carry three 5 gallon containers which get filled with known good water. Replaced the old Jabsco noise-maker with a new centrifugal pump which is so quiet that it could drain the tanks and I'd never hear it running. For emergency supply, kept in the ditch bag, I have a manual reverse osmosis unit. IMO, a necessary gadget to have on any boat going far from shore.


----------



## smurphny

shadowraiths said:


> The whole water bit seems to be their main sticking point. Yet, from the description (_i.e., Jane taping up the faucet & hiding the bottled water, complaints about only getting 1.5L of water a day_), I was left with the impression that they were acting like rebellious teens trying to sneak water above and beyond whatever they were being rationed. Which, in turn, begs the question, if they were so worried about running out of water, why were they trying to sneak extra water? Idunno. Maybe it's just me but the logic seems rather circular.


If it's hot and you're doing the kind of strenuous work often required on a sailboat, 1.5 l of water is not nearly enough. Is that what this "captain" planned for? It isn't even enough if you're sitting on your butt doing nothing. Water is a CRITICAL issue. Keeping hydrated is a long-known critical factor in any sport. Planning to deprive crew members of adequate water is ludicrous.


----------



## lancelot9898

If you go over to the SA site under the title of "86 year old in the pit" there is a picture of the boat with Shirley. I get the feeling that she may well have been the most competent person aboard that boat and her telling the "story" may well be the most accurate. I still don't get the need for a "film crew", but who knows the reasoning?


----------



## chef2sail

*?*

No way I have better judgement than to get on a boat for 2000 miles with the Captain.

Just saying.

Do not extrapolate my comments about Jake's and RD to mean I think this Captain is anything but incompetent. Had he had crew with experience it would compensate somewhat, but we know that didn't happen with difficult results


----------



## chef2sail

Forgot number 3. The 30000 foot view of superiority.


----------



## killarney_sailor

smurphny said:


> Replaced the old Jabsco noise-maker with a new centrifugal pump which is so quiet that it could drain the tanks and I'd never hear it running. .


This is a serious potential problem for sure. We made sure that our pressure pump is loud enough that we can hear it.


----------



## Coquina

Probably the only person involved I would take on my boat :laugher

Jake - seriously - assuming one mutiny on the resume doesn't keep you from ever getting another ride, you owe it to yourself to get on a boat with a competent and semi-sane skipper and crew to see how things are done. See how watch schedules are set, how the crew races and practices together, does MOB drills, goes to Safety-At-Sea seminars, and 1,000 other things you never saw on your trip.



lancelot9898 said:


> If you go over to the SA site under the title of "86 year old in the pit" there is a picture of the boat with Shirley. I get the feeling that she may well have been the most competent person aboard that boat and her telling the "story" may well be the most accurate. I still don't get the need for a "film crew", but who knows the reasoning?


----------



## weinie

I've only been sailing for a few years and crewing on a local j105 for just this summer only, but FWIW, here is my take:

"Harry" was in way over his head. He was inexperienced in both sailing and skippering. He had zero ability to manage either his boat or his crew. This was obviously apparent to the more experienced crew that turned him down before RD and Jake enlisted. However, these two gents did not have the experience under their belt to realize that Harry was incompetent. 

From what I've been reading, the Transpac race is skippered and crewed by best of the best with only dedicated racing boats specifically built and outfitted for the task. Aquarius was a fish out of water and should not have been in the race from the start. That was all Harry's doing. You don't race with your 90 yo mother on board. Sorry. A three hour tour around the Del Boca Vista harbor, yes. Racing, no.

The hell with chain of command and law of the sea and NOR's or whatever. This isn't the Navy and this boat didn't belong in a race the way it was being run. Those rules do not apply. RD and Jake sensed disaster it but it was only confirmed after they had already departed. They had every right to compel Harry to either turn around or make it safely to the closest port. They were misled from the start. Add to that the possibility that you may run out of water then they had all the more reason to do what they did. 

Frankly, I give them credit for at least trying to stay in the race and continuing on with the hope that they would be penalized rather than disqualified to actually finish the race, ala the movie Cool Runnings when they carried the bobsled over the finish line or when a hurt marathoner walks across the finish line as the sun is setting and everyone else has gone home. 

They did what they could to urge the skipper to alter his plans, including asking for help from the race organizers, CG and the US Navy. But RD and Jake only resorted to physical force when it was being used on them.

If I get were to get into a car as a passenger and realize the driver was drunk, I wouldn't sit quietly and wait till we got to where we were going. Harry was simply incompetent and once I realized I had indeed put my life in his inept hands I would have tried to do all that was legally (by US law) and morally right to remedy the situation.

Chef and Sal, you guys are racers. But this boat and its crew were not. At least not by the standards you judge them by. I can put racing decals and numbers on a '78 chevy nova and enter it into the daytona 500, if they let me, but I'm no race car driver and a nova is no race car. Simply put, you guys are professional racers, the transpac is a professional race and Harry had no business being in that race and misrepresenting himself and his boat. I'm glad that races like these are open to amateurs. But if you are one, you better represent yourself as such and make it clear to the crew who are putting their lives in your hands.


----------



## smackdaddy

SlowButSteady said:


> Finally, how is "Skippy" going to get his boat back to SoCal? Is Chef gonna crew for him?


Now that would be a story.









*"Congratulations. That adventure is CHEF APPROVED."*


----------



## Coquina

FYI the laws pertaining to mutiny do not differentiate between racing, cruising, good, or bad skippers 

Not saying I would say YES SIR and sail over Niagara Falls or something, but we teh Interwebs Juriez is far from 100% on if things had got that far.
YMMV and IANAL



weinie said:


> I've only been sailing for a few years and crewing on a local j105 for just this summer only, but FWIW, here is my take:
> 
> "Harry" was in way over his head. He was inexperienced in both sailing and skippering. He had zero ability to manage either his boat or his crew. This was obviously apparent to the more experienced crew that turned him down before RD and Jake enlisted. However, these two gents did not have the experience under their belt to realize that Harry was incompetent.
> 
> From what I've been reading, the Transpac race is skippered and crewed by best of the best with only dedicated racing boats specifically built and outfitted for the task. Aquarius was a fish out of water and should not have been in the race from the start. That was all Harry's doing. You don't race with your 90 yo mother on board. Sorry. A three hour tour around the Del Boca Vista harbor, yes. Racing, no.
> 
> The hell with chain of command and law of the sea and NOR's or whatever. This isn't the Navy and this boat didn't belong in a race the way it was being run. Those rules do not apply. RD and Jake sensed disaster it but it was only confirmed after they had already departed. They had every right to compel Harry to either turn around or make it safely to the closest port. They were misled from the start. Add to that the possibility that you may run out of water then they had all the more reason to do what they did.
> 
> Frankly, I give them credit for at least trying to stay in the race and continuing on with the hope that they would be penalized rather than disqualified to actually finish the race, ala the movie Cool Runnings when they carried the bobsled over the finish line or when a hurt marathoner walks across the finish line as the sun is setting and everyone else has gone home.
> 
> They did what they could to urge the skipper to alter his plans, including asking for help from the race organizers, CG and the US Navy. But RD and Jake only resorted to physical force when it was being used on them.
> 
> If I get were to get into a car as a passenger and realize the driver was drunk, I wouldn't sit quietly and wait till we got to where we were going. Harry was simply incompetent and once I realized I had indeed put my life in his inept hands I would have tried to do all that was legally (by US law) and morally right to remedy the situation.
> 
> Chef and Sal, you guys are racers. But this boat and its crew were not. At least not by the standards you judge them by. I can put racing decals and numbers on a '78 chevy nova and enter it into the daytona 500, if they let me, but I'm no race car driver and a nova is no race car. Simply put, you guys are professional racers, the transpac is a professional race and Harry had no business being in that race and misrepresenting himself and his boat. I'm glad that races like these are open to amateurs. But if you are one, you better represent yourself as such and make it clear to the crew who are putting their lives in your hands.


----------



## weinie

Coquina,

Just out of curiosity, what ARE the laws pertaining to mutiny as they pertain to this situation?


----------



## smackdaddy

Estar over at SA posted this:



> Estar, on 04 Aug 2013 - 06:17, said:
> I presume you found the current US law related to mutiny (below):
> 
> 18 U.S.C.
> United States Code, 2011 Edition
> Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
> PART I - CRIMES
> CHAPTER 107 - SEAMEN AND STOWAWAYS
> Sec. 2192 - Incitation of seamen to revolt or mutiny
> From the U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Government Printing Office Home Page
> 
> §2192. citation of seamen to revolt or mutiny
> Whoever, being of the crew of a vessel of the United States, on the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, endeavors to make a revolt or mutiny on board such vessel, or combines, conspires, or confederates with any other person on board to make such revolt or mutiny, or solicits, incites, or stirs up any other of the crew to disobey or resist the lawful orders of the master or other officer of such vessel, or to refuse or neglect his proper duty on board thereof, or to betray his proper trust, or assembles with others in a tumultuous and mutinous manner, or makes a riot on board thereof, or unlawfully confines the master or other commanding officer thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
> (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 800; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, §601(a)(8), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498.)
> Historical and Revision Notes
> Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §483 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §292, 35 Stat. 1146).
> Minor changes were made in phraseology.
> Amendments
> 1996-Pub. L. 104-294 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
> 
> AND . . . . .
> 
> "In 1995, the Supreme Court was again faced with the question of who qualifies for "seaman" status. In Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, O'Connor again wrote the majority opinion and here laid out two elements necessary to qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act: "The worker's duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, and the worker must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or an identifiable fleet of vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature."


----------



## LetsGo

SalNichols94804 said:


> What mode was the ap in when you guys were flying the kite? Compass, Wind, or Waypoint? How about when Harry was sailing with the AP? It's kind of an important question. Also, do you know if the compass had been swung when the ap was commissioned?


Wind.


----------



## SalNichols94804

What kind of AP was it?


----------



## weinie

Actually, I think the next section is more applicable:



> §2193. Revolt or mutiny of seamen
> Whoever, being of the crew of a vessel of the United States, on the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, unlawfully and with force, or by fraud, or intimidation, usurps the command of such vessel from the master or other lawful officer in command thereof, or deprives him of authority and command on board, or resists or prevents him in the free and lawful exercise thereof, or transfers such authority and command to another not lawfully entitled thereto, is guilty of a revolt and mutiny, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
> (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 800; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
> Historical and Revision Notes
> Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §484 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §293, 35 Stat. 1146).
> 
> Punishment provision for mandatory fine and imprisonment was rephrased in the alternative so as to vest power in the court to impose either a fine, or imprisonment, or both, in its discretion.
> 
> Amendments
> 1994-Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $2,000".


----------



## smackdaddy

weinie said:


> Actually, I think the next section is more applicable:


In the case of a recreational event such as this, I think the case would pivot on the definition of "work" (related to the definition of "Seaman") in O'Connor's opinion.

Though I'm not a lawyer, I don't see a real connection in this case.


----------



## mstern

weinie said:


> Actually, I think the next section is more applicable:


I have way too much work to do today, but this needs a whole lot more research before I am convinced that the laws of mutiny (as quoted before) are applicable. The statutes quoted above apply to "crew" on "vessels of the United States", or vessels in the territorial waters of the United States. Since the "mutiny" occured well beyond the 12 mile limit, the operative terms here are "crew" and "vessels of the United States". The first thing I would check (and I am a lawyer and do this for a living) is the applicable definitions section of the statute to see if either or both of those terms are defined. If its not, I would then check any court or administrative decisions that construed the law to see if any court or other agency had looked at these or similar questions before. You can also review whatever legislative history there is to see what Congress discussed (or put in the written record) before passing the law in question.

I haven't read the case cited in the earlier post concerning the applicability of the term "seaman" under the Jones Act, but it may be inapplicable. The Jones Act concerned better working conditions for seamen on American flagged vessels. The concept of who was a "seaman" for purposes of the Jones Act may have dealt only with who was entitled to the benefits of better pay, working conditions and the ability to sue their employer, not who counts as "crew" for purposes of determining who can be convicted of mutiny. Like I said, I didn't read the case (nor is it likely that I will); I just caution all of you again that the quality of the legal analysis that I read on the internet is worth about the price that you paid to read it. Most of it wouldn't cut the mustard in a first year law school class.

Regardless of whether Jake or RD counts as "crew" or the Aquarius as a "vessel of the United States" as defined in the statute, as a former prosecutor (at both the state and federal levels), I find it very hard to believe that any US Attorney's office would waste their time with this.


----------



## weinie

mstern said:


> I have way too much work to do today, but this needs a whole lot more research before I am convinced that the laws of mutiny (as quoted before) are applicable. The statutes quoted above apply to "crew" on "vessels of the United States", or vessels in the territorial waters of the United States. Since the "mutiny" occured well beyond the 12 mile limit, the operative terms here are "crew" and "vessels of the United States". The first thing I would check (and I am a lawyer and do this for a living) is the applicable definitions section of the statute to see if either or both of those terms are defined. If its not, I would then check any court or administrative decisions that construed the law to see if any court or other agency had looked at these or similar questions before. You can also review whatever legislative history there is to see what Congress discussed (or put in the written record) before passing the law in question.
> 
> I haven't read the case cited in the earlier post concerning the applicability of the term "seaman" under the Jones Act, but it may be inapplicable. The Jones Act concerned better working conditions for seamen on American flagged vessels. The concept of who was a "seaman" for purposes of the Jones Act may have dealt only with who was entitled to the benefits of better pay, working conditions and the ability to sue their employer, not who counts as "crew" for purposes of determining who can be convicted of mutiny. Like I said, I didn't read the case (nor is it likely that I will); I just caution all of you again that the quality of the legal analysis that I read on the internet is worth about the price that you paid to read it. Most of it wouldn't cut the mustard in a first year law school class.
> 
> Regardless of whether Jake or RD counts as "crew" or the Aquarius as a "vessel of the United States" as defined in the statute, as a former prosecutor (at both the state and federal levels), I find it very hard to believe that any US Attorney's office would waste their time with this.


and the fact that there was no actual mutiny. Perhaps insubordination, but not mutiny.


----------



## tomandchris

Over 500 posts because a member here had a bad experience in a race. This all started as a cluster # and it still is one.
RD has not been back for a while and I don't think he will sue because there is nothing to win, and it would likely stop him from getting any rides in the future. Bad press is not a good thing. Jake has not mentioned suing anyone that I have seen, and seems to be the most rational of the crew. However, the posts have now moved to mutiny laws. Why? Is anyone planning a mutiny in the near future that this would be beneficial to know? Hell, we cannot even agree on how much water there should be per person per day so the jury would have to spend weeks just getting to an acceptable number of gallons.

This post could have been written by the old lady if the crew had included Chef. I think that mutiny would have definetely happened, winch handles would have been swung, and the old lady, as the only survivor, would have sailed in peace...finally....to Hawaii single handed.
She might have even won her division if she had not been DQ'd for the auto pilot usage
before she was a solo sailor. Maybe they would have given her an exception for her pain and suffering.


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. You definitely freed NoStrings Nick!
> 
> I guess I just can't see why you keep overlooking the water situation. In my opinion, that's the crux of everything.


Smack,
The "no water issue" is not really an issue. The CG, Navy, or any one of a number of container ships running between California and Hawaii every day can and would drop water to these men and woman within hours notice if they really needed it. At most they are 1500 miles from Hawaii or CA and that is less than a 4 hr flight by the CG with air drop capabilities.

Interesting the CG did not respond to Rocks calls.

Don't understand why this crew did not file charges on landing on Hawaii if they thought they were so wronged. Actually, the crew is guilty of Terrroristic Theatening (a State of Hawaii charge) and the State of Hawaii takes this very seriously, much more so than other states. Terroristic Theatening pertains to both verbal and physical threats. The state would press charges if the Captain notified the authorities.

Definitions:
Terroristic Threatening
Hawaii Penal Code 707-716, 717 
Definition: To verbally threaten another person. There are two different degrees of Terroristic Threatening Terroristic Threatening 1st - Threatening someone on more than one occasion for the same or a similar purpose. Threatening a Public Servant (ex. Police Officer, Teacher). Threatening someone with a dangerous instrument. Classification: Class C Felony Terroristic Threatening 2nd - A person threatens another person other than as provided in Terroristic Threatening 1st. Classification: Misdemeanor

Examples:

You are angry and upset with with someone and say that you will end their life, while holding any kind of weapon in your hand. 
You threaten a person by saying that you will end their life. 
You threaten a police officer or Teacher.

See two links below:

http://www.k12.hi.us/~dare/network/defterror.html
http://community.lawyers.com/forums/p/95948/455966.aspx


----------



## smackdaddy

casey1999 said:


> Smack,
> The "no water issue" is not really an issue. The CG, Navy, or any one of a number of container ships running between California and Hawaii every day can and would drop water to these men and woman within hours notice if they really needed it. At most they are 1500 miles from Hawaii or CA and that is less than a 4 hr flight by the CG with air drop capabilities.


I guess that's what's interesting here. On the one hand you're right. The "water emergency" was perhaps more perceived than actual. I don't know.

On the other hand, if ANY skipper/sailor planned or operated with such contingencies in mind (e.g. - someone will be close enough to bring me food, water, fuel, etc.) - they would be deemed a threat to everything we hold to as standard "seamanship". Further, this notion would absolve the skipper, the crew, or anyone else of mistakes made in this regard...or get them into far more trouble than they already were.

To me, the real issue is how a skipper plans and executes the voyage. That should ALWAYS be done under the guise of responsible self-sufficiency. And if that self-sufficiency is undermined, to the point of a potentially life-threatening state, every measure should be taken to remain self-sufficient as long as possible. That's what the people on this boat did in the long run - with encouragement to do so from each contacted authority from what I can see - and it worked out. And that was the right thing. It was just very messy in the process.


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> I guess that's what's interesting here. On the one hand you're right. The "water emergency" was perhaps more perceived than actual. I don't know.
> 
> On the other hand, if ANY skipper/sailor planned or operated with such contingencies in mind (e.g. - someone will be close enough to bring me food, water, fuel, etc.) - they would be deemed a threat to everything we hold to as standard "seamanship". Further, this notion would absolve the skipper, the crew, or anyone else of mistakes made in this regard...or get them into far more trouble than they already were.
> 
> To me, the real issue is how a skipper plans and executes the voyage. That should ALWAYS be done under the guise of responsible self-sufficiency. And if that self-sufficiency is undermined, to the point of a potentially life-threatening state, every measure should be taken to remain self-sufficient as long as possible. That's what the people on this boat did in the long run - with encouragement to do so from each contacted authority from what I can see - and it worked out. And that was the right thing. It was just very messy in the process.


Disagree. Threats and violence resulted from a perceived danger. The temperament of the crew and the way they handled stressful situations was much more of a danger than even running out of water, or sailing the boat poorly. The Capt and crew could have injured themselves in their altercations and violent out burst. Much more dangerous than being out of water for a few hours. I am sure the CG would much rather drop of some water than to pick up body bags. It is also more seamen like to run out of water than to lead a mutiny.


----------



## TTC

casey1999 said:


> Smack,
> Don't understand why this crew did not file charges on landing on Hawaii if they thought they were so wronged. Actually, the crew is guilty of Terrroristic Theatening (a State of Hawaii charge) and the State of Hawaii takes this very seriously, much more so than other states. Terroristic Theatening pertains to both verbal and physical threats. The state would press charges if the Captain notified the authorities.
> 
> Definitions:
> Terroristic Threatening
> Hawaii Penal Code 707-716, 717
> Definition: To verbally threaten another person. There are two different degrees of Terroristic Threatening Terroristic Threatening 1st - Threatening someone on more than one occasion for the same or a similar purpose. Threatening a Public Servant (ex. Police Officer, Teacher). Threatening someone with a dangerous instrument. Classification: Class C Felony Terroristic Threatening 2nd - A person threatens another person other than as provided in Terroristic Threatening 1st. Classification: Misdemeanor
> 
> Examples:
> 
> You are angry and upset with with someone and say that you will end their life, while holding any kind of weapon in your hand.
> You threaten a person by saying that you will end their life.
> You threaten a police officer or Teacher.
> 
> See two links below:
> 
> definitions-Terroristic Threatening
> "Terroristic Threatening" in Hawaii - Lawyers.com Community


And why would the state of Hawaii have any jurisdiction over incidents that happened in the middle (relatively speaking) of the Pacific?


----------



## casey1999

TTC said:


> And why would the state of Hawaii have any jurisdiction over incidents that happened in the middle (relatively speaking) of the Pacific?


I'm no lawyer so not quite sure how it would work, but the ship is a registered us vessel and the port of entry would have jurisdiction once the boat enters 3 mile state limit. But say a physical assault or murder occurred on the ship while outside the 3 mile state limit. On landing an arrest would be made by the local Hawaii police for sure, if the state was knowledgeable of the incident.


----------



## TTC

casey1999 said:


> I'm no lawyer so not quite sure how it would work, but the ship is a registered us vessel and the port of entry would have jurisdiction once the boat enters 3 mile state limit. But say a physical assault or murder occurred on the ship while outside the 3 mile state limit. On landing an arrest would be made my the local Hawaii police for sure, if the state was knowledgeable of the incident.


Hawaii law doesn't apply on the high seas.

As a US-flagged vessel, federal law would apply to a physical assault or murder on the high seas. But the State of Hawaii couldn't arrest anyone without a federal warrant.


----------



## casey1999

TTC said:


> Hawaii law doesn't apply on the high seas.
> 
> As a US-flagged vessel, federal law would apply to a physical assault or murder on the high seas. But the State of Hawaii couldn't arrest anyone without a federal warrant.


Ok then. If Rock was so concerned as to future actions by Capt, why was there not an arrest on landing? Why did Rock not file a complaint?


----------



## Sal Paradise

Maybe the captain wasn't so stupid. He knew he was going where he wanted, when he wanted and he controlled everything, down to the food and water. He probably perceived these incidents as disputes, or arguments. Remember there was a language barrier.

And he apparently didn't charge them with anything, or if he tried to, no one believed him. _Mutiny sir? Isn't that your boat over there where you docked it? Is anyone injured? No? We looked at you track, seems about like the other boats sir. No major or unusual deviation. Oh you disagreed about sails? I see. Have a nice day sir. _


----------



## Cruisingdad

weinie said:


> The hell with chain of command and law of the sea and NOR's or whatever. This isn't the Navy and this boat didn't belong in a race the way it was being run. Those rules do not apply. RD and Jake sensed disaster it but it was only confirmed after they had already departed. They had every right to compel Harry to either turn around or make it safely to the closest port. They were misled from the start. Add to that the possibility that you may run out of water then they had all the more reason to do what they did.


I vehemently (if that is a strong enough word) disagree with that. In fact, for me, that is the crux of the matter on this thread.

If something happens to one of the crew or the boat, the captain of that boat has the ultimate responsibility. If someone get hurt or lost at sea, it is his responsibility. THe buck stops with him and you can bet the lawyers land-side would agree with that if one of his crew got hurt.

Boating, in my opinion, has become too recreational. In what other endeavor can a person take command of a item without so much as a learner's permit and have so many people 's lives resting on their decision? How many Sea Rays are sold every year to people who have never driven a boat? How many Hatteras? How many sailboats? How often on this forum do we get a clown with ZERO sailing or offshore experience ready to sail to the carrib or S America or whatever and wants crew or asks which boat he should choose? And on this thread were the crew members (and captain) of this boat really experienced enough for the endeavor?

Like I said before, I think that people fail to appreciate the incredible responsibility put on a captain when they step on his boat. That does not change just because this is a recreational boat versus the US Navy. The sea does not care. The waves and weather do not care. THe law does not care. It is an old tradition and it is a good tradition. In the day of five minute fire truck arrivals and hospitals at every corner, many people forget that when you are out there, you are on your own. As such, it forces (or should force) the captain to have his crap together because he is legally and justifiably at fault for everything that happens on his boat. With that in mind, the idea of arguing with the captain, usurping his authority, or taking over his vessel is (and should be) a matter of last resort and only in dire circumstances. Mutiny (which I do not think RD or Jake really did) should be dealt with harshly, and legally, even on a recreational boat because the implications for the captain are still severe.

Were RD and Jake justified in what they did? I am not sure... I have not heard the other side of the story. But in doing it, they had better have exhausted all other options first and truly been in danger. Some of the key difference between me and others is that I hold the captain primarily responsible for everything that happened. All of this (or most of it) could have been identified long before the race started. He should have gotten to know the crew better and let the crew get to know him better. THey should have had more shakedown cruises. They should have had a very clear discussion beforehand on the water and supplies and how they would be rationed. THey should have discussed the chute and how and when they would fly it and each persons abilities. They should have had a clear understanding on the use (or lack of) the AP and things that would DQ them. That is NOT RD's or Jake's responsibility... that is the captains. I am still miffed that they shot off across the ocean with the miniscule amount of preparation they did. I think if the weather had ever turned bad, it really could have been life/death.

If the captain had been a leader, and had done all of these things, yet RD or Jake took over and broke the rules, then yes, I would probably have exactly the same view as Nick. But Nick, I suspect that you by nature and habit take care of all of that stuff before the boat leaves the dock? The crew and expectations are very clear before the dock lines are thrown off, right? So you place yourself on this boat, reading what you had read, and put yourself in the shoes of the captain and (rightfully) come unglued. Quite candidly, I think your bar is a lot higher and had you been captaining that boat, I suspect none of it would have happened because the prep you put in beforehand... and NOT because of your physical abilities or how you maintain your authority after the boat leaves the slip. Big difference.

This has been a great thread. It should be mandatory reading for anyone thinking about hoping on a boat as crew or captains looking for crew. It doesn't even have to be about racing. It's not. It is about the reality you face when you take off to sea, about how large the ocean is, how small the boat is, and how important it remains that respect, leadership, and camaraderie be maintained.

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## TTC

casey1999 said:


> Ok then. If Rock was so concerned as to future actions by Capt, why was there not an arrest on landing? Why did Rock not file a complaint?


RD would have to answer that. It was his decision.

But as someone pointed out above, a US Attorney would have zero zilch nada interest in a case like this.


----------



## Coquina

AFAIK the crew that DID know him better bailed out. Perhaps the skipper learned that last second crew that didn't know him was his only shot at getting ANY crew 



Cruisingdad said:


> He should have gotten to know the crew better and let the crew get to know him better. THey should have had more shakedown cruises.
> 
> My opinions.
> 
> Brian


----------



## hellosailor

"when I asked the commodore on the phone "
Yeah, one would hope the Commodore of a YC would be clued in, but the final word in these matters comes from a Protest Committee, not the Commodore, and their opinions may vary.
I have seen most of a fleet round the wrong mark entirely (there were two marks with the same buoy number, but the racing instructions seemed clear enough to us) and I have also seen most of a fleet round a mark on the wrong side (again, the instructions were clear but it wasn't the "logical" rounding) and in both cases, the PC and the Commodore said "That's true, but since most of the fleet got it wrong, we won't penalize it." Which instead of course radically penalized the folks who bothered to get it right.

Bottom line, the rules don't rule, unless it goes to a USSA appeals procedure.


As to "mutiny", I thought only crew could mutiny. And crew is not defined as "anyone on board" it is usually defined as paid, dragooned, or conscripted bodies under some obligation or compulsion to serve the captain. Captain can't bring charges of "mutiny" against his unpaid guests, now can he? Or did I miss the W4 and 1099 forms here?


----------



## Coquina

Guests can be charged with interfering with the operation of a vessel.
If you look at the SA thread, by west coast ferderal court standards the crew WAS crew in the legal sense.


----------



## hellosailor

It seems there was only one DNF in Division8 of the TransPac.

Jeanneau 43 Sun Odessy DS 
9/DNF 9.0

Yeah, but it didn't take a minute to find.

Which might be corporate owned as shown by the USCG:

CHANTIERS JEANNEAU Year Built: 2002

Length (ft.): 42.1

Now, how a corporation owns a recreational vessel eludes me, since normally all the assets and functions of a corporation are, well, commercial by nature. But I'm so easily baffled by these things.

_Identifying information removed from this post by Jeff_H, SailNet Moderator. The moderators have requested that all specific identification of the owner and boat be avoided. _--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Jeff_H

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, the moderators have discussed this thread and believe that it is a useful discussion. That said, the moderators have agreed, and are asking members to please avoid posting information which specifically identifies the parties. 

Thank you,
Jeff


----------



## chef2sail

I find myself in total agreement with Brian as to the captain's responsibility.

It also the responsibility of the individual crew members to chose their "rides" prudently and take on checking for their own safe

. Getting blue water expetience is far different than Transpav racing. The allure of practicing on someone else's boat without the associated costs doesn't mean jyou signed up to be pampered. 

I know you tale the responsibiltu seriously, as do I. One of this unqualified Captain's biggest mistakes was to take these two crewmen with no experience , sight unseen, relying on whatever they claimed they had done 

I would want someone with me the same or more qualified in case I was incapacitated. The mote skill the better. But he was forced to scrape the bottom as the talent pool had already been taken.

It started wrong, continued to go wrong, escallated . Lessons learned

Dave


----------



## smurphny

I'm not familiar with these kinds of races so bear with me. Aren't there some kinds of basic requirements in order to be admitted to participate? Shouldn't some of those requirements, if any exist, address the issue of crew competence, possibly in the form of some kind of required shakedown cruise? It seems to me that this kind of problem could be avoided if the crew had to actually work together before signing on. Do they just accept anyone willing to pay an entry fee regardless of experience or SOME sort of qualifying information, relying on release forms to shield themselves from liability? A questionnaire with wording such as, "How many sea miles have this captain and crew recorded together?" Circle the best answer: 0 miles 25 miles 100+miles. If any answer is <100 miles then the boat does not get to participate.


----------



## oceangirl

chef2sail said:


> I find myself in total agreement with Brian as to the captain's responsibility.
> 
> It also the responsibility of the individual crew members to chose their "rides" prudently and take on checking for their own safe
> 
> . Getting blue water expetience is far different than Transpav racing. The allure of practicing on someone else's boat without the associated costs doesn't mean jyou signed up to be pampered.
> 
> I know you tale the responsibiltu seriously, as do I. One of this unqualified Captain's biggest mistakes was to take these two crewmen with no experience , sight unseen, relying on whatever they claimed they had done
> 
> I would want someone with me the same or more qualified in case I was incapacitated. The mote skill the better. But he was forced to scrape the bottom as the talent pool had already been taken.
> 
> It started wrong, continued to go wrong, escallated . Lessons learned
> 
> Dave


I have to disagree with you on a few points

*Offshore racing is much harder than offshore cruising, the blue water experience is greater, not less. Crewing is riskier than taking your own boat out. Lots of unknowns, no matter how much you vet.

*From what I've read, RD and LG seem to have a good handle on sailing a boat. Did they have a stellar performance on this trip? No, but no one could of. They did the best with what they had to work with.

* BTW-as far fetched as some of the story sounds, anyone who has spent longer than a week offshore knows it could totally happen. And anyone who has been way way offshore, would also know that with the complete dysfunctional dynamics aboard, of the likes we see here, it could of been much much worse.

*I think RD and LG got that boat safely to land, in spite of the obstacles.

To gain experience you have to get experience ( genius, i know)
In my 25,000+ offshore miles, twice I have had a captain become incapacitated. 
One time was during a storm on a sinking boat, offshore. I kept the boat afloat and on course. At the time, my total sea time was just a couple thousand, didn't know jack. Good crew is not always about knowledge.

My 2cents.


----------



## miatapaul

hellosailor said:


> "when I asked the commodore on the phone "
> Yeah, one would hope the Commodore of a YC would be clued in, but the final word in these matters comes from a Protest Committee, not the Commodore, and their opinions may vary.
> I have seen most of a fleet round the wrong mark entirely (there were two marks with the same buoy number, but the racing instructions seemed clear enough to us) and I have also seen most of a fleet round a mark on the wrong side (again, the instructions were clear but it wasn't the "logical" rounding) and in both cases, the PC and the Commodore said "That's true, but since most of the fleet got it wrong, we won't penalize it." Which instead of course radically penalized the folks who bothered to get it right.
> 
> Bottom line, the rules don't rule, unless it goes to a USSA appeals procedure.
> 
> As to "mutiny", I thought only crew could mutiny. And crew is not defined as "anyone on board" it is usually defined as paid, dragooned, or conscripted bodies under some obligation or compulsion to serve the captain. Captain can't bring charges of "mutiny" against his unpaid guests, now can he? Or did I miss the W4 and 1099 forms here?


Well Rockdog was the one saying he was going to contact the California labor board, so he seemed to think he was an employee. His travel expenses were supposed to be paid, I am sure that would be considered compensation. By the way it sounds like RD is familiar with the labor board.

Bottom line is that no one on board was prepared for the trip. The captain was unprepared, and does seem to have a record of poor people skills as the crew that bailed out proves. The crew was obviously unprepared, though they seem to think they were, but being that it was RD's first time flying a spinnaker shows he was not experienced enough for this kind of race (being a down wind haul) and Jake had never been offshore. They had plenty of warning before they left that they should have bailed out. Certainly they noticed that the captain was at the least unorganized, one would think they would have checked on water as they all have responsibility for safety. Did they check to see if there were life vests and a life raft? Any threat of real danger was only perceived and obviously hyperbole, as they could have gotten water at any point if really needed by various methods (Coast Guard, shipping vessels and fellow yachtsmen) and it was not like they had lost electronics or anything. For me it would have been that there was no practice or advance meetings. Heck you do that for beer can racing, offshore come one. The crew was willing to not follow the rules from the get go. (long before the invented danger of running out of water they were using the auto pilot) It is obvious that RD and Jake had there own interests in mind, wanting to get experience offshore on someone ease's dime, not being part of a racing team from the start.

So we have a story of invented danger, with poor leadership and poor seamanship on all accounts. Sounds to me like someone wanted a reality show, why else have a camera crew there at take off and arrival? That really puzzles me, why have a camera crew? Perhaps a friend to take a few snapshots and a hug when you get back, but a camera crew? Seems someone had something brewing from the get go, wanted to be the next Jersey Shore or something.


----------



## hellosailor

So this is all going to turn out to be a Fox reality special, sponsored by the restaurant for business purposes, which explains why the corporation owns the vessel.

Makes sense to me.

Smurph, your logic would be good except that it ignores one major consideration. All the organizations and events for several decades have been concerned with getting more participants, more publicity, more public interest in sailing. Until an event gets to be so big that it is unmanageable, they pretty much want every potential warm body until serious safety issues arise. And they usually let someone like the ORC decide what that means.

Which is not to say you don't have a point. You can't just buy into NASCAR and get on the track.


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, did you not see the part about the alfredo sauce? That's plenty tragic!


Alfredo sauce made by the girl friend of a bad sushi restaurant owner? Likely they were done a favor by having it thrown overboard! Sounds like Harry would not have known what to do with a fish if they caught one!:laugher:laugher


----------



## aeventyr60

miatapaul said:


> Alfredo sauce made by the girl friend of a bad sushi restaurant owner? Likely they were done a favor by having it thrown overboard! Sounds like Harry would not have known what to do with a fish if they caught one!:laugher:laugher


My biggest concern is what happened to the Fettucini?

If they were short on water how did they boil up the noodles?


----------



## gamayun

hellosailor said:


> Now, how a corporation owns a recreational vessel eludes me, since normally all the assets and functions of a corporation are, well, commercial by nature. But I'm so easily baffled by these things.


The business buys a boat, uses it for business purposes, then writes off the expenses on its taxes. The only thing that surprises me is why doesn't every company already have its own boat!


----------



## tempest

RD, Jake, After all the angst over the spinnaker...it would appear that you averaged roughly 4.86 kn for this trip. ( 2100 nautical miles/18 days) ??

Wouldn't it have been better to simply take the spinnaker down per the captain's wishes/orders on his shifts? Seems like a lot of time was lost and valuable energy expended unnecessarily messing with the spinnaker. His boat, his money, his rules..his race to lose.. 

Expend less energy = drink less water. It just seems like you could have acheived the same results ( 4.86 kn avg.) on a 43' boat with main and genoa..and had a more relaxing trip. Or just fly it on your shifts, and douse it for his shift. 

Let's face it, aquarius was never going to be competitive in this race with 4 crew and an 86 y.o passenger. This was a delivery. Did the GF ever take shifts at the helm?


----------



## casey1999

rockDAWG said:


> Harry suggested we go to Hilo island since the boat is heading to Hilo.
> 
> Another day of beautiful day. Sea calm and not much fun. We are definitely sailing to Hilo. It will get us to land and ends our misery sooner, but it will cost me more money to get home. Hilo has no marina, which will also pose a problem: no area for us to clean up before boarding the plane. Water is so short we are not allow to wash our face or brush teeth let alone sponge bath or shower on board.
> 
> .


Rock,
Every public beach park has showers and bathrooms. And here in Hawaii, there are public beach parks all over, that is why the homeless like it here so much, camp out (with ocean view) at a public beach park and have all the comforts of home, for free.

Just some information for your next "cruise" to hawaii.

You can even use this state "program" to pay for your return ticket home.:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-homeless-people-way-airfare-home-states.html


----------



## weinie

Cruisingdad said:


> I vehemently (if that is a strong enough word) disagree with that. In fact, for me, that is the crux of the matter on this thread.
> 
> If something happens to one of the crew or the boat, the captain of that boat has the ultimate responsibility. If someone get hurt or lost at sea, it is his responsibility. THe buck stops with him and you can bet the lawyers land-side would agree with that if one of his crew got hurt.
> 
> Boating, in my opinion, has become too recreational. In what other endeavor can a person take command of a item without so much as a learner's permit and have so many people 's lives resting on their decision? How many Sea Rays are sold every year to people who have never driven a boat? How many Hatteras? How many sailboats? How often on this forum do we get a clown with ZERO sailing or offshore experience ready to sail to the carrib or S America or whatever and wants crew or asks which boat he should choose? And on this thread were the crew members (and captain) of this boat really experienced enough for the endeavor?
> 
> Like I said before, I think that people fail to appreciate the incredible responsibility put on a captain when they step on his boat. That does not change just because this is a recreational boat versus the US Navy. The sea does not care. The waves and weather do not care. THe law does not care. It is an old tradition and it is a good tradition. In the day of five minute fire truck arrivals and hospitals at every corner, many people forget that when you are out there, you are on your own. As such, it forces (or should force) the captain to have his crap together because he is legally and justifiably at fault for everything that happens on his boat. With that in mind, the idea of arguing with the captain, usurping his authority, or taking over his vessel is (and should be) a matter of last resort and only in dire circumstances. Mutiny (which I do not think RD or Jake really did) should be dealt with harshly, and legally, even on a recreational boat because the implications for the captain are still severe.
> 
> Were RD and Jake justified in what they did? I am not sure... I have not heard the other side of the story. But in doing it, they had better have exhausted all other options first and truly been in danger. Some of the key difference between me and others is that I hold the captain primarily responsible for everything that happened. All of this (or most of it) could have been identified long before the race started. He should have gotten to know the crew better and let the crew get to know him better. THey should have had more shakedown cruises. They should have had a very clear discussion beforehand on the water and supplies and how they would be rationed. THey should have discussed the chute and how and when they would fly it and each persons abilities. They should have had a clear understanding on the use (or lack of) the AP and things that would DQ them. That is NOT RD's or Jake's responsibility... that is the captains. I am still miffed that they shot off across the ocean with the miniscule amount of preparation they did. I think if the weather had ever turned bad, it really could have been life/death.
> 
> If the captain had been a leader, and had done all of these things, yet RD or Jake took over and broke the rules, then yes, I would probably have exactly the same view as Nick. But Nick, I suspect that you by nature and habit take care of all of that stuff before the boat leaves the dock? The crew and expectations are very clear before the dock lines are thrown off, right? So you place yourself on this boat, reading what you had read, and put yourself in the shoes of the captain and (rightfully) come unglued. Quite candidly, I think your bar is a lot higher and had you been captaining that boat, I suspect none of it would have happened because the prep you put in beforehand... and NOT because of your physical abilities or how you maintain your authority after the boat leaves the slip. Big difference.
> 
> This has been a great thread. It should be mandatory reading for anyone thinking about hoping on a boat as crew or captains looking for crew. It doesn't even have to be about racing. It's not. It is about the reality you face when you take off to sea, about how large the ocean is, how small the boat is, and how important it remains that respect, leadership, and camaraderie be maintained.
> 
> My opinions.
> 
> Brian


Brian, 
I vehemently disagree with your vehement disagreement!

The notion of captain as master and commander, pun intended, goes back to days when "recreational" boating was non-existent and the laws of the sea evolved to cope with issues that arose on ships; ships that were used for commerce or warfare. Both of these institutions had inherent checks on a captain's authority. Kings would appoint admirals and captains and there would be an established chain of command. Merchants would need to answer to their kings, lenders, or stock holders. Thus, it was in the best interest of a fleet to make sure that any captain appointed to duty was capable of the task at hand and should the captain not perform his duties well, then his position, livelihood, or even his head was at risk! A shipowner hiring a captain to transport spices would not leave his valuable cargo and ship to someone who was not capable of making a successful run, lest he go bankrupt. Similarly, an admiral would not have incompetents commanding his ships in an engagement at sea. Should the admiral lose the battle, he might also lose his rank or even his head as well. Obviously, it would be in his best interest to find the best captains he could find to command his ships.

Recreational boating instills no such checks and balances. This is even more true in the age of the internet where anyone with some extra cash in their pocket can buy a fancy boat, post an craigslist ad for crew, call himself "captain" and sail off into the sunset. You can't just expect someone to blindly follow orders from someone who unknowingly, may have just yesterday been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia!


----------



## Classic30

weinie said:


> Recreational boating instills no such checks and balances. This is even more true in the age of the internet where anyone with some extra cash in their pocket can buy a fancy boat, post an craigslist ad for crew, call himself "captain" and sail off into the sunset. You can't just expect someone to blindly follow orders from someone who unknowingly, may have just yesterday been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia!


Crikey!! .. and to think I let TDW take me and Bentsailor aboard for that rather damp HCW 24-hour race not all that long ago...    :laugher


----------



## SalNichols94804

weinie said:


> Brian,
> I vehemently disagree with your vehement disagreement!
> 
> The notion of captain as master and commander, pun intended, goes back to days when "recreational" boating was non-existent and the laws of the sea evolved to cope with issues that arose on ships; ships that were used for commerce or warfare. Both of these institutions had inherent checks on a captain's authority. Kings would appoint admirals and captains and there would be an established chain of command. Merchants would need to answer to their kings, lenders, or stock holders. Thus, it was in the best interest of a fleet to make sure that any captain appointed to duty was capable of the task at hand and should the captain not perform his duties well, then his position, livelihood, or even his head was at risk! A shipowner hiring a captain to transport spices would not leave his valuable cargo and ship to someone who was not capable of making a successful run, lest he go bankrupt. Similarly, an admiral would not have incompetents commanding his ships in an engagement at sea. Should the admiral lose the battle, he might also lose his rank or even his head as well. Obviously, it would be in his best interest to find the best captains he could find to command his ships.
> 
> Recreational boating instills no such checks and balances. This is even more true in the age of the internet where anyone with some extra cash in their pocket can buy a fancy boat, post an craigslist ad for crew, call himself "captain" and sail off into the sunset. You can't just expect someone to blindly follow orders from someone who unknowingly, may have just yesterday been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia!


Tell you what...drop your rig on a member of your crew, turning he or she into a paraplegic, and you'll find out right quick what his and your insurance companies, and the U.S. court system thinks about your premise. Your boat, your wallet, your responsibility. I've done the last two Pac Cups, the first as crew boss/naviguesser, co-captain on a sled, and the second as skipper/navigator of my own boat. Both were impeccably prepared, and we still fixed a few things on the way over. I will tell you though, watching the GG bridge disappear aft and knowing that I was responsible for 8 and 5 lives respectively for the next 2200 nm was very sobering. I didn't sleep much.

Perhaps knowing exactly how much physical, mental, emotional, and financial effort is required to execute one of these programs is why I'm so spun up over this thread.


----------



## tomandchris

Weinie,
The point of this is you should find out if the captain is nuts before you leave the dock, not after you are at sea. The captain is responsible for the boat and crew. If you decide to tie his butt up because YOU think he is incapable, then YOU are responsible. The courts would have a heyday with you for your actions if you cannot prove that he is nuts. Just as RD, it is opinion...not fact! CD is correct!


----------



## weinie

SalNichols94804 said:


> Tell you what...drop your rig on a member of your crew, turning he or she into a paraplegic, and you'll find out right quick what his and your insurance companies, and the U.S. court system thinks about your premise. Your boat, your wallet, your responsibility. I've done the last two Pac Cups, the first as crew boss/naviguesser, co-captain on a sled, and the second as skipper/navigator of my own boat. Both were impeccably prepared, and we still fixed a few things on the way over. I will tell you though, watching the GG bridge disappear aft and knowing that I was responsible for 8 and 5 lives respectively for the next 2200 nm was very sobering. I didn't sleep much.
> 
> Perhaps knowing exactly how much physical, mental, emotional, and financial effort is required to execute one of these programs is why I'm so spun up over this thread.


July 4, 2012
3 children were killed off long island when a 34 foot Silverton, clearly overloaded with 27 people on it, capsized.

No charges where filed despite the fact that it was actively investigated by the local D.A. As there was no criminal negligence, I'm sure the insurance company would have to pay any claims if they arose. (The victims' parents were family of the boat owners, so perhaps this may be why no claims were made).

By your logic, the parents of the dead children would bear the blame for allowing their kids on that boat, despite the fact that they may have had no knowledge of what constitutes an overloaded boat.

So, the criminal justice system decided the captain actions weren't criminal. And you can't necessarily blame the dead children's parents for not knowing enough about the capacity of 34 foot Silvertons.

So where does the fault lie? I'm sure most here would agree that the blame lies with the captain. Yet the captain is a free man and his finances probably untouched.

What if one of the adults on that boat had raised issue with the captain? What if he or she called the coast guard on a cell phone and the CG said, "Well, there are no laws saying that there can't be 27 people on a 34' silverton, so we can't really do anything."
I know the analogy is not perfect here, but I hope you get the gist.


----------



## tdw

Classic30 said:


> Crikey!! .. and to think I let TDW take me and Bentsailor aboard for that rather damp HCW 24-hour race not all that long ago...    :laugher


I'll have you know there is nothing borderline about our schizophrenia .....

Actually that HCW* fiasco offers an interesting take on race v cruise preparedness. To get to the starting line we had to complete a coastal passage from Sydney Harbour to Lake Macquarie. This passage was pretty much hard on the wind most of the way, into a moderately nasty chop and windspeed that maxed out at between 35 and 40 knots. OK, so our girl has pretty good cockpit protection in cruising mode, but we didn't even need wet weather gear until we were motoring over the Swansea bar. It was in fact quite a pleasant passage.

To the race .... cockpit covers removed, six not two people on board, no auto pilot and really pressing on. Wind about the same though a lot more rain. Damn that was miserable. Other than a spirit of cameraderie and a crew that gave their all that was about the most miserable 24 hours I have ever spent on board a boat. Had I not been the skipper, I reckon I would have mutineered.

* HCW = Heaven Can Wait 24hour race for charity helod annually on Lake Macquarie NSW.


----------



## SalNichols94804

weinie said:


> July 4, 2012
> 3 children were killed off long island when a 34 foot Silverton, clearly overloaded with 27 people on it, capsized.
> 
> No charges where filed despite the fact that it was actively investigated by the local D.A. As there was no criminal negligence, I'm sure the insurance company would have to pay any claims if they arose. (The victims' parents were family of the boat owners, so perhaps this may be why no claims were made).
> 
> By your logic, the parents of the dead children would bear the blame for allowing their kids on that boat, despite the fact that they may have had no knowledge of what constitutes an overloaded boat.
> 
> So, the criminal justice system decided the captain actions weren't criminal. And you can't necessarily blame the dead children's parents for not knowing enough about the capacity of 34 foot Silvertons.
> 
> So where does the fault lie? I'm sure most here would agree that the blame lies with the captain. Yet the captain is a free man and his finances probably untouched.
> 
> What if one of the adults on that boat had raised issue with the captain? What if he or she called the coast guard on a cell phone and the CG said, "Well, there are no laws saying that there can't be 27 people on a 34' silverton, so we can't really do anything."
> I know the analogy is not perfect here, but I hope you get the gist.


In the example I cited in my previous post...a very good friend of mine and his insurance company paid out $6M. I can't speak for your example or your D.A. I can tell you what happened in this instance.


----------



## chef2sail

oceangirl said:


> I have to disagree with you on a few points
> 
> *Offshore racing is much harder than offshore cruising, the blue water experience is greater, not less. Crewing is riskier than taking your own boat out. Lots of unknowns, no matter how much you vet.
> 
> *From what I've read, RD and LG seem to have a good handle on sailing a boat. Did they have a stellar performance on this trip? No, but no one could of. They did the best with what they had to work with.
> 
> * BTW-as far fetched as some of the story sounds, anyone who has spent longer than a week offshore knows it could totally happen. And anyone who has been way way offshore, would also know that with the complete dysfunctional dynamics aboard, of the likes we see here, it could of been much much worse.
> 
> *I think RD and LG got that boat safely to land, in spite of the obstacles.
> 
> To gain experience you have to get experience ( genius, i know)
> In my 25,000+ offshore miles, twice I have had a captain become incapacitated.
> One time was during a storm on a sinking boat, offshore. I kept the boat afloat and on course. At the time, my total sea time was just a couple thousand, didn't know jack. Good crew is not always about knowledge.
> 
> My 2cents.


I agree...of course off shore racing is much harder and a different skill set than off shore cruising.....I have done both but never a 14 day race off shore. RD and Jake had 0 offshore race experience and one had no blue water experience even. Even more reason for them to want to learn and sign n with a veteran crew

The took this mans boat over when there really was no imminent danger been proved. Just they were " uncomfortable" The water issue is a straw argument

I would be careful ever including either of the, as crew to a race offshore or even a cruise lest their mutinous history repeat itself. They take no responsibility so they are bound to repeat their actions.


----------



## SalNichols94804

RD and Jake would have been stunned to discover that most of us disconnect the hydraulic ram from the steering system on the way TO HI. LOL.

Come to think of it, seeing the looks on their faces when they started mashing AP buttons would have been priceless!


----------



## chef2sail

SalNichols94804 said:


> RD and Jake would have been stunned to discover that most of us disconnect the hydraulic ram from the steering system on the way TO HI. LOL.[/QUOTE
> 
> With all their "experience" in spinnaker flying wonder how many times they would have wrapped it without an auto pilot.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Btw, like Robert Duvall said in Apocalypse Now "Charlie don't surf"...Charlie being your AP. it's just going to drive to an AWA. It can't feel the boat load up as the bow buries in the back of a roller, and IT can't/won't pump the wheel a couple of times to drive the bow down and break the boat loose to set her surfing. Using the AP, you're just really sailing in stop and go traffic.

And you're missing all of the real fun of doing the race.


----------



## miatapaul

SalNichols94804 said:


> And you're missing all of the real fun of doing the race.


I think this is the point, to them it was not a race, but a resume builder on someone else's boat.


----------



## Ninefingers

SalNichols94804 said:


> In the example I cited in my previous post...a very good friend of mine and his insurance company paid out $6M. I can't speak for your example or your D.A. I can tell you what happened in this instance.


Holy moly. Can you tell us want happened?


----------



## SalNichols94804

http://67.15.208.115/printstory.php?sid=5538&storySection=Local

Garr died last year.

That's another thing that bothers me about these two...the entire bit about "life threatening actions". What they were asked to do is just normal ocean racing stuff. Maybe I'm immune to it, having been naked under my foulie pants and barefoot on deck at midnight enough times.


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> The took this mans boat over when there really was no imminent danger been proved. Just they were " uncomfortable" The water issue is a straw argument.


Speaking of straw arguments - where do you get that "they took the boat over"? Was Captain Furious locked below? Didn't he actually drive the boat as well?

Chef, you really do need to pay attention to the details. You're getting your demi glace all over your sleeves...and the ceiling...and the sous chef...


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> http://67.15.208.115/printstory.php?sid=5538&storySection=Local
> 
> Garr died last year.
> 
> That's another thing that bothers me about these two...the entire bit about "life threatening actions". What they were asked to do is just normal ocean racing stuff. Maybe I'm immune to it, having been naked under my foulie pants and barefoot on deck at midnight enough times.


Holy crap! Some serious badassery going on in that story:



> Meanwhile, four Air Force reservists were on their way. Stationed at the Kirtland Air Force Base's Special Operations Squadron in New Mexico, they were in Portland for special training when they got the summons.
> 
> The reservists were flown on a MC-130 Coast Guard transport airplane in the middle of the night to the middle of the Pacific Ocean, according to an Air Force statement.
> 
> Shortly before midnight, the reservists parachuted 3,500 feet into the pitch-black ocean. After hitting the water, they inflated their Zodiac boat, gathered their medical equipment and traveled about a half-mile to the tanker where Garr was being treated for dehydration.
> 
> Once on board the tanker, the reservists inserted a chest tube in Garr's hemorrhaging lung, gave him medicine and massaged his legs to keep the blood flowing.


Oh, and dude...



SalNichols94804 said:


> Maybe I'm immune to it, having been naked under my foulie pants and barefoot on deck at midnight enough times.


TMI.


----------



## JonEisberg

aeventyr60 said:


> My biggest concern is what happened to the Fettucini?
> 
> If they were short on water how did they boil up the noodles?


C'mon, man - everyone knows one of the greatest values of pasta offshore is that it can be cooked in seawater...


----------



## oceangirl

chef2sail said:


> I agree...of course off shore racing is much harder and a different skill set than off shore cruising.....I have done both but never a 14 day race off shore. RD and Jake had 0 offshore race experience and one had no blue water experience even. Even more reason for them to want to learn and sign n with a veteran crew
> 
> *The took this mans boat over when there really was no imminent danger been proved. Just they were " uncomfortable" The water issue is a straw argument*
> 
> I would be careful ever including either of the, as crew to a race offshore or even a cruise lest their mutinous history repeat itself. They take no responsibility so they are bound to repeat their actions.


Yes, that is a tough part for me to swallow. For crew to take over the vessel, well, that just cannot happen unless extreme measures needed to be taken. But this wasn't a true mutiny...was it? RD was very colorful and brutal in his writing but I took his use of "mutiny" with a grain of salt. Disobeying orders is not mutiny. They didn't take his vessel. Am I looking at this all wrong?


----------



## Ninefingers

So Garr sued the owners for 6 million? I'm confused.


----------



## smackdaddy

oceangirl said:


> Am I looking at this all wrong?


No.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Ninefingers said:


> So Garr sued the owners for 6 million? I'm confused.


He was awarded that in compensatory damages.


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> Speaking of straw arguments - where do you get that "they took the boat over"? Was Captain Furious locked below? Didn't he actually drive the boat as well?
> 
> Chef, you really do need to pay attention to the details. You're getting your demi glace all over your sleeves...and the ceiling...and the sous chef...


That was actually glacé de viande, ( are you scrambling for the culinary dictionary now) . Demi glacé is a term only a person with pedestrian taste and limited food knowledge from a cook book would use. It is a term what a cheap person would use to impress others who don't know better. Demi glacé is to glacé de viande what a Golden Corral is to Peter Lugars in NYC.

While you are looking up definitions...look up mutiny. Not my word...Rockdawgs

Maybe those broken glasses are hurting your reading there Steve. Time for a new pair as them seem to cloud your vision so all you can think about is food...or silly shots about chefs. The boys were very proud that they threatened the Captain into submission

By the way Steve do you have a copy of the latest dictionary if not let me supply you with the definition of mutiny. Remember who posted those words...the person who you are the chief apologist for...Mr Rockdawg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny



> Mutiny is a conspiracy among members of a group of similarly situated individuals (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change or overthrow an authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), but can also occasionally refer to any type of rebellion against an authority figure.


You can stop making this personal anytime now Steve. You seem to be tracking at me after I exposed your purposeful misrepresentation of the Captains restaurant review to bolster you point

You need to go back to you BFS thread ( its in big print so you can read without glasses) so the rest of us who understand mutiny means taking over a boat can continue without these personal shots


----------



## chef2sail

JonEisberg said:


> C'mon, man - everyone knows one of the greatest values of pasta offshore is that it can be cooked in seawater...


+1000 likes :laugher:laugher


----------



## gamayun

JonEisberg said:


> C'mon, man - everyone knows one of the greatest values of pasta offshore is that it can be cooked in seawater...


This was like the best take home message I've gotten out of this whole thread! (I hope you're not kidding around....)


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> That was actually glacé de viande, ( are you scrambling for the culinary dictionary now) . Demi glacé is a term only a person with pedestrian taste and limited food knowledge from a cook book would use. It is a term what a cheap person would use to impress others who don't know better. Demi glacé is to glacé de viande what a Golden Corral is to Peter Lugars in NYC.


Hey don't blame me for the pedestrian gravy. You're the one slinging the stuff around the kitchen.

Look, a couple of things Chef. First, you post things that are wildly inaccurate, then rant for paragraphs based on that inaccuracy. You can't seem to help yourself. I'm just sarcastically slamming those inaccuracies. Others are pointing them out in a far kinder manner. I just don't have that gene.

For example, these guys didn't "take over the boat". Those were your words. It didn't happen. It's inaccurate. You're making stuff up. Even with all your definitions of gravy and mutiny..."taking over the boat" didn't happen in that story. Period. Yes, they did a lot of stupid stuff, and yes RDawg says he insisted on co-captaining (or something to that affect) but the story doesn't support your statement.

Second, you keep saying this...



chef2sail said:


> You can stop making this personal anytime now Steve. You seem to be tracking at me after I exposed your purposeful misrepresentation of the Captains restaurant review to bolster you point


Let's try to clear this up. Here's my post:

+++++++++++

Interesting snippet from SA:



> Tony-F18, on 01 Aug 2013 - 10:37, said:
> 
> I thought the story might be juiced up a little for the sake of a good story, until I found their restaurants's Yelp page:
> 
> Review by a customer:
> 
> *EXTREMELY RUDE, nasty cashier running this place. Service is usually not at the top of my priorities when eating from a little stall in the wall at the farmer's market but this guy went from rude to rabid dog in about 30 seconds. I ordered a few rolls, he gives me change back then walks up to the sushi counter to grab the fish WITHOUT WASHING HIS HANDS OR PUTTING ON GLOVES!! Had I not been watching his every move I would have been tasting dirty cash register fingers in my spicy tuna hand roll. ( I was watching him since from the get go I got the feeling that this was the kind of guy who would spit in your food and call it a garnish).
> 
> I kindly requested that he put on gloves and he barked some incoherent annoyingly shrieking broken English at me. I kept calm and tried to explain to the guy that he was required to wear gloves and that If he did not I had the right to ask him to. The guy continued to argue with me but Its amazing how the words HEALTH DEPARTMENT are universally understood in the restaurant world.
> 
> This was a total fiasco. The sushi was OK but the cashier needed a muzzle and an attitude makeover.*


Sound familiar RDawg?

+++++++++++

First, I acknowledge that I pulled this from SA. Second, if you look on the Yelp page in question, this precise review is there. Where exactly is the "purposeful misrepresentation"? If you feel that it's important to list all the positive reviews, please do so. I don't really care. But, yet again, in saying this quote is a "purposeful misrepresentation" you're saying something that's wildly inaccurate...over and over again...but still inaccurate.

Why do you feel the need to keep doing that? I know you're not great with words, but this is going a good ways beyond that.

See, I'm not an apologist for RDawg. I just think facts are more important than spittle-spraying-hysteria. And I'm in the camp that the buck stops at the skipper. Period. So that informs my viewpoint - not some bromance with RDawg.



chef2sail said:


> You need to go back to you BFS thread ( its in big print so you can read without glasses) so the rest of us who understand mutiny means taking over a boat can continue without these personal shots


Mutiny might mean taking over a boat (among other things) - the issue is, there's no proof it happened in this case. That's just all in your very made up mind at this point.

Anyway, you're right the BFS thread is pretty awesome. Even so, I'm fine hanging around here too. It's an interesting thread...as long as people can stick to the facts as we know them at this point.

I'll leave you alone now.


----------



## rgscpat

So, who has written the best "dating guide" for skippers and crews?


----------



## SalNichols94804

Any idiot that believes that everything written in yelp is totally accurate deserves to spend his life eating at Mickey Ds.

Smackers is trying to revise history by ignoring what RD originally set to pen, and is applying his own interpretation of what occurred based upon the simple fact that everyone arrived alive. 

So why don't we agree upon this: NOTHING AT ALL WORTH TALKING ABOUT happened on this voyage.

Seriously, it works for me.


----------



## smackdaddy

rgscpat said:


> So, who has written the best "dating guide" for skippers and crews?


RockDawg?


----------



## SlowButSteady

Chef,

As far as I know I'm the only person with postings in this thread who has also eaten at the sushi joint in question. It wasn't that great. I don't recall the service being terrible, but the sushi was mediocre (at best). The best thing I can say about the food is that I've had worse. It's basically a tourist/semi-fast-food sort of place. If one really enjoys sushi, this place was pretty forgettable. The ONLY reason we ate there was because my brother-in-law wanted to check out the Farmers Market and we decided to get a bite while we were there. I suspect that is how they get most of their business, they have a great location.


----------



## aeventyr60

JonEisberg said:


> C'mon, man - everyone knows one of the greatest values of pasta offshore is that it can be cooked in seawater...


Ha, ha, was wondering if the dirt dwellers woulda figured that one out. But then maybe it was out of a can. I here Chef Boyardee makes something similar in a demi glace or was it raggoute?


----------



## Classic30

SalNichols94804 said:


> Btw, like Robert Duvall said in Apocalypse Now "Charlie don't surf"...Charlie being your AP. it's just going to drive to an AWA. It can't feel the boat load up as the bow buries in the back of a roller, and IT can't/won't pump the wheel a couple of times to drive the bow down and break the boat loose to set her surfing. Using the AP, you're just really sailing in stop and go traffic.
> 
> And you're missing all of the real fun of doing the race.


That is pretty-much exactly was I was alluding to all those pages ago... not to mention that an AP simply cannot anticipate the boat broaching and a gybe all-standing in race conditions once the rudder stalls out (with absolutely no warning either!) can bring the rig down, kill someone or both. 

I simply can't see the point in it myself - the risk is too great. IMO, AP's should be banned from long-distance races full stop - but I can understand that, used responsibly (ie. not when you have a kite up), a short-handed crew would appreciate being able to use one. ..which, I suppose, is why the Transpac rules are written as they are.


----------



## Minnewaska

Smack.... C2S accused you of being personal? I hate when his childish crud gets quoted, because its the one thing ignore doesn't work on. I've noticed several push backs on his personal attacks in this thread and the likes pour all over them. Do the mods care? It's his M.O. That I'm sure they know.

I will bet, as usual, he has simply repeated himself, called the OP names, denigrated the OPs abilities, exaggerated his position and then when called on it, suggests his opposition is being personal against him. Am I right? How many times are we going to see this show?

This OP went through a personally terrifying experience on a 43 ft boat in the middle of an ocean. Lots of fault to go around, but who in good taste just repeatedly kicks someone like this in the groin, without knowing they're getting very personal. Karma is not mystical. Those around you that are disgusted by your mistreatment of another will lay in wait until you make a mistake, as everyone eventually does, and then get on you like white on rice. I'll bet he didn't get that in my very early post here on Karma. 

I can imagine him and a few others above visiting a VA hospital and repeatedly telling all the wounded warriors how stupid they were to get injured. Many of them made mistakes too. 

The discussion can constructively be about the epic story, how it could be avoided by others, technique to diffuse, fly a spin at night, even get all OCD over the technical definition of mutiny or the NORs, if you must. I have no beef with identifying what went wrong. A little sympathy for someone who lived their mistake already would be humane.

Continually telling an OP how stupid he was, incompetent, etc, is pretty brutal.


----------



## outbound

Sal- the story you related is of even more concern then the RD saga. Seems your friend was a diligent, thoughtful person and the initial event sounds like it would fall in the "act of god" category to my way of thinking but obviously not seen that way in tort.. One can imagine the details and his being held responsible for a failed fitting with presumption of injury due to neglected maintenance making him responsible once the lawyers got a hold of it. Still, sounds like something that could happen to any of us boat owner/captains. Makes you wonder if we should have all crew sign "held harmless" contracts before boarding our boats. Have no legal background. Would be interested in opinion of legal eagles reading this post.


----------



## chef2sail

Seems like the pot calling the kettle black. 
So putting me on ignore was not enough. You come out of the shadows to attack. Defending myself is not usually necessary , but seriously you need to just stop reafingy posts since they bother you so much. They don't bother everyone.

My opinions are just that my opinions. I have directed at both Rockdawg as well as the Captain. No one has ruined anyone's rep here. I have not used their actual names even though I have them all. I haven't disclosed any personal information either about anyone concerned. When Rockdawg posted on a public forum it leads to comments. No one required him to do so. With public comments come differing opinions. If you notice I have the same opinions basically as other posters in some ways. You may not like my style or tone sometimes, but that's too bad . Yours isn't so great either in many people's opinion, bit no one is trying to censor you.

The problem Minnie is you want the mods to shut me up and just allow optinpns which only agree with your point of view. 

This is not germane to the topic and should be handled in PM not burdening others with your personal feelings or outbursts. If the mods neleibe that I need to tone down or cross a line, they will let me know that way also and I will respect that as in the past.

You don't need to be the SN police. That wouldn't happen anyone because you lack the objectivity.

If you don't agree with what I say just read by it . If you want to respond it and do so without the personal sarcastic reflexes. See this isn't a plane you are the Captain of and can shut everyone up like you are used to. Peaople have different opinions here. Just because they are minority views or different than yours doesn'tean they need to be censored.

Let's keep to the subject here, which is not me.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

chef2sail said:


> The problem Minnie is you want the mods to shut me up


Its not just Minnie.

You really come across as an A Grade jerk to other people. Its so unnecessary because you have good ideas and can write well and obviously enjoy your time here.

But the Mods here are too lax feeling that adults will even themselves out.

It really just will take a mod to correct your immature behaviour and then we can have you back posting your usual intelligent stuff instead of your petulant childish drivel.

Mark


----------



## Aargau

First time on these forums. Interesting thread. Would love to get the side of all parties as I feel some pertinent information is being withheld given that the facts presented compared to the purported justifications and goals of all concerned just don't seem to add up.

On some other forums mods have a rule that 3 replies per poster per thread is probably sufficient to get the point across or evidence that there won't be some kind of resolution.



chef2sail said:


> It is a term what a cheap person would use to impress others who don't know better. Demi glacé is to glacé de viande what a Golden Corral is to Peter Lugars in NYC.


In an attempt to entirely derail this thread,

It's Peter Luger Steak House, and despite 1 Michelin star for its history, serves quite pedestrian steaks with unimaginative side pairings. Not a good example of high end cuisine, although the sizzling plates do impress tourists who like more maillarding at the expense of overcooking their steaks.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Mods are out to lunch here and I have no clue why.


----------



## weinie

Aargau said:


> First time on these forums. Interesting thread. Would love to get the side of all parties as I feel some pertinent information is being withheld given that the facts presented compared to the purported justifications and goals of all concerned just don't seem to add up.
> 
> On some other forums mods have a rule that 3 replies per poster per thread is probably sufficient to get the point across or evidence that there won't be some kind of resolution.
> 
> In an attempt to entirely derail this thread,
> 
> It's Peter Luger Steak House, and despite 1 Michelin star for its history, serves quite pedestrian steaks with unimaginative side pairings. Not a good example of high end cuisine, although the sizzling plates do impress tourists who like more maillarding at the expense of overcooking their steaks.


BLASPHEMY!!!!

Rarely do I see tourists at either Luger's location. I've been to the best steak houses all over the country and the Wagyu at Cut in Las Vegas not withstanding, Luger's is one of the best, tastiest, porterhouse in the country. Pedestrian? HAH!


----------



## Aargau

Warning, foodie digression. Apologies in advance.



> I've been to the best steak houses all over the country and the Wagyu at Cut in Las Vegas not withstanding, Luger's is one of the best, tastiest, porterhouse in the country. Pedestrian? HAH!


They dry age well, but they don't sous-vide their steaks, and as such, have to depend on fat marbling to provide tenderness. Fat doesn't actually add any flavor. Instead if one cooks at 53-56c for 8 to 72 hours (depending on cut) in an immersion circulating water bath then sear with oxyacetylene, one can gelatinize even tough gristle, getting equal tenderness but with more flavor. They also use corn-fed midwest beef which I find is surpassed by many others, Maesawa/Matsusaka/Wagyu.

Japan has the best steaks I find (DONS de la NATURE, etc.,), although you can make incredible steaks on a yacht using sous-vide techniques. High end cuisine is about great steaks, but also the pairing and presentation. 
Peter Luger definitely hasn't mastered the latter part in my humble opinion.


----------



## abrahamx

Minnewaska said:


> Continually telling an OP how stupid he was, incompetent, etc, is pretty brutal.


Not only that but it quite agravating to read all the back and fourth and it makes the thread hard to read by trying to see which post is worth reading and which posts are just people arguing with each other. Really should just start your own thread to bicker with each other.


----------



## svHyLyte

SalNichols94804 said:


> He was awarded that in compensatory damages.


Lets See. Guy volunteers to help return a yacht to Santa Cruz, proves to be something of a rectum during the trip, the yacht is disabled by a "Shoot Happens" at sea accident, crew manages to get him evacuated and treated such that he survives. Rather than being grateful for that, he sues the shoot out of the yacht owner (presumably) and is awarded $6,000,000 for his "pain and suffering".

If anything, that is a cautionary tail of why one needs to have a prospective crew sign a witnessed hold-harmless and indemnification agreement indicating that they understand that sailing, and particularly ocean passages, are inherently hazardous, and that they willingly with knowledge aforethought accept such hazards voluntarily and without recourse in any event. Particularly so in California considering the litigious nature of place, and the near universal "my problem is someone else's fault and they're gonna pay" philosophy of the place. (That attitude, in part, convinced us to have done with the place when we did even though sadly as some of my forebearers had arrived in the early 1800's--There's even a street in San Francisco named after one of them!)

Jeeze...


----------



## svHyLyte

SalNichols94804 said:


> Btw, like Robert Duvall said in Apocalypse Now "Charlie don't surf"...Charlie being your AP. it's just going to drive to an AWA. It can't feel the boat load up as the bow buries in the back of a roller, and IT can't/won't pump the wheel a couple of times to drive the bow down and break the boat loose to set her surfing. Using the AP, you're just really sailing in stop and go traffic.
> 
> And you're missing all of the real fun of doing the race.


Absolutely correct if there is someone aboard that knows how to drive with a spinny. In the event, however, they were likely better letting Otto handle matters in his/its ponderous albeit reliable way, Non?


----------



## Cruisingdad

Sal Paradise said:


> Mods are out to lunch here and I have no clue why.


We are here and watching. If it gets really out of hand I will jump in and post a pic of TDW in a bikini. That is like forum syrup of ipecac and all parties forget while they are fighting and just get sick. So Chef et all, don't make me do it.

Brian


----------



## chef2sail

It was a comparison to Golden Corral not to say Lugars is the best. That's a matter of personal taste. Wygu is definitely one of top. I personally like BLT.


----------



## smackdaddy

On the subject of Chef, let me just say one thing...I personally don't expect or want the mods to do anything...unless, of course, he seriously crosses a line or breaks a clear rule. And I haven't seen that. Yes, the dude can be insanely annoying...but...

When I first started posting on this forum 5 years ago in the FightClub thread, there must have been 10-20 long-time members that pestered the mods to ban me (even though the thread was all about fighting for crying out loud and I was just a lot better at it than they were). Well, to their absolute credit, the mods didn't ban me...despite the pressure...because I didn't cross the line. I think that's a good thing.

I can pretty easily _not _read _anyone's_ posts if I want...though I've never had a single person "on ignore". I like to have very spirited debates about ideas and facts. But, I never take myself or some chucklehead's comments all that seriously.

So, rail on Chef, my man! At the same time, pay attention to what people are saying. Minne's right about Karma.


----------



## Cruisingdad

smackdaddy said:


> On the subject of Chef, let me just say one thing...I personally don't expect or want the mods to do anything...unless, of course, he seriously crosses a line or breaks a clear rule. And I haven't seen that. Yes, the dude can be insanely annoying...but...
> 
> When I first started posting on this forum 5 years ago in the FightClub thread, there must have been 10-20 guys that pestered the mods to ban me (even though the thread was all about fighting for crying out loud and I was just a lot better at it than they were). Well, to their absolute credit, the mods didn't ban me...despite the pressure...because I didn't cross the line. I think that's a good thing.
> 
> I can pretty easily _not _read _anyone's_ posts if I want...though I've never had a single person "on ignore". I like to have very spirited debates about ideas and facts. But, I never take myself or some chucklehead's comments all that seriously.
> 
> So, rail on Chef, my man! At the same time, pay attention to what people are saying. Minne's right about Karma.


We haven't banned you... yet! Personally, I feel a good banning coming on. Goes well with coffee in the morning.

Brian


----------



## smackdaddy

Aargau said:


> Warning, foodie digression. Apologies in advance.
> 
> They dry age well, but they don't sous-vide their steaks, and as such, have to depend on fat marbling to provide tenderness. Fat doesn't actually add any flavor. Instead if one cooks at 53-56c for 8 to 72 hours (depending on cut) in an immersion circulating water bath then sear with oxyacetylene, one can gelatinize even tough gristle, getting equal tenderness but with more flavor. They also use corn-fed midwest beef which I find is surpassed by many others, Maesawa/Matsusaka/Wagyu.
> 
> Japan has the best steaks I find (DONS de la NATURE, etc.,), although you can make incredible steaks on a yacht using sous-vide techniques. High end cuisine is about great steaks, but also the pairing and presentation.
> Peter Luger definitely hasn't mastered the latter part in my humble opinion.


Dude - do you want to crew on the next Transpac? If you can pull a steak like that off the rail-mounted Magma, I'll bet even grumpy old SalNich would take you along!


----------



## Sal Paradise

And why I commented about mods. 

Dont want anyone banned - want to get back to the story and discussion!!!


----------



## chef2sail

*thank you*

Thank you for your comments. I actually find agreement with them. I alsoso find some annoying, some egotistical, some who have superiority complexes, but most posters are very good. I actually only have one person on ignore and can freely pass by others I find are not worth it.

I have tried to remember It's sometimes dangerous to suggest or extrapolate a tone on the internet where things are much easier to misinterpret than Ilin person.

If you post here you should expect different opinions at times. If you post something controversial lots of different opinions, sometimes passionate.

Be wary of the people who wish to limit expression of ideas . Usually they have an agenda or are unable to see or process other points of view. Arguing for your point is not nearly as dangerous as wanting to muzzle others right to have a point of view.

I treasure the people I have met in person through SN including moderators , and use them as my real true gauge whether my posts are annoying or ovet the top.They know me and would tellme face to face and sometimes do.

I will try AND be more aware thatt my posts are sometimes percieved as over the top. I will also continue to treat people as they treat me. It starts with the assumption of respect. If you are disrespectful to me expect the same in return. Of you want to shut my opinions off, by whining to others and the mods, that's the absolute in disrespect. With me its simple you get what you give.

Simple formula which has alloweded me to make. Many friends on SN both online and in person.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Randolph555 said:


> FROM A PAST CREW LEADER ON HARRY'S BOAT&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
> 
> THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT and by all accounts; a very popular thread. I, and my friends who have or know most of the characters in this tread are enjoying the post. In fact it is very strange, the feelings we have and are experiencing by this post by RD..
> 
> It is side-busting funny!!! In the way it was written.. (note: any writer takes liberty with his or her description at the moment of their incerpts, and as we should all know the words and expletives chosen at the time of the writings are injected with an array of word descriptive that of course cannot be taken so seriously as to think their intent is as exactly as written ( ex. 'I should have fed him to the sharks!! (note; made this ex. up, but the thought could be anything written about anything done&#8230; although, we all know; words and actions not carried out are just that)) . We all know that this is venting anger or frustration and it should be viewed just as that. When you hear the words 'mutiny', etc. it is oblivious to most everyone reading that this is an 'in the moment verbal descriptive' and should be taken as such without 'overanalyzing the intent of the story&#8230; Samuel Clemens was a master of 'colorful' descriptive.
> 
> Having known some of the characters in this event and in humorous conversations with many of my friends who have read these events all realize that in the absolutely funny account of this incident that many problems did arise from the way this event transpired and concluded. It is obvious to all of us that this was a disaster in the making and the boat should have never left the dock.
> 
> We are enjoying the humor in the description by the poster of this story and are having countless moments among friends of some of these people, yacht racers who were in this years race as well as those who have raced this event in the past, plus other racers, cruisers, part-time sailors and an array of others who are amused by what had transpired.
> Please note: This is because this' ship of fools' made the journey and all arrived (in Hilo &#8230;lol) safe and otherwise unharmed (other than ego, financial, exhaustion, hangover and hurt and bruised feelings and relationships)
> 
> A funny story though (and this is what bothers me) is in the heat of this controversy; OTHERS IN THIS THREAD HAVE USED THE POPULARITY OF THIS POST TO COMMANDEER IT AS THEIR OWN PLATFORM. There is good and bad in this but, it is somewhat like (ex. A speaker who has secured and engagement after working so hard to learn his topic, commit his time and encounter all difficulty in experiencing, gathering, preparing for and finally presenting his or her account is being or trying to be upstaged by others in the audience who have opinions, accounts, suggestions or needs for interaction&#8230;. This, at first is not bad because the speaker must know that there will be reactions to the topic of what he or she is bringing up. As a reader or onlooker it is easy to want to get involved, but the problem is when the reader or audience starts creating his or her own platform off the coat-tails the person who had initiated the post because of his or her experience, then you need to look at that or those persons and wonder if they would be receiving so much attention if they created their own threads and posts. I believe that I am not only speaking for myself, but for others who are amused and as well concerned by the great story originally posted.
> For those that seem to be riding the 'coat-tails' of the original person who posted, please allow the story(s) to transpire to afford allot of us to enjoy this thread without the sub-performances. And please, do not get me wrong, because some of the posts made by this select few have indeed lend to the 'colorfulness' of the original account, but there are just to many pages cluttering this 'very strange' account of ones exploits at sea.
> And by all means, for those select few who have found a fertile platform on which to express your opinion please label and start a separate thread from this one and I, at least will be one of who know how many will read your opinions and resolves. As well, do not stop posting on this thread some of your contributions as I and I am sure others do enjoy your opinions on someone else's topic.
> 
> Lastly, as I have sailed with Harry and Jane on other occasions and have compiled my logs, and statements from others who have sailed with them, known them from the marinas, consider them friends, rivals, or a love-hate opinion. I will post this information in intervals, if needed or if the occasion arises as soon as the thread revolves back to the original poster and those interested in his and other (crew, caption, owners, 86 yr. Old plus anyone else venturing forth a comment or tow or three).
> 
> Plus, I have kept the phone conversations with Jane and Harry as well as the text messages between myself and Harry and Jane and may be willing to post them if they are to be received in a constructive way. I also have records and statements from other past crewmembers and from the original crew, which declined before the race.
> 
> And mind all of you, I have both respect and des-respect for Jane and Harry and of course I have an opinion about those two (semi-experienced and obviously un-prepared) last minute replacement crew. I think the boat was ill-prepared (they decided to enter TransPac a little over a month before the race. (All my friends, crewing, skippering this race this year and in the past years plan for this event at least a year or two before). All the red-flags were up and this boat in all honestly, should never have left the dock, or at the very least they should have divulged that this was more of a cruise than a race. I do though; have respect for anyone (owners and crew and a 86yr. old woman) for having the courage, adventuresome spirit and frankly, the 'balls' to attempt such a feat.
> 
> And Jane, with all her in-experience (though, she had made the return trip from HI several years back on one of this years racer's boat, and had cruised and raced extensively in Mexico), unfortunately, she is in way over her head and finds herself resorting to manipulative tactics to get her way. She is very strong-willed and in her willingness to prove herself she has at times created some very dangerous conceptions. But, if she would ever concede to really learning the basic foundation of sailing she would be a 'positive' force to be reckoned with. (some people, it seems believe too much in the Hollywood version of sailing, adventure and skill&#8230; the 'Whomper').
> 
> I have heard through other sources that Jane will post soon but like Jake and probably RD I am sure they are hesitant to post more info until the platform returns to their STRANGE and rather interesting stories!!!
> 
> Cheers to all&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.


I would love to hear your versions and invite others to this thread too.

However, let me warn you that this is a forum, and the internet, and things do drift off topic. It is just life and reality on these sites. But I highly suspect that if you and or Jane or Harry get on this thread, it will quickly go back on topic!!!

Brian
(Moderator)


----------



## shadowraiths

Randolph555 said:


> Plus, I have kept the phone conversations with Jane and Harry as well as the text messages between myself and Harry and Jane and may be willing to post them


Please don't. People should be able to engage with each other via phone/sms without having to worry about their private conversations being plastered on inet.


----------



## Donna_F

Randolph555 said:


> FROM A PAST CREW LEADER ON HARRY'S BOAT&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
> ...
> 
> Lastly, as I have sailed with Harry and Jane on other occasions and have compiled my logs, and statements from others who have sailed with them, known them from the marinas, consider them friends, rivals, or a love-hate opinion. I will post this information in intervals, if needed or if the occasion arises as soon as the thread revolves back to the original poster and those interested in his and other (crew, caption, owners, 86 yr. Old plus anyone else venturing forth a comment or tow or three).
> 
> Plus, I have kept the phone conversations with Jane and Harry as well as the text messages between myself and Harry and Jane and may be willing to post them if they are to be received in a constructive way. I also have records and statements from other past crewmembers and from the original crew, which declined before the race.
> ...
> 
> Cheers to all&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.


It would not be appropriate to post those conversations on this forum.


----------



## Plumbean

SalNichols94804 said:


> In the example I cited in my previous post...a very good friend of mine and his insurance company paid out $6M. I can't speak for your example or your D.A. I can tell you what happened in this instance.


This sounds like an awful experience.

I do have a few questions/observations.

First, I wonder what the basis for liability was, and how the insurance played into it. It would not surprise me if the $6M was the limits of the owner's policy. Was there a finding of negligence? Or was the crew member covered as an additional insured? Incidentally, these types of settlements are typically covered by confidentiality restrictions, so please don't respond if doing so would open up that can of worms ...

Second, I think this is a red herring, when it comes to the question of the captain's authority. Liability for injuries suffered by a crew member is certainly a concern for any captain, but that is a very different thing than the question being debated here, which is what authority does the captain have to make decisions and run the boat.

As to the latter point, my personal view is that because the buck stops with the captain (i.e., the liability issue) that the captain has (and should be afforded by the crew) a great deal of latitude in the exercise of his/her authority. On the other hand, that authority can be wielded in different ways, from acting like a dictator to soliciting opinions of everyone involved. Personally I prefer the latter approach -- I want to earn the respect of my crew (and learn from their experience and opinions), not demand it. This was the way I was raised and I think it works much better than acting the tartar.

I also don't think the Captain's authority is absolute. At some point if the Captain is making decisions that are grossly incompetent or erratic, to the point where the boat/crew are in serious danger, the Captain's authority is and should be diminished.


----------



## randomforumname

No phone/text messages unless perhaps you and Harry were directly discussing rockD/jake as it pertains to this story.

I would love to hear more about the activity/attitude of the 86 yr old.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Cruisingdad said:


> We are here and watching. If it gets really out of hand I will jump in and post a pic of TDW in a bikini. ...


NOOOooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not THAT!!! Please, not THAT!!!

We'll be good. HONEST!!!


----------



## Coquina

This is true in the Navy and on merchant ships. There are ways to remove a captain for cause, but the bar is set very high.
If you read any literature pertaining to ships and the sea, experience with crazy or malign captains is likey a top seller for about 3,000 years now 
A recreational skipper with volunteer crew is fairly limited in ability to be a farging icehole because his crew will just get off and not come back. In this case the first chance to do so was 2,000 miles away, which IMHO led to some tension onboard. I have a chance myself to do an ocean passage on an unknwon-to-me boat and N F W will that be the first time I set foot on said boat. One thing I found that works is I trsut my watch captains 100% and let THEM deal with day to day annoyances if possible.

EDIT: 2 things I would like to NOT see - Threatening to stalk people in real life and publishing private emails that were not intended for public consumption.



Plumbean said:


> This sounds like an awful experience.
> 
> I do have a few questions/observations.
> 
> First, I wonder what the basis for liability was, and how the insurance played into it. It would not surprise me if the $6M was the limits of the owner's policy. Was there a finding of negligence? Or was the crew member covered as an additional insured? Incidentally, these types of settlements are typically covered by confidentiality restrictions, so please don't respond if doing so would open up that can of worms ...
> 
> Second, I think this is a red herring, when it comes to the question of the captain's authority. Liability for injuries suffered by a crew member is certainly a concern for any captain, but that is a very different thing than the question being debated here, which is what authority does the captain have to make decisions and run the boat.
> 
> As to the latter point, my personal view is that because the buck stops with the captain (i.e., the liability issue) that the captain has (and should be afforded by the crew) a great deal of latitude in the exercise of his/her authority. On the other hand, that authority can be wielded in different ways, from acting like a dictator to soliciting opinions of everyone involved. Personally I prefer the latter approach -- I want to earn the respect of my crew (and learn from their experience and opinions), not demand it. This was the way I was raised and I think it works much better than acting the tartar.
> 
> *I also don't think the Captain's authority is absolute. At some point if the Captain is making decisions that are grossly incompetent or erratic, to the point where the boat/crew are in serious danger, the Captain's authority is and should be diminished.*


----------



## miatapaul

shadowraiths said:


> Please don't. People should be able to engage with each other via phone/sms without having to worry about their private conversations being plastered on inet.





DRFerron said:


> It would not be appropriate to post those conversations on this forum.


I agree, and makes one wonder why they would have such stored, especially the conversations? Seems that there may be a bit of an axe to grind. Kind of like the camera crew, what was the motivation there?

This whole thing smells like rotten fish to me the more I read.

Sad part is it is like a train wreck and I can't stop reading, good thing I am taking my son to look at colleges tomorrow, so that will give me a break. So I may be singing this:


> In afteryears, should troubles rise
> To cloud the blue of sunny skies,
> How bright will seem through mem'ry's haze,
> Those happy, golden, by-gone days!
> Oh, let us strive that ever we
> May let these words out watchcry be,
> Where'er upon life's seas we sail:
> "For God, for Country, and for Yale!"


----------



## miatapaul

aeventyr60 said:


> Ha, ha, was wondering if the dirt dwellers woulda figured that one out. But then maybe it was out of a can. I here Chef Boyardee makes something similar in a demi glace or was it raggoute?


well, there was talk about using the microwave, so I am sure it was not from scratch.


----------



## ThickAndWide

All this cowardice about sharing actual info is a real drag - particularly from folks with no dog in this fight. Thanks to the OP who did share.


----------



## JonEisberg

ThickAndWide said:


> All this cowardice about sharing actual info is a real drag - particularly from folks with no dog in this fight. Thanks to the OP who did share.


Huh???

And, you are certain that the OP posted _only "actual information", and nothing but "actual information"_, how, exactly?

What _obligation_ does any of the principals involved have to us here in this peanut gallery called Sailnet, to "share" anything about the OP's story?


----------



## Donna_F

ThickAndWide said:


> All this cowardice about sharing actual info is a real drag - particularly from folks with no dog in this fight. Thanks to the OP who did share.


I expressed reservations about posting actual text messages and phone conversations. As I told Randolph in a PM, the moderators have _no issues with each party telling his or her version of events._ The more who were actually there and want to weigh in, have at it. Where I see it getting sticky is when Randolph said that he has actual phone messages and texts that he wants to post, presumably without the permission of everyone involved in those text/phone conversations.


----------



## miatapaul

Randolph555 said:


> REFERENCE TO POSTING LOGS, TEXTS AND REPORTS
> 
> Being in charge of the first team for TPac '13, on Harry's boat (although eventually our team withdrew) and having been in charge of the teams that did the PV races in '05 and '07 also on Harry's boat (although in '05 it was a Cat 36) we kept accounts and records of inspections, sail inventory, equipment, provisions, measurements, crew records, charts and weather/routes, boat needs and checklists.
> 
> I felt that these accounts would give insight as to many of the questions asked in several posts.
> 
> But, as I am new to posting and under the advice and suggestions of the moderators I will postpone posting this information until after I have had a chance to discuss it with the moderators in private and will probably wait until Jane has posted.
> 
> The material that would be presented is in fact 'neutral' and discloses only the the facts and procedures.
> 
> cheers, Randolph


Well that makes sense as to why you would have them. The way it was originally presented it sounded more like you may have had other reasons to expose it. I am sure you are glad you got out when you did! 

While I don't think anyone was in any danger, it sure did not sound like a pleasant cruse.


----------



## fryewe

miatapaul said:


> ...it sure did not sound like a pleasant cruse.


That's the part I am having trouble figgering out...being on a boat headed for Hawaii and somehow being in a foul mood or less than *fully engergized!!!*


----------



## shadowraiths

ThickAndWide said:


> All this cowardice about sharing actual info is a real drag - particularly from folks with no dog in this fight. Thanks to the OP who did share.


Has not a thing to do with cowardice. It has to do with volunteering to post private phone calls/text messages to inet. Calls/messages that do not even pertain to what occurred during this particular journey. Moreover, the only reason, that I can see, for volunteering to violate these people's privacy, is to support the claim that these people are a nightmare to deal with. And, afaics, no one participating on this thread has questioned that. So, why even consider doing so? So that a bunch of strangers can ooh-and-ah? And basically, jerk off over what horrible people they are? Maybe I'm just old school. But I find that sort of thing just plain unnecessary, and for that matter, offensive, in the telling of this particular tale.


----------



## ParallaxView

Is this the same Rockdawg?
from Sailnet 
Crew, Captain and Owners forum
Post #47


----------



## Classic30

svHyLyte said:


> Absolutely correct if there is someone aboard that knows how to drive with a spinny. In the event, however, they were likely better letting Otto handle matters in his/its ponderous albeit reliable way, Non?


Non. They're on the open ocean. If the state of play aboard what appears to have been a cruising boat along for the ride is what it sounds like it was, they would have been better advised (IMHO and as has been mentioned here before by others) especially at night, to pole out the genoa and leave the spinnaker for such times as the Crew on Watch felt they could handle it...


----------



## svHyLyte

Classic30 said:


> Non. They're on the open ocean. If the state of play aboard what appears to have been a cruising boat along for the ride is what it sounds like it was, they would have been better advised (IMHO and as has been mentioned here before by others) especially at night, to pole out the genoa and leave the spinnaker for such times as the Crew on Watch felt they could handle it...


I agree entirely as I noted in an earlier comment. Never-the-less, they did have the Spinnaker up in the event and, given that, they'd have done better letting Otto handle the driving. Frankly, they'd have done better simply staying in Long Beach and knocking back a few beers at the Rusty Pelican or LBYC.


----------



## tdw

SlowButSteady said:


> NOOOooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Not THAT!!! Please, not THAT!!!
> 
> We'll be good. HONEST!!!


I'm well annoyed I can tell you .... he promised me he'd destroyed the negative.


----------



## Sal Paradise

ParallaxView said:


> Is this the same Rockdawg?
> from Sailnet
> Crew, Captain and Owners forum
> Post #47


_Rockdawg is a Chinese-American who is a doctorate level professional. He is a consumate gentleman, and is a renaissance-type individual who has a wide variety of skills that are particularly useful on a sailboat. His mission to become a solo-circumnavigator has already brought him to cross the Gulf Stream 4 or 5 times in the last year as crew on other sailing vessels, and his accumulated knowledge of every major mechanical and electrical system on sailboats is impressive. Did I mention that he is an accomplished chef and can prepare an above average meal in a rough sea?

Rockdawg is a reliable, knowledgable, polite, loyal, and skilled sailor, who is always advancing his education and experience in the world of sailing. He has an ingenuity and work ethic that is uncommon nowadays. He is comfortable with both taking the captains directions, or taking the initiative in making independent decisions to advance the objectives of the passage in a safe and skillful manner. "Reliability" cannot be underestimated when you pick a crew member...especially when you only have 1 crew! Rockdawg will be the last man standing when the going gets rough. He would always rather be offshore in a sailboat than most any other place.

Rockdawg has become a valued friend of mine with whom I hope to share future sailing adventures. Whenever I sail now, I will call Rockdawg first, and if you are fortunate enough to find him available as crew on one of your trips then you can rest assured that you will be getting a first class gentleman and sailor to help make your passage safe, happy, and successful._


----------



## chef2sail

Sal Paradise said:


> _Rockdawg is a Chinese-American who is a doctorate level professional. He is a consumate gentleman, and is a renaissance-type individual who has a wide variety of skills that are particularly useful on a sailboat. His mission to become a solo-circumnavigator has already brought him to cross the Gulf Stream 4 or 5 times in the last year as crew on other sailing vessels, and his accumulated knowledge of every major mechanical and electrical system on sailboats is impressive. Did I mention that he is an accomplished chef and can prepare an above average meal in a rough sea?
> 
> Rockdawg is a reliable, knowledgable, polite, loyal, and skilled sailor, who is always advancing his education and experience in the world of sailing. He has an ingenuity and work ethic that is uncommon nowadays. He is comfortable with both taking the captains directions, or taking the initiative in making independent decisions to advance the objectives of the passage in a safe and skillful manner. "Reliability" cannot be underestimated when you pick a crew member...especially when you only have 1 crew! Rockdawg will be the last man standing when the going gets rough. He would always rather be offshore in a sailboat than most any other place.
> 
> Rockdawg has become a valued friend of mine with whom I hope to share future sailing adventures. Whenever I sail now, I will call Rockdawg first, and if you are fortunate enough to find him available as crew on one of your trips then you can rest assured that you will be getting a first class gentleman and sailor to help make your passage safe, happy, and successful._


G ....


> edited by tdw, contention not reallly acceptable


 ..... d.

Great 2nd post, so who called you and suggested the damage control that you felt to join SN now and not before.

This thread has runs its course for me unless someone new from the boat comes forth. We now have the ghosts of Christmas past joining Sailnet to present testimonials.


----------



## BentSailor

Cruisingdad said:


> We are here and watching. If it gets really out of hand I will jump in and post a pic of TDW in a bikini.


The bill from my therapist is in the mail. Please pay it because if they take me off the Thorazine and I start seeing that image in my mind's eye again, I cannot be held liable for my actions.


----------



## shadowraiths

chef2sail said:


> Gag...


Chef. Fwiw, the review that Sal Paradise quoted was posted by someone else on January 19, 2013, in the Crew, Captain and Owner Feedback thread in the Crew wanted/available forum.


----------



## BentSailor

*@chef2sail:* Sal was simply copy/pasting the details from the post mentioned in the quote. If you've been reading Sal's posts in this thread, you'd find he is not the rockDAWG fanboy you seem to think he is.


----------



## SlowButSteady

tdw said:


> I'm well annoyed I can tell you .... he promised me he'd destroyed the negative.


Negative????? That's so 20th Century.

Dude, this is the digital age. Once it's on the InterNet it's FOREVER!

Just ask this big fellow -- he's still trying to live down THAT bender:


----------



## mstern

chef2sail said:


> Gag...a perfect gentleman, you must be a man. I am laughing so hard I almost felt the need to call the woman who filed the sexual harassment suit against him and get her to post here. And thats a fact, not a testimonial Public record.


What, all of a sudden, the mere fact of a lawsuit against someone is proof that they did what is claimed? I am guessing that you wouldn't give Rockdawg or Jake the same benefit of the doubt if they filed a lawsuit against Harry or Jane; am I right?

I've been doing this law thing long enough to know that just because someone says its so in a legal complaint doesn't mean squat. You make some good points about Rockdawg's actions in the race and how that reflects on his character. This isn't one of them.


----------



## BentSailor

SlowButSteady said:


> Dude, this is the digital age. Once it's on the InterNet it's FOREVER!


You're saying old fuzzy is a model for www.hairyoldguysinspandex.com?

Honestly, I'm too scared to type that one in to my browser! SailNet makes it a link whether I like it or not... I recommend *not* clicking it. Just in case


----------



## shadowraiths

BentSailor said:


> You're saying old fuzzy is a model for www.hairyoldguysinspandex.com?
> 
> Honestly, I'm too scared to type that one in to my browser! SailNet makes it a link whether I like it or not... I recommend *not* clicking it. Just in case


Where's the laugh button when you need it??? :laugher


----------



## bljones

I think Owen wilson should play RockDawg in the movie.
Maybe Jon Favreau for Jake.
or reverse them. this is fiction, right?


----------



## BentSailor

bljones said:


> I think Owen wilson should play RockDawg in the movie.
> Maybe Jon Favreau for Jake.
> or reverse them. this is fiction, right?


Based on the current description of events (i.e. only RD's & Jakes), I'd say Gilbert Gottfried should play Harry & Betty White the mother-in-law.


----------



## tomandchris

Randolph comes on, prints a lot of words, but absolutely no facts or even suggestions of them. I agree, no texts or phone conversations. Way over the top.

Speaking of over the top, Chef, get your head out of your ass! I used to like your over the edge stuff because it had some wisdom in it. In this case you have a axe to grind and it is grinding on the rest of us.


----------



## CalebD

Sal Paradise said:


> _Rockdawg is a Chinese-American who is a doctorate level professional. _


Hmm.
I seem to remember him mentioning that he is a ******* of Cuban descent?
Perhaps I am mis-remembering?
His not so great command of grammar & C jives with being a *******, but not so much with the Asian thing or the doctorate level professional.

This is not the first time RD & le Chef have crossed swords, so to speak. Methinks there is not enough water passed under the bridge yet ...


----------



## tdw

herumph .... I think I'll get all weasel butt megalomaniacal and ban the lot of you. 

Oh well.

Time to bugger off for the weekend .... salute to you all.


----------



## Plumbean

Sal Paradise said:


> _Rockdawg is a Chinese-American who is a doctorate level professional. ... Did I mention that he is an accomplished chef and can prepare an above average meal in a rough sea?_


I might pay to see Rockdawg v Chef2sail in an Iron Chef type cooking contest.


----------



## ShoalFinder

DRFerron said:


> I expressed reservations about posting actual text messages and phone conversations. As I told Randolph in a PM, the moderators have _no issues with each party telling his or her version of events._ The more who were actually there and want to weigh in, have at it. Where I see it getting sticky is when Randolph said that he has actual phone messages and texts that he wants to post, presumably without the permission of everyone involved in those text/phone conversations.


I certainly have no dog in this fight, nor any undue interest beyond it being a very exciting story for a story's sake. (The key point that Smack has been making all along.)

But when it comes to posting texts and voicemails that people send as inter-personal communications... that's rotten. I don't mean to be negative toward Randolph specifically. I've left voicemails in the heat of the moment that were a) intended solely for the recipient under a context that we both understood at the time, and b) weren't spoken in the manner I'd have preferred had cooler heads prevailed.

Sharing private communications with uninvolved third parties (and God forbid the entire WWW) is an act of _Wanton Douchebaggery_.


----------



## smackdaddy

plumbean said:


> i might pay to see rockdawg v chef2sail in an iron chef type cooking contest.


fightclub!


----------



## Plumbean

smackdaddy said:


> fightclub!


Actually, it should be a three-way. Rockdawg v. Chef2sail v. Harry


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Odd, there's a Chinese Restaurant/Irish Pub in Thousand Oaks called Wonton Douchebaggery's


----------



## SlowButSteady

tdw said:


> herumph .... I think I'll get all weasel butt megalomaniacal and ban the lot of you.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Time to bugger off for the weekend .... salute to you all.


I hope sailing is on the agenda. If so, here's to fair seas, flat beer, and cold winds...

No, wait a minute, fair beer, flat winds, and cold seas...

Hold on, fair winds, flat seas, and cold beer!!!! That's the ticket!!


----------



## SlowButSteady

Plumbean said:


> Actually, it should be a three-way. Rockdawg v. Chef2sail v. Harry


I'm putting my money on the 86-year-old.


----------



## bljones

86 year old in a threeway.....


*shudder*

some crap, once seen in the mind's eye, cannot be unseen.


----------



## chef2sail

Plumbean said:


> I might pay to see Rockdawg v Chef2sail in an Iron Chef type cooking contest.


You've been watching too much TV . Most amateurs couldn't cook anything without a recipe given a box full of ingredients let alone in a timed event.

Besides who would be the judges....you bunch of span with Demi glacé eating hash slingers!! :laugher:laugher


----------



## MedSailor

chef2sail said:


> *This thread has runs its course for me* unless someone new from the boat comes forth.


Please please please please PROMISE US this is true. 

The rest of SailNet is trying to LEARN something from this thread, not just judge, and then try and act as executioner. Personally I think you're in violation of SailNet's terms and conditions by threatening to keep RockDog from crewing in the future. Threats of any harm in the real world are a no-no that you (and the rest of us) agreed to. I'm no mod though, so call it a friendly warning from a peer.

I also find it exceedingly ugly that you keep referring to a civil charge against the OP. That has NOTHING to do with you, or the issues in this thread. How would you like it if I looked up your criminal record, credit report, or other REAL PERSONAL INFO for example, and put it up here on SailNet?

Let's keep reality and SailNet separate. I know it can be hard....


chef2sail said:


> Im sorry you don't like my tone, but like the Captain this is the real world...


Also, Chef, what is it like to NEVER be wrong? It must feel divine, almost biblical. Being schooled in science, I always harbor doubt, and even more so when EVERYONE tells me I'm wrong. I'd love to get over that, I think it would lead to a much healthier ego for myself.

MedSailor


----------



## BentSailor

bljones said:


> *shudder*
> 
> some crap, once seen in the mind's eye, cannot be unseen.


No bloody kidding...








_I blame CruisingDad for this!_


----------



## romansu

hi,
perhaps you will be interested in this video ...

The Tall Ships Races 2013 in the Riga(Europe)
vimeo.com/71849951


----------



## Cruisingdad

BentSailor said:


> No bloody kidding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I blame CruisingDad for this!_


Ha! Way too much hair on the top of his head to be TDW.


----------



## bljones

MedSailor said:


> The rest of SailNet is trying to LEARN something from this thread,


Not me. I'm just enjoying the octagon full of ego, the demo derby of demagoguery, the uncivilized slinging of silly civil suits. It needs more chicks though.

Maybe we can get a bikini-clad vixen to prance around at the end of each page, with the next page number on a card?


----------



## oceangirl

chef2sail said:


> Besides who would be the judges....you bunch of span with Demi glacé eating hash slingers!! :laugher:laugher


I'll judge, I've watched every season of Top Chef!


----------



## JonEisberg

MedSailor said:


> The rest of SailNet is trying to LEARN something from this thread,
> Let's keep reality and SailNet separate. I know it can be hard....


I don't know, seems to me anyone who didn't learn all there is of any value to be gleaned from this thread by the first 100 posts or so, is a damned slow learner...


----------



## Minnesail

bljones said:


> demo derby of demagoguery


That is a veritable volley of violent verbiage! Do you mind if I borrow it?


----------



## bljones

Minnesail said:


> That is a veritable volley of violent verbiage! Do you mind if I borrow it?


feel free, fellow follower of this fluckin free for all.


----------



## Plumbean

bljones said:


> feel free, fellow follower of this fluckin free for all.


... nattering nabobs of negatavism ...


----------



## Plumbean

bljones said:


> Not me. I'm just enjoying the octagon full of ego, the demo derby of demagoguery, the uncivilized slinging of silly civil suits. It needs more chicks though.
> 
> Maybe we can get a bikini-clad vixen to prance around at the end of each page, with the next page number on a card?


Need to go to SA for that


----------



## Jeff_H

Plumbean said:


> ... nattering nabobs of negatavism ...


Were you per chance referring to that effete corps of impudent snobs? (You're not the only geez in the room )

Jeff


----------



## MedSailor

BentSailor said:


> No bloody kidding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I blame CruisingDad for this!_


This *NEEDS* to be TDW's new avatar picture. :laugher

MedSailor


----------



## BentSailor

MedSailor said:


> This *NEEDS* to be TDW's new avatar picture. :laugher


Well, it does lose "some" of it's innate horror when shrunk to avatar size... but not much


----------



## MedSailor

BentSailor said:


> Well, it does lose "some" of it's innate horror when shrunk to avatar size... but not much


Agreed, you can still see the fuzz around the bikkini line, so there's plenty of inate horror left.







MedSailor


----------



## AlaskaMC

MedSailor said:


> This *NEEDS* to be TDW's new avatar picture. :laugher
> 
> MedSailor


This may be the most constructive suggestion made in this thread yet. :laugher


----------



## C P

My word. Without reading 64 pages of this, did part two ever come about?


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Yes, page 2 or 3 or 4 I think


----------



## tdw

SlowButSteady said:


> I hope sailing is on the agenda. If so, here's to fair seas, flat beer, and cold winds...
> 
> No, wait a minute, fair beer, flat winds, and cold seas...
> 
> Hold on, fair winds, flat seas, and cold beer!!!! That's the ticket!!


Appears my farewell was somewhat premature but now I really am going.

Winch service today ... see Classic30's thread re winches ..... then crewing in a race tomorrow. Second time for me, we came last in previous race though I'm sure that is merely coincidental. cough splutter.

sorry chaps ... not so much a hijack and a small detour.


----------



## tdw

BentSailor said:


> Well, it does lose "some" of it's innate horror when shrunk to avatar size... but not much







By jove you have some cheek you young whippersnapper you.

I believe the correct response is "bite me".


----------



## SalNichols94804

Pictures of rodents....whatever floats your lame arse boat?


----------



## Geoff54

SalNichols94804 said:


> Pictures of rodents....whatever floats your lame arse boat?


Damn, I though that I was an a**hole. Why don't you take your obnoxious attitude and go annoy the people on SA.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Geoff54 said:


> Damn, I though that I was an a**hole. Why don't you take your obnoxious attitude and go annoy the people on SA.


Oh please, don't let me dissuade you from your attempt at self awareness. Your initial instinct was more than likely correct. You probably do enjoy tickling yourself there eh?


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> Oh please, don't let me dissuade you from your attempt at self awareness. Your initial instinct was more than likely correct. You probably do enjoy tickling yourself there eh?


I'm curious...have you won anything lately?

PS - I just figured it out. Sal is Harry. Do the math.

"When Harry Met Sal?"


----------



## SalNichols94804

A few goofy prizes on Express 37s and J-111s, just one cog in the machine. Lost the '10 race, but got a electrically dead boat to Oahu in 9 days. got smoked on corrected time on the '12 Pac Cup, but proud of the fact that I got everyone there and back safely. 2009 SF OYRA PHRO1A Season Championship. Do you have a point?


----------



## SalNichols94804

No wonder Perry doesn't miss this place.


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> I'm curious...have you won anything lately?
> 
> PS - I just figured it out. Sal is Harry. Do the math.
> 
> "When Harry Met Sal?"


Really now!!

How low can you stoop Steve. Just because he differs in opinion from you doesn't mean the ridicule card needs to be. Did you forget and mean that post for SA. Oh ok I get it now, you'll say you were only joking...lighten up.

How can you ridicule this posters experience when you dont even know him.

Do you have " ocean race " experience or is it even be less than Harry's and more than likely a SN certificate. I think even Harry was in races to Puerto Vaharda not just hanging out in the Gulf.

For those who think i have it in for RD and its personal read this. I don't like his style, and many other things, but I have to give him credit because he has done more than pontificate himself on the Internet. He has attempted at least by action to go forward and do many blue water cruising than many of us in the last couple of years.

This time he tried to step his experience up a notch and had he done it correctly and he had allied himself with an experienced crew like Sals or Randolf who posted earlier, he woud have gained huge experience as well as had a much different post. I actually was looking forward to reading his postings as I think many here were when he posted he had figured a way to defer the deposition for a chance to crew in this race.

We can learn from his mistakes. He should have waited and listened to the voice on his shoulder when he got there that said, nope this isn't the right situation, not only will I not learn, but I might be in danger. There is a huge difference in what he found and getting in with an established race crew.

I raced in Annapolis for many years and it took a while to get a permanent ride and crew on the same boat. I was willing to pay my dues to learn from racers who had many years experience. Part of that became a safety/ trust thing as we knew each other. From that I was asked to be part of a crew for a few Annapolis to Newport, Newport to Bermuda, Marblehead to Halifax, races as well as a Carribean 1500. Racing and passage making are two different things. The racing was dangerous enough without the added burden of not knowing the crew or Captain. These races are nothing like the Transpac either as they can gt to land in a few dys if needed not 1000 miles in the Pacific from and in the middle of the race.

His step into that arena was to large a one and in his zeal to gain more knowledge he compromised some of the obvious red flags going with the ilk of Harry presented to more experienced racers who have presented themselves here in this post. While commenting strongly on his voyage has won me little friends ( who cares) RD, his premise for gaining the experience is good, but he needs to back down his ego some and get involved with a good established crew to get it. Racing experienced is invaluable, and ocean racing even more so in learning how to passages make as well as sail and boathandling. Most cruising you don't push the boat nearly as hard as racing.

For you to ridicule this mans racing experice in light of your lack of it is not very funny.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

SalNichols94804 said:


> No wonder Perry doesn't miss this place.


Sal, that was in poor taste on my part, it's gone and I apologise


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Chef, read Sal's last couple posts............Sheeezz, should've gave you the AH award


----------



## chef2sail

SalNichols94804 said:


> No wonder Perry doesn't miss this place.


Don't let him run you off. Thats what he wants. Theres a difference between experience and posing. Others on here have I enjoyed your contribution in this as well. Very few here have actual ocean racing experience. Every site has its "prickly emotional chef" and its "sarcastic cutting Smackdaddy" who plays to the crowd. After all as one mod once told me " don't let the stuff here bother you, it's only the Internet"

When you present a minority opinion on here many have had to withstand the digging insults camouflaged as humor. He gets away with it here because of the way this site is. I noticed He is very careful not to try this on SA and stays with the pack, cause he'd become road kill by the experienced racers quickly if he insulted them the same way there. They are not very PC.

I would like to know a good way to get involved in this race. Feel free to PM me


----------



## sevvy

This should be a movie!


----------



## sevvy

agreed, how someone to just take as much as they did for so long is beyond me!


----------



## AlaskaMC

SalNichols94804 said:


> Pictures of rodents....whatever floats your lame arse boat?


One thing that has attracted many of us to sailnet is the good nature and fun that the site has in the VAST majority of the threads. Great information, and some good laughs to go along with it. In fact, as a participator (and mod at times) on many forums, this tends to characterize the ones that are popular and stick around.

I have waded through the pages and pages of personal attacks on this thread because I am actually interested in the possibility of racing in the future, on others boats as well as my own. Otherwise, this thread would be unbearable due to the endless vitriol.

Not taking sides either, it has been going in both directions at times for sure. But going after the Wombat?


----------



## chef2sail

AlaskaMC said:


> One thing that has attracted many of us to sailnet is the good nature and fun that the site has in the VAST majority of the threads. Great information, and some good laughs to go along with it. In fact, as a participator (and mod at times) on many forums, this tends to characterize the ones that are popular and stick around.
> 
> I have waded through the pages and pages of personal attacks on this thread because I am actually interested in the possibility of racing in the future, on others boats as well as my own. Otherwise, this thread would be unbearable due to the endless vitriol.
> 
> Not taking sides either, it has been going in both directions at times for sure. But going after the Wombat?


He's new. Maybe he didn't understand the significance of the wombat and the thread drift. Cut him a break on that.


----------



## AlaskaMC

chef2sail said:


> He's new. Maybe he didn't understand the significance of the wombat and the thread drift. Cut him a break on that.


Ok, good point. Thread drift is part of the fun on sailnet that is for sure.

But Wombats make me :laugher


----------



## SalNichols94804

chef2sail said:


> Really now!!
> 
> How low can you stoop Steve. Just because he differs in opinion from you doesn't mean the ridicule card needs to be. Did you forget and mean that post for SA. Oh ok I get it now, you'll say you were only joking...lighten up.
> 
> How can you ridicule this posters experience when you dont even know him.
> 
> Do you have " ocean race " experience or is it even be less than Harry's and more than likely a SN certificate. I think even Harry was in races to Puerto Vaharda not just hanging out in the Gulf.
> 
> For those who think i have it in for RD and its personal read this. I don't like his style, and many other things, but I have to give him credit because he has done more than pontificate himself on the Internet. He has attempted at least by action to go forward and do many blue water cruising than many of us in the last couple of years.
> 
> This time he tried to step his experience up a notch and had he done it correctly and he had allied himself with an experienced crew like Sals or Randolf who posted earlier, he woud have gained huge experience as well as had a much different post. I actually was looking forward to reading his postings as I think many here were when he posted he had figured a way to defer the deposition for a chance to crew in this race.
> 
> We can learn from his mistakes. He should have waited and listened to the voice on his shoulder when he got there that said, nope this isn't the right situation, not only will I not learn, but I might be in danger. There is a huge difference in what he found and getting in with an established race crew.
> 
> I raced in Annapolis for many years and it took a while to get a permanent ride and crew on the same boat. I was willing to pay my dues to learn from racers who had many years experience. Part of that became a safety/ trust thing as we knew each other. From that I was asked to be part of a crew for a few Annapolis to Newport, Newport to Bermuda, Marblehead to Halifax, races as well as a Carribean 1500. Racing and passage making are two different things. The racing was dangerous enough without the added burden of not knowing the crew or Captain. These races are nothing like the Transpac either as they can gt to land in a few dys if needed not 1000 miles in the Pacific from and in the middle of the race.
> 
> His step into that arena was to large a one and in his zeal to gain more knowledge he compromised some of the obvious red flags going with the ilk of Harry presented to more experienced racers who have presented themselves here in this post. While commenting strongly on his voyage has won me little friends ( who cares) RD, his premise for gaining the experience is good, but he needs to back down his ego some and get involved with a good established crew to get it. Racing experienced is invaluable, and ocean racing even more so in learning how to passages make as well as sail and boathandling. Most cruising you don't push the boat nearly as hard as racing.
> 
> For you to ridicule this mans racing experice in light of your lack of it is not very funny.


Ahhh, no worries man. I've never posed as a rockstar, I'm just a fairly experienced ocean racer and HI passagemaker. I just know how to prep boats for these races, I know the ORC Cat 1 and 2 regs by heart, and I know how we provision them. I tried to explain how we do it and the logic behind it, only to be declared criminally negligent. All I can tell you is that I've successfully delivered crews to and from HI with all of their bits, and with no one dying of thirst using this logic. I really have nothing to prove.

The only reason that I even posted here is because I believe in the sanctity of the position of captain. As crew, I do whatever I can to make sure that you're successful, and I try to make you look good doing it. If I don't think I can be successful, I don't even step aboard. I've tried to explain this, but for a few exceptions, I seem to hold a largely unique opinion.

As for the insult: I didn't know it was a wombat, and I didn't realize it was a religious symbol. My apologies.

I've said my piece.
No Strings Attached, out.


----------



## SlowButSteady

SalNichols94804 said:


> Pictures of rodents....whatever floats your lame arse boat?


Whoa there, Big Fellow. Marsupials HATE being called "rodents". Just ask this guy:


----------



## BentSailor

SalNichols94804 said:


> Pictures of rodents....whatever floats your lame arse boat?


Yeah, how dare some people not buy into the pissing match and express some humour in reply to a moderator warning. One might even get the impression that SailNet is also about mateship and good humour, not just about who has the largest tackle. 

Christ, and here I was thinking the most sanctimonious ass-hattery was limited to the political sub-forum


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Ok, I just saw he change his avatar and I don't know about you but, it's going hard taking a verbal beat down by a guy wearing a bikini seriously


----------



## outbound

Among the vitriol some wisdom has been imparted.
Before a race/ passage know your fellow crew/ captain. Know their skill set and personalities. 
Don't attempt a long race/passage without some level of experience with all members ideally on that boat.
Survey the prep of the vessel. If any of the above doesn't meet your standards walk.
Keep in mine Sal's chilling tale of the 6m loss. Waviors may be of no benefit as " one cannot give up ones rights". 
Personally, I've learned a lot when other people do walk throughs on my boat. The point about Bermudas especially the m to b being a whole different kettle of fish then a transpacific is key. Think folks will under provision when racing and push harder leading to more equipment failures. However the sea is the same so passage making has the same issues. Thats maybe why you see so many husband/ wife teams refuse additional crew even on long hops.
Curious what other people put in their sea bag before setting out.


----------



## JonEisberg

SalNichols94804 said:


> No wonder Perry doesn't miss this place.


I believe you may be confusing Sailnet with another forum, Bob remains a pretty active participant, here...


----------



## flyingwelshman

I was able to get my hands on a critical frame from the elusive video:


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> The only reason that I even posted here is because I believe in the sanctity of the position of captain. As crew, I do whatever I can to make sure that you're successful, and I try to make you look good doing it. If I don't think I can be successful, I don't even step aboard. I've tried to explain this, but for a few exceptions, I seem to hold a largely unique opinion.


I totally agree with this statement, and that's exactly the kind of crew I've aimed to be on the off-shore races I've done. I think I've done a pretty good job of it as I've been assigned watch captain on the past three races I've done by the skipper I raced with. And he is a tremendous skipper whom I like, respect, and most importantly TRUST, very much

The issue is that I now own my own boat and will race it next season. So, now I'm the skipper and will be looking for crew. That's where the "sanctity" of the position comes in. If I'm a poor a skipper as the one portrayed in this story - I don't deserve to be out there, and I don't deserve to have crew at all. For a skipper to _deserve_ that sanctity, he/she has to perform.

Digs aside, like I've said all along, Sal, you seem to be able to perform. Harry couldn't - Harry didn't deserve that sanctity, yet demanded it to the point of compromising safety. The crew/skipper sword cuts both ways.


----------



## Geoff54

sanc·ti·ty
1 : holiness of life and character : godliness
2 : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability



SalNichols94804 said:


> I believe in the sanctity of the position of captain.


Obviously!


----------



## capta

SalNichols94804 said:


> There is SO MUCH WRONG here that I'm not even sure where to start. To begin with, you showed little to no respect for the skipper before you even left the dock. Your petulance over having to buy your own drinks is telling.
> You signed on as a NAVIGATOR on a downwind race having NEVER BEFORE flown a kite? Just exactly what were your qualifications to sign on as navigator to begin with?
> Then you two twits, having decided that things were not as you wanted started calling the RC, USCG, the U.S. f$$king Navy, and god knows who else on the sly to whine?
> You signed up for a trip to Oahu on an Aloha Division boat, and you were picked by and large because neither of you have or had the experience or skill to get on board a real race boat. You should have accepted your lot in life and delt with it, s-ingtfu in the process, or never left the dock.
> A simple look up at the crew list will tell EVERYONE who you are. Personally, you couldn't get on a boat that I run if you pointed a gun at me. I suspect there are a lot of other owners that feel the same.
> Finally son, you are dead wrong about the AP. on a crewed boat, it's a DSQ/DNF. At the moment that YOU forced that issue, YOU flushed the owners race investment, whatever it might have been, down the drain. If you had done that to me, on my boat, it would have cost me $55K, and I can guarantee you that you would have been tie wrapped to the lifelines for the duration of the passage.


I have to agree with SalNichols that by posting this, no matter how interesting it is, you have done serious damage to your reputation and perhaps lost numerous deliveries you might have been offered by the more astute forum members.
It is a part of this profession that one must live in close proximity to others in a small environment (aboard a boat) and live within the structure of captain and crew. No matter who was at fault or why the situation deteriorated as it did, very few thoughtful people would take the chance to have you aboard with them or ask you to deliver their boat after reading your account of things on your sail to Hawaii.
You have made yourself a wild card in an industry flooded with competent, steady, easy to get along with, people.


----------



## opc11

hellosailor said:


> It seems there was only one DNF in Division8 of the TransPac.
> 
> Jeanneau 43 Sun Odessy DS
> 9/DNF 9.0
> 
> Yeah, but it didn't take a minute to find.
> 
> Which might be corporate owned as shown by the USCG:
> 
> CHANTIERS JEANNEAU Year Built: 2002
> 
> Length (ft.): 42.1
> 
> Now, how a corporation owns a recreational vessel eludes me, since normally all the assets and functions of a corporation are, well, commercial by nature. But I'm so easily baffled by these things.
> 
> _Identifying information removed from this post by Jeff_H, SailNet Moderator. The moderators have requested that all specific identification of the owner and boat be avoided. _--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If the boat owner owns a business, it's likely he is aware of the asset protection (assrts other than the boat) rhat comes with having a boat owned by a corporation. It's unlikely he incorporrated for business operation of the boat.


----------



## hellosailor

*Weinie-*
Criminal negligence, like most other crimes, can only be found when the actions meet the exact definition of the law. "Stupid" or "careless" or "incompetent" doesn't meet the definition of criminal negligence in New York but since Long Island is a very political state they couldn't just say that up front. This does not mean a civil suit for negligence cannot or will not be filed and won, just that no criminal code was violated.
Civil, criminal, administrative. At least three kinds of legal codes that are allowed to contradict each other in the US and that's ignoring state versus federal.

*sevvy,* you're right! I can just see Tom Cruise playing the part of Rockdawg, he wasn't really right for Jack Reacher but I have never thought the dawg was THAT tall. No offense dawg. Of course for the movie we will have to add satellite internet and have RD constantly trying to get advice from Sailnet in real time.

*Sal,* you make a good point about disconnecting a ram although disconnecting might be a bit much. I've seen duct tape over the gearshift to ensure that an engine can be used for charging, but not propulsion. "No questions asked" when it can't be put in gear. Wouldn't pulling the fuse/breaker on the AP accomplish the same thing, with less crawling under the cockpit?

*Aargau,* if you want to hear the other side of the story it is not hard to see what boats did or didn't finish in what races and from there contact the owner. As to Peter Luger's, it is an "institution" and the snob appeal counts for as much or more than the steak, and has for many decades. Even as late as the 1980's if you didn't order a rare steak they would serve it "POittsburgh" meaning BURNT outside and still rare inside, they refused to admit "medium well" could exist. For those of us who don't mind waiting for the meat to cook, even The Old Homestead did a better job and made a whole lot less fuss about it. Peter Luger's keeps itself as a semi-private club as much as a restaurant. That's their right.

And *smack,* yes, you can make steak that good on the bbq, all you need is real prime meat and a little practice. But I think I'd be just as happy with a $25 prime ribsteak (and there's no such thing as a "boneless" rib steak that's a non-starter) and put the other $75 into a good bottle of scotch as the hundred bucks wasted on PL's attitude.

I'm still trying to figure out how a corporation, a business, a commercial entity, can possibly make any legitimate business use of a recreational vessel. Which would also make the _corporate entity_ responsible for anything taking place on the boat. But, I'm easily baffled by these things. Like asking, why an alleged sushi chef and holding company owner wouldn't at least keep a trolling line in the water during the race, to get some really fresh stuff onboard.


----------



## Slayer

hellosailor said:


> *Weinie-*
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out how a corporation, a business, a commercial entity, can possibly make any legitimate business use of a recreational vessel. Which would also make the _corporate entity_ responsible for anything taking place on the boat. But, I'm easily baffled by these things. Like asking, why an alleged sushi chef and holding company owner wouldn't at least keep a trolling line in the water during the race, to get some really fresh stuff onboard.


I was thinking the same thing. Unless you are fishing or chartering or something with little doubt of its business use, you are asking for frequent and regular audits.


----------



## ovb

This is a pretty good story...let me see if if have it...Jake and RD are excited to sail the transpac so they sail on a boat owned by a raw fish restaurant...skippered by a crazy guy who cant speak English and loses his mind if you breath funny and drink water and his wife is on board and is trying to get a trophy for dehydrating her mother on the way to Hawaii.....sorry about all this crap RD and Jake but it would be fun to have a beer with you guys ......


----------



## davidpm

Slayer said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Unless you are fishing or chartering or something with little doubt of its business use, you are asking for frequent and regular audits.


Any of you sn accountants have a guess as to how Larry E writes off his cup boat. Not the kind of boat you are likely to take people out that are looking to buy database software.


----------



## hellosailor

slayer-
I figure, the USCG wouldn't question the impropriety, they just want the hundred bucks. Hey, they're perpetually underfunded. And then the only folks who would know any better, would be the tax men, but they wouldn't pick up on it unless they were checking assets or sales tax on registration. And again, who checks? They just want to count money paid. Still, it just seems irregular. I wonder how that's insured...then again, I still haven't heard whether anyone was actually paid crew, or was paying to crew, or were just "guests" for the race.
Shouldn't this be in Lat38 by now?

david-
As long as the boat says "Eat my raw bar! Pier 15!" or whatever, it can be a legitimate advertising expense. You know, if that fish bar is at that waterfront location in the marina, advertising is all it takes. Of course, that would be a commercial use...but not used in commerce or coastwise trade insofar as the USC defines it?


----------



## chef2sail

hellosailor;
And [B said:


> smack,[/B] yes, you can make steak that good on the bbq, all you need is real prime meat and a little practice. But I think I'd be just as happy with a $25 prime ribsteak (and there's no such thing as a "boneless" rib steak that's a non-starter) and put the other $75 into a good bottle of scotch as the hundred bucks wasted on PL's attitude.
> .


The use of Lugars Steakhouse was an analogy to compare to Golden Corral and not to imply it was the best steakhouse in America although it is certainly a top rated one.

No way you can ever grill a steak on a home BBQ that is as good a quality as these top steakhouses. Most people's palates probably would not know the difference and a prime meat steak on the grill would be the best thing they have ever tasted.

However at these top steakhouses you are getting a steak which has spent time in their dry aged rooms as well as the establishments buying meat from animals which are between 2 and 3 years old. The average person can not find a place to buy this level of meat nor do they have dry aged rooms. There is a tremendous difference in flavored anyone can taste if a side by side cutting ( tasting) is performed with normal premium prime beef and dry aged 2-3 year old animal prime beef. To most it isn't worth the trouble or extra expense, but to some who want a truly gourmand experience it is. Most younger meats have a distinct veal like taste compared to their 2 year old dry aged cousins.

It's the difference between an 2008 David Bruce California Cabernet and a 2008 Lafite Rothschild French one. The Bruce is in the top 90 % while the Rothschild is the gold standard. In Hellosailor terms the difference between a Glenfidich scotch and a Macallam scotch.

Any sub-primal cut of meat can be fabricated into a boneless one for cooking. When grilling I believe it is actually the best way as it insures uniform cooking temperatures as meat by the bone is harder to cook and grilling is such a quick coking method no taste is imparted nor is their enough time for self basting. In roasting a meat such as a prime rib roast, strip loin roast it will help with flavor and moistness.

Sorry for the hijack


----------



## hellosailor

chef, no problem and if I win the lottery I'll ask you to buy the beef for me. I suppose USDA prime, dry aged, 2-3 year old cattle, would still count as trash according to some Argentinians I know, who think US feedlot beef simply is the wrong way to go. And what they consider good, would still be considered trash by folks who buy and age real prime Kobe beef in Japan.

Me, I've always figured that if dinner is going to cost a hundred dollars a plate, it doesn't need to have my name on it. I can taste and appreciate all kinds of subtle differences but at a certain point, sublime to ridiculous just crosses over into "stupid rich" along with the gold flecked Beluga caviar.

Bottle of Cutty Sark, paid rent, little elbow room, and I'm happy enough. And I can use _big _glasses, so no one has to get up to get refills. (VBG)


----------



## flyingwelshman




----------



## poopdeckpappy

Ahhhhhhh!!! it's a Meglonfrog Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!


Gonna need a bigger webpage


----------



## poopdeckpappy

ya don't know how sad it is to be sitting here eating fresh caught yellow tail taco's and reading post about big fat juicy steaks


----------



## chef2sail

poopdeckpappy said:


> ya don't know how sad it is to be sitting here eating fresh caught yellow tail taco's and reading post about big fat juicy steaks


Yellow tail is great


----------



## chef2sail

hellosailor said:


> chef, no problem and if I win the lottery I'll ask you to buy the beef for me. I suppose USDA prime, dry aged, 2-3 year old cattle, would still count as trash according to some Argentinians I know, who think US feedlot beef simply is the wrong way to go. And what they consider good, would still be considered trash by folks who buy and age real prime Kobe beef in Japan.
> 
> Me, I've always figured that if dinner is going to cost a hundred dollars a plate, it doesn't need to have my name on it. I can taste and appreciate all kinds of subtle differences but at a certain point, sublime to ridiculous just crosses over into "stupid rich" along with the gold flecked Beluga caviar.
> 
> Bottle of Cutty Sark, paid rent, little elbow room, and I'm happy enough. And I can use _big _glasses, so no one has to get up to get refills. (VBG)


I am with you. Some people actually have the money to burn a spend it. Has kept employed for years.

Americans generally don't appreciate or understand food like Europeans r even our neighbors to the north Canada. They will spend money on palaces, costly cars, but when it comes to what they eat they settle for mediocre.

I enjoy traveling to Europe as they are still food artisans in almost every town and city.


----------



## aeventyr60

America, a culinary waste land...


----------



## fryewe

aeventyr60 said:


> America, a culinary waste land...


But food is plentiful...just check out that thread on Rush and Oprah. Or any WalMart parking lot in the south...


----------



## ovb

We need to know more about the 86 year old mother in law???? If you are setting out on the voyage of your lifetime would you bring your mother in law? Why???? no doubt about it ...Harry is nuts....sorry if I appear dim I just had a Rib-eye grilled on charcoal along with some viking size vessels of A B+ Single malt ....we need to meet Harry.....


----------



## MedSailor

fryewe said:


> But food is plentiful...just check out that thread on Rush and Oprah. Or any WalMart parking lot in the south...


Just because people are eating it, doesn't make it food... 

MedSailor


----------



## chef2sail

aeventyr60 said:


> America, a culinary waste land...


Land of plastic food, processed food, take out food, and Ronald McDonald
Known bet for the hamburger and fries....supersized:laugher


----------



## weinie

chef2sail said:


> Land of plastic food, processed food, take out food, and Ronald McDonald
> Known bet for the hamburger and fries....supersized:laugher


That's coming from someone who suggests the best way of cooking steak is to put in a ziplock bag and throw it into a jacuzzi!:laugher


----------



## chef2sail

Now that's called "sous vide" cooking method at is most creative. That would work for tough meats.


----------



## MedSailor

chef2sail said:


> Now that's called "sous vide" cooking method at is most creative. That would work for tough meats.


I dunno.... I usually see "fatty meats" in the public Jacuzzi. 

Now, off to find the right photo to attach to this post.

MedSailor


----------



## bljones

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MedSailor

bljones said:


> Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!


Search terms inputted: Spandex+cellulite+geriatric+obese+back-boobs+split-seams....

:laugher

MedSailor


----------



## bljones

somehow, i just don't think the "I feel lucky" button applies to that search.


----------



## jephotog

Wow what a crazy journey. I have been too busy to hang out here in a few weeks but helped deliver a sailnetter's boat today and he told me of this thread. I think the first clew something was wrong was the owners need to find crew from on the other side of the country where stories of his incompetence and crew relations had not reached yet. He might have trouble finding future crews. 

My one long offshore race had a bit of craziness and marginally competent crew but nothing along these lines. Enough for me to learn about my captain and crew before heading offshore again.

I am no longer jealous of your Transpac opportunity.

Are there photos of videos yet?


----------



## jephotog

I am not even half way through this thread yet but think it has the makings of an episode of Kitchen Nightmares. It sounds like Gordon Ramsey could have been the cool, calm and collected member on the boat and possibly the most experienced sailor on board.


----------



## jephotog

RD,
Look at it as a learning experience. Now you know how to fly a chute.


----------



## smackdaddy

Well, one thing's for sure. This thread is on track to become one of the most popular ever on SN. That's gotta say something about the nature of the story.


----------



## MedSailor

smackdaddy said:


> Well, one thing's for sure. This thread is on track to become one of the most popular ever on SN. That's gotta say something about the nature of the story.


And nobody's boat sunk. Unusual for a SailNet feeding frenzy to start without blood. 

MedSailor


----------



## ShoalFinder

But perfect fodder for yet another episode of "SailNet Self-Appointed Board of Inquiry"

I read half the posts and imagine the poster in coat with tails and powdered wig


----------



## hellosailor

"powdered whig"
Love it! Isn't that what the cannibals eat when they run out of cruellers and Tories?


----------



## rgscpat

Speaking of Gordon Ramsay, wouldn't Amy of Scottsdale's Amy's Baking Company make a fantastic crew boss for Harry and Jane?


----------



## RTB

smackdaddy said:


> Well, one thing's for sure. This thread is on track to become one of the most popular ever on SN. That's gotta say something about the nature of the story.


Almost as good as a Ronnie Simpson thread. :laugher

I do miss the players here. Are they done? rockDAWG and Jake seem to be on the same page. I doubt that they put much effort into getting their stories straight between themselves before posting. More likely, that's the way it was aboard.

Where are Harry and Jane? No comments?

Too bad the crossing sucked! I can't imagine what an awesome experience it would be to sail to Hawaii under better circumstances! Truly, Paradise as the destination! I've been there.

DAWG, you've got balls to post this one considering the enemies that you have here at SN. Thanks again for the thread. I think many readers learn one or two things from threads like this. Maybe not the chest-thumping "experts". No, they just kick you like you are a stupid dawg! Basically, call you a liar! Pretty sad, really.

Ralph
| sailing away with R & B


----------



## jephotog

rgscpat said:


> Speaking of Gordon Ramsay, wouldn't Amy of Scottsdale's Amy's Baking Company make a fantastic crew boss for Harry and Jane?


RDs description reminded me of that episode. Foreign screaming boss and his screaming clueless spouse.


----------



## GeorgeB

I go away for a week and this thread has degenerated to posting bikini shots of marsupials? Has RD and "Jake" left the building? Too bad, there was still a couple of things I wanted to go over (and none of it mutiny related). I looked up the track on YellowBrick and everything was looking fairly good until the halfway point. The Jeaneau generally positioned herself on the southern edge of the fleet and consistently south of the Rhumb line (the faster boats all were on a more northerly track.) I could see the occasional "bump" in the road where I'm assuming Harry was wraping the kite. In Harry's defense, these "bumps" didn't appear to be nightly or for "long" durations. Looking at the tracks from the other boats using the same scale showed similar "bumps".

Where "Aquarius" took the flyer was at the halfway point. The track shows two gigantic swings to the south, often with headings of 180* true. Both swings looked like close to a day in duration each, (Was "Harry's watch 12 hours long?). For a few days, the boat was all over the place. (and not always heading towards Hawaii). You probably lost a couple of days doing all that gyrating. In what looks to be your last persistent course change to make for Hilo, you were north of the rhumb line and positioned to fetch Oahu which would have been your quickest course to land (albeit, you probably had to sail the boat right on her polars which undoubtedly would have been hard for Harry but equally as hard for the AP.

Let's Go, do you have a track of the trip that shows the days? Perhaps you can upload it along with some notations of what went on and when? I am still fascinated with the notion of no fixed watched schedule. How was this done? You drove the boat until "Harry" came up and relieved you? And Harry drove until a wrap or he decided it was RD's turn?

Smack, we now have to cite our credentials before we are allowed to post? You, of all people are the official screener? What do I need to post in order to qualify? Perhaps not so diplomatic, Sal does offer valuable information on what the conditions are really like out there and how things are done. Sal, are you racing YRA this year? I'm on Azure in the HDA and Party Circuit. What is your ride?

Holding our Trophies from the '08 PacCup









Our Track (12 days - good enough for 2nd place!)


----------



## Grunthrie

And in the blue corner, wearing the aloha shirt, wielding the right fist of reason... GeorgeB!


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, we now have to cite our credentials before we are allowed to post? You, of all people are the official screener? What do I need to post in order to qualify? Perhaps not so diplomatic, Sal does offer valuable information on what the conditions are really like out there and how things are done.


I think it's great if that's what he offers. That's valuable stuff. No argument here.

My riff on Sal was twofold: First, he's so blinded by the "sanctity" of skippership that he goes easy on Harry and focuses his ire on the crew. This is precisely backwards - even if the crew were complete knuckleheads. Second, that particular barb was some leftovers from our polite tete-a-tete at SA. So it might have been a bit out of place here. My apologies.

That said, as for qualifications, if one is going to hold oneself up as "all that" - then yes, he should have the credentials of "all that". I don't care about diplomacy...just reason.


----------



## tomandchris

smackdaddy said:


> Well, one thing's for sure. This thread is on track to become one of the most popular ever on SN. That's gotta say something about the nature of the story.


Well, it does say somethin! The internet is a wonderful thing, unless you actually take it SERIOUS. If number of posts makes it true we have a real problem! The winner is...nobody!


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> I think it's great if that's what he offers. That's valuable stuff. No argument here.
> 
> My riff on Sal was twofold: First, he's so blinded by the "sanctity" of skippership that he goes easy on Harry and focuses his ire on the crew. This is precisely backwards - even if the crew were complete knuckleheads. Second, that particular barb was some leftovers from our polite back-and-forth at SA. So it might have been a bit out of place here. My apologies.
> 
> That said, as for qualifications, if one is going to hold oneself up as "all that" - then yes, he should have the credentials of "all that". I don't care about diplomacy...just reason.


I never hesitated in saying the skipper was over his head. If you were interested in anything but your own agenda, which is focused mainly upon being a dick, you'd admit that.

The simple fact is this: a really good crew can make a dumbass look good. I have proof of that on a certain 40.7. These "gentlemen" didn't know enough about anything to know how to be good crew.

Now please, try having some input without spinning other's words to suit the argument you want to make. You haven't earned the chops to criticize me.


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> I never hesitated in saying the skipper was over his head. If you were interested in anything but your own agenda, which is focused mainly upon being a dick, you'd admit that.
> 
> The simple fact is this: a really good crew can make a dumbass look good. I have proof of that on a certain 40.7. These "gentlemen" didn't know enough about anything to know how to be good crew.
> 
> Now please, try having some input without spinning other's words to suit the argument you want to make. You haven't earned the chops to criticize me.


Oh c'mon dude. You hesitated. Seriously hesitated.

As I've said many times in this thread, and just a couple of posts ago - I agree with your premise of the "sanctity" of being skipper. I just disagree with the way you apply that sanctity. You should have not only not hesitated on this skipper - you should have said plainly what is clear in this story...he blew it, completely, from start to finish. Everything else was secondary to that.

Here's another example of what I mean...let's take your theory that the skipper didn't top off the water tanks because he wanted to save weight and had correctly calculated the water intake for each person aboard (just as you seem to do). Does good skippering mean that he doesn't tell anyone on board about this water rationing he's instituted? Wouldn't it be a good idea to have everyone on the same page about such a critical item (both in terms of racing weight and survival in a contingency situation) so that people don't freak out in the middle of the ocean when they first hear of only being allowed 1.5 liters per day?

Just as really good crew can make a dumbass skipper look good - a great skipper can make mediocre crew rise to the challenge. None of that happened in this story.

I don't need any chops at all to argue the points in this story. But _you_ need them (and a lot more factual info than we have now) to mete out a final judgement that doesn't point at the skipper. That's all I'm saying. No twisting required.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Like I said before, I've DONE these races. I don't have to prove anything to anyone, let alone the rockstar of North Concho Lake in San Angelo, Texas. I related to those of you who HAVEN'T done these races, and who provision with a more cruiser like orientation how WE do things. As I said, neither of us is wrong, but then I was the only person regarded by you hardcore cruisers as "criminally negligent". We play different games.

So Texas ocean racing yachtsman of the millenium, Explain to me the logic of a) fearing that you're going to run out of water; and b) refusing to ration water. Please, I'm waiting. 

And Steve? if I hesitated at anything, it was in calling you an angry, lonely punk.


----------



## Capt.aaron

SalNichols94804 said:


> I never hesitated in saying the skipper was over his head. If you were interested in anything but your own agenda, which is focused mainly upon being a dick, you'd admit that.
> 
> The simple fact is this: a really good crew can make a dumbass look good. I have proof of that on a certain 40.7. These "gentlemen" didn't know enough about anything to know how to be good crew.
> 
> Now please, try having some input without spinning other's words to suit the argument you want to make. You haven't earned the chops to criticize me.


I got one for ya, "Sail boat racers are Dicks." I'm willing to bet I've had more blue water pass under my ass than your whole "Fleet?" I think you a$$holes call your selves. Smack has more cred. to criticize you than any body here if you ask me, and the chops to do it. That post of yours proves my point once again that the racing culture breeds people who should really just go and suck it. But thanks for being that way because I love to hate you guy's.


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> Like I said before, I've DONE these races. I don't have to prove anything to anyone, let alone the rockstar of North Concho Lake in San Angelo, Texas. I related to those of you who HAVEN'T done these races, and who provision with a more cruiser like orientation how WE do things. As I said, neither of us is wrong, but then I was the only person regarded by you hardcore cruisers as "criminally negligent". We play different games.
> 
> *So Texas ocean racing yachtsman of the millenium, Explain to me the logic of a) fearing that you're going to run out of water; and b) refusing to ration water. Please, I'm waiting.*
> 
> And Steve? if I hesitated at anything, it was in calling you an angry, lonely punk.


Okay. Well, on the water thing...here's what was said:



> Jake reminded Harry to top off the water tanks but he left the dock anyway to head to the starting point.


There certainly doesn't seem to be any communication regarding water strategy at the beginning of the race. Just the skipper ignoring a reminder from the crew. This decision then apparently led to this outcome:



> Our water is dangerously low. Jake only given 1.5 L bottle of water to drink each day.


Is 1.5 liters per day enough drinking water for racers in those conditions?

You're right. There's no logic there at all. It's just bad skippering. Yet you've hammered the crew far harder than this skipper who HAS done races. That's the problem.

And BTW, I'm not one hammering the racing mindset. I like to race. So our games are not all that different.


----------



## Geoff54

Capt.aaron said:


> I got one for ya, "Sail boat racers are Dicks." I'm willing to bet I've had more blue water pass under my ass than your whole "Fleet?" I think you a$$holes call your selves. Smack has more cred. to criticize you than any body here if you ask me, and the chops to do it. That post of yours proves my point once again that the racing culture breeds people who should really just go and suck it. But thanks for being that way because I love to hate you guy's.


Come on Aaron, why are you lowering yourself to his level? You are better than that


----------



## ShoalFinder

hellosailor said:


> "powdered whig"
> Love it! Isn't that what the cannibals eat when they run out of cruellers and Tories?


I think it's what they eat when the backstrap and jowels are finished, at any rate!

I had to correct the orginal post because I had written powdered "whig", which I would guess is some sort of donut shaped like George Washington.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Well, Steve has yet to post his cv, so I'm calling ******** on you. (Yes modrators, I used the word ********. Get over it). You don't race, you don't get it, and I personally don't have a problem with that. Why you guys feel obligated to criticize other sailors is beyond me. Hell, after every long ocean race, I'm faced with a bloody cruise home. You don't see me pissing and moaning about you guys, even if you don't bother trimming your damn sails. 

George, After doing deliveries from 2005 to 2012, and racing non stop from 07-12, I'm taking the year off. I'm restoring my Baltic from the beating she took coming across the NorPac last summer. Hey, ask your skipper about the 07 Santa Barbara race. We passed on opposite tacks off of Goleta, laughing at one another, knowing the other guy was screwed sailing into a dying breeze. That was a fun race.


----------



## tdw

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen .....

Sal .... cool it. All your abuse and name calling , hesitant or not, will only cause others to bite back and that is not something we'd like to see. Indeed it could well be your arse that gets the chewing so please, cool it a tadge.

With that in mind ... Smack and Aaron please hold your fire.

cheers 

Andrew B


----------



## Capt.aaron

Geoff54 said:


> Come on Aaron, why are you lowering yourself to his level? You are better than that


Sometimes it's fun to just jump down in the mud puddle and stamp your feet and splash around. After Harry, and some of the other race fiasco's this year and the Italian team running over the kids in Dinghy's, and the excuses from racers I've read on that, coupled with the dicks cutting us off in Miami on the tug, every once in a while I just want to tell these guy's to suck it.


----------



## fryewe

tdw said:


> Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen .....
> 
> Sal .... cool it. All your abuse and name calling , hesitant or not, will only cause others to bite back and that is not something we'd like to see. Indeed it could well be your arse that gets the chewing so please, cool it a tadge.
> 
> With that in mind ... Smack and Aaran please hold your fire.


Awww man...just when I was beginning to get a glimpse of what it takes to be a real honest-to-god ocean sailor. Darn...


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> Okay. Well, on the water thing...here's what was said:
> 
> There certainly doesn't seem to be any communication regarding water strategy at the beginning of the race. Just the skipper ignoring a reminder from the crew. This decision then apparently led to this outcome:
> 
> Is 1.5 liters per day enough drinking water for racers in those conditions?
> 
> You're right. There's no logic there at all. It's just bad skippering. Yet you've hammered the crew far harder than this skipper who HAS done races. That's the problem.
> 
> And BTW, I'm not one hammering the racing mindset. I like to race. So our games are not all that different.


Jesus Christ. They left LA with 18 days of water for what should have been, at most, a 14 day passage. They didn't need to top off the bloody tanks you pedantic twit.

Should H2O have been discussed before leaving the dock? Absolutely. Do you think that Harry had a few things on his mind at the time? Do you think that just maybe either of these two guys might have taken a couple of things off of his punch list? No, in your case probably not. Because in your case, ocean racing isn't a team effort, it's ALL on the skipper, including the behavior of the crew. Just step aboard, sail, and criticize.

Just perfect.


----------



## Capt.aaron

tdw said:


> Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen .....
> 
> Sal .... cool it. All your abuse and name calling , hesitant or not, will only cause others to bite back and that is not something we'd like to see. Indeed it could well be your arse that gets the chewing so please, cool it a tadge.
> 
> With that in mind ... Smack and Aaran please hold your fire.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Andrew B


Roger That, I'm done. 
Nothing but positive posts for while. Not all racers are pricks. etc. etc...


----------



## Capt.aaron

SalNichols94804 said:


> Jesus Christ. They left LA with 18 days of water for what should have been, at most, a 14 day passage. They didn't need to top off the bloody tanks you pedantic twit.
> 
> Should H2O have been discussed before leaving the dock? Absolutely. Do you think that Harry had a few things on his mind at the time? Do you think that just maybe either of these two guys might have taken a couple of things off of his punch list? No, in your case probably not. Because in your case, ocean racing isn't a team effort, it's ALL on the skipper, including the behavior of the crew. Just step aboard, sail, and criticize.
> 
> Just perfect.


Just one more......this guy epitomizes every thing I've every posted about racers.


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> Well, Steve has yet to post his cv, so I'm calling ******** on you. (Yes modrators, I used the word ********. Get over it). You don't race, you don't get it, and I personally don't have a problem with that. *Why you guys feel obligated to criticize other sailors is beyond me. *


Boy, ain't that the truth.

Here's my CV:

-Learned to sail on a day charter in 2008 on a lake in Texas
-Bought into a C27 on that same lake and sailed a lot and had a lot of fun
-In 2010 crewed my first off-shore race, the "Race to The Border", 300 miles from Galveston to South Padre. We DNF'd, along with most of our division, due to literally no wind on day two, which put us all over the finish time.
-Crewed the return delivery on that same 300 mile route.
-In 2011 crewed the "Harvest Moon Regatta", a 150 mile race, on a different boat. There were 186 total boats in that race. We took 6th in our division.
-I crewed the return on that same 150 mile route - assigned watch captain by the skipper.
-In 2012 I crewed the HYC Offshore Regatta, a 75 mile race, on that same boat. We were 3rd over the line. I again served as watch captain (I'm pretty proud of that).
-I also crewed that same return, which was a pursuit race with a staggered start based on PHRF. We were in a cruising boat and were 3rd over the line (first in our division)..in a fleet of J's, Benes, and even a Mac65. We did okay with sail trim.
-Last fall I crewed the delivery of this same boat after the Harvest Moon Regatta - which I was unable to join due to work.

So, true, that's only a total of around 1200 miles of off-shore work. But it's a start.

Oh, and we had a _great_ skipper...and enough water.

PS - I plan to do the next Harvest Moon Regatta in our new boat.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Capt.aaron said:


> Just one more......this guy epitomizes every thing I've every posted about racers.


Really? Just what in that post did I say that got your knickers in a bunch?


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> Boy, ain't that the truth.
> 
> Here's my CV:
> 
> -Learned to sail on a day charter in 2008 on a lake in Texas
> -Bought into a C27 on that same lake and sailed a lot and had a lot of fun
> -In 2010 crewed my first off-shore race, the "Race to The Border", 300 miles from Galveston to South Padre. We DNF'd, along with most of our division, due to literally no wind on day two, which put us all over the finish time.
> -Crewed the return delivery on that same 300 mile route.
> -In 2011 crewed the "Harvest Moon Regatta", a 150 mile race, on a different boat. There were 186 total boats in that race. We took 3rd in our division.
> -I crewed the return on that same 150 mile route - assigned watch captain by the skipper.
> -In 2012 I crewed the HYC Offshore Regatta, a 75 mile race, on that same boat. We were 3rd over the line and won our division. I again served as watch captain (I'm pretty proud of that).
> -I also crewed that same return, which was an open race with a staggered start based on PHRF. We were in a Pearson 365 Ketch - and were 3rd over the line..in a fleet of J's, Benes, and even a Mac65. We did okay with sail trim.
> -Last fall I crewed the deliver of this same boat after the Harvest Moon Regatta - which I was unable to join due to work.
> 
> So, true, that's only a total of around 1200 miles of off-shore work. But it's a start.
> 
> Oh, and we had a _great_ skipper.


That's great man, keep up the good work. Pity about the lack of breeze.


----------



## tdw

SalNichols94804 said:


> (Don't need to get over it Mush ... for I , megalomaniacal weasel butt that I is have control of the edit button * - blowing hugs and kisses, tdw) You don't race, you don't get it, and I personally don't have a problem with that. Why you guys feel obligated to criticize other sailors is beyond me. Hell, after every long ocean race, I'm faced with a bloody cruise home. You don't see me pissing and moaning about you guys, even if you don't bother trimming your damn sails.
> 
> George, After doing deliveries from 2005 to 2012, and racing non stop from 07-12, I'm taking the year off. I'm restoring my Baltic from the beating she took coming across the NorPac last summer. Hey, ask your skipper about the 07 Santa Barbara race. We passed on opposite tacks off of Goleta, laughing at one another, knowing the other guy was screwed sailing into a dying breeze. That was a fun race.


* control of the ban stick too .....


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> That's great man, keep up the good work. Pity about the lack of breeze.


Thanks bro. I will.

And yeah, nothing worse than flapping sails for almost 24 hours straight.


----------



## Capt.aaron

SalNichols94804 said:


> Really? Just what in that post did I say that got your knickers in a bunch?


Oh my knickers are in good comfy shape. I think it was one of your first posts on this thread defending harry that made me say,"here we go again" another typical racing douche talking stupid sh!t. The very base of where you guy's make your decisions, the very reason you are out there is to me pretty silly, so every thing you say is as well. When I load a boat up with provisions, I double up. 7 day's equals 14 of water etc. I'm an active merchant marine highly and constantly trained in safety at sea. I also single hand my personal boat on fairly decently long off shore passages. I live by the word of a 1600 master of tow who is my captain, and I've been skippering deliveries for over 20 years. I know what quality's a good captain needs to have. And I would expect my crew to mutiny if I was as poor as harry at it......most racers I've seen are pretty much dicks.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

smackdaddy said:


> over the finish time.
> -In 2011 crewed the "Harvest Moon Regatta", a 150 mile race, on a different boat. There were 186 total boats in that race. We took 3rd in our division.


See, you were carrying too much water, you.....you....hang on, I gotta scroll up.......you "pedantic twit" :laugher


----------



## smackdaddy

poopdeckpappy said:


> See, you were carrying too much water, you.....you....hang on, I gotta scroll up.......you "pedantic twit" :laugher


Heh-heh. That was it! The damn water!

On that subject, Sal, where in the story do you come up with 18 days' worth of water? I don't see that stated anywhere.

Signed,

LonelyPunk15


----------



## SalNichols94804

Capt.aaron said:


> Oh my knickers are in good comfy shape. I think it was one of your first posts on this thread defending harry that made me say,"here we go again" another typical racing douche talking stupid sh!t. The very base of where you guy's make your decisions, the very reason you are out there is to me pretty silly, so every thing you say is as well. When I load a boat up with provisions, I double up. 7 day's equals 14 of water etc. I'm an active merchant marine highly and constantly trained in safety at sea. I also single hand my personal boat on fairly decently long off shore passages. I live by the word of a 1600 master of tow who is my captain, and I've been skippering deliveries for over 20 years. I know what quality's a good captain needs to have. And I would expect my crew to mutiny if I was as poor as harry at it......most racers I've seen are pretty much dicks.


Sir, when you're short/singlehanding, you can get away with doubling up. I had 5 people aboard for 13 days. I literally could not have fit 26 days of water on board without my rails being awash.

If you go back and read my posts, I never defended Harry. I have defended the position of Captain. I would respect that crewing for you even if I didn't agree with you. What I haven't done is defend or condone the behavior of rd and jake. That, I just cannot do.


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. That was it! The damn water!
> 
> On that subject, Sal, where in the story do you come up with 18 days' worth of water? I don't see that stated anywhere.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> LonelyPunk15


It's buried in one of jakes few posts, after someone asks him if his fear was largely manufactured because he just didn't know what he didn't know.


----------



## SlowButSteady

tdw said:


> Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen .....


You have obviously confused the denizens of SailNet with some other group.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Really, this entire story hinges upon the rationing of water at sea. I don't have a water maker, so rationing began when we untied the lines. No one was ever thirsty, everyone was healthy, and we made landfall with four days of water on board. 

I'll ask you guys who have made long passages w/o watermakers: do you ave a consumption plan, or do you just use it until you run out and die? IMHO, rationing of water is a fact of life at sea. I could never understand the circular logic of "we're going to run out of water, so I don't want to ration water", which in effect is what the last 70 pages has been about.


----------



## Capt.aaron

SalNichols94804 said:


> Sir, when you're short/singlehanding, you can get away with doubling up. I had 5 people aboard for 13 days. I literally could not have fit 26 days of water on board without my rails being awash.
> 
> If you go back and read my posts, I never defended Harry. I have defended the position of Captain. I would respect that crewing for you even if I didn't agree with you. What I haven't done is defend or condone the behavior of rd and jake. That, I just cannot do.


Yeah, but there is a point where harry should have been hog tied, Jane as well. Those people were out of their friken minds. I, nor, any of us would of set foot on that boat. But, if I were there, harry would of been tied up and spoon fed 'till we arrived. The CG would of been notified of my actions and I'd challenge them in court with my head held high. These little racing games you guy's play do not give the skipper complete power, and as we know complete power can corrupt completely.


----------



## Capt.aaron

SalNichols94804 said:


> Really, this entire story hinges upon the rationing of water at sea. I don't have a water maker, so rationing began when we untied the lines. No one was ever thirsty, everyone was healthy, and we made landfall with four days of water on board.
> 
> I'll ask you guys who have made long passages w/o watermakers: do you ave a consumption plan, or do you just use it until you run out and die? IMHO, rationing of water is a fact of life at sea. I could never understand the circular logic of "we're going to run out of water, so I don't want to ration water", which in effect is what the last 70 pages has been about.


My 28 footer has one 65 gal tank, one 50 gal tank I have 4 6 gal jerry cans and I bring about 8 cases of bottled water. and i have a hand pump de sal for emergency. It's all about water. and I stow nothing and I mean nothing above the water line.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Capt.aaron said:


> Yeah, but there is a point where harry should have been hog tied, Jane as well. Those people were out of their friken minds. I, nor, any of us would of set foot on that boat. But, if I were there, harry would of been tied up and spoon fed 'till we arrived. The CG would of been notified of my actions and I'd challenge them in court with my head held high. These little racing games you guy's play do not give the skipper complete power, and as we know complete power can corrupt completely.


You know as well as I that those decisions should have been made before the lines were cast. You're a professional seaman, once you step aboard you'd do what I would: everything you could to get that passage ended safely and quickly. I also suspect that as a professional seaman you're more than capable of managing difficult situations without resorting to zip ties and duct tape.

But I know you've been tempted, right? Tell me if you'd ever work again if you used RD's tactics on one of your ships with a captain that was disagreeable.

Be honest now.


----------



## Capt.aaron

SalNichols94804 said:


> You know as well as I that those decisions should have been made before the lines were cast. You're a professional seaman, once you step aboard you'd do what I would: everything you could to get that passage ended safely and quickly. I also suspect that as a professional seaman you're more than capable of managing difficult situations without resorting to zip ties and duct tape.
> 
> But I know you've been tempted, right? Tell me if you'd ever work again if you used RD's tactics on one of your ships with a captain that was disagreeable.
> 
> Be honest now.


If harry was as nuts, and jane as well, as RD say's. I could probably take legal control of the ship. Chances are their insanity was greatly exaggerated, but, if they were as nuts as I've been led to imagine, than ya, I would work again if I zip tied 'em. I can tell story's of captains being poisoned with visine till they where deathly ill. I know of crazy captains disapearing completely. And also sabotaged. We can make captains go from hero to zero in a hurry and we are treated with trepidation because of that. I joke with my captain that if he pisses me off I'll just put some cocaine or oxy in his coffee and demand a piss test because i think he is impaired. I would most def. have taken charge of that boat with a stern scolding and pure intimidation.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Capt.aaron said:


> My 28 footer has one 65 gal tank, one 50 gal tank I have 4 6 gal jerry cans and I bring about 8 cases of bottled water. and i have a hand pump de sal for emergency. It's all about water. and I stow nothing and I mean nothing above the water line.


Ok, I have 1 34 gallon tank, and I installed 2 26 gallon bladders, all on the starboard side. No room for Jerry's, and no room for all of the bottled water or trash that it creates.

We did have a pur survivor on board.

It's just a different mindset. We have to carry two anchors with 200' of rode, 1/2 b/l of chain. You won't find either of them in the anchor locker. They're stashed below by the mast. Weight is minimized. We give the crew a med size sea bag and tell them, if it doesn't fit, it doesn't go. We give ourselves 3-4 days margin on water, and we ration from day 1. We eat great for the first 7 days, then live on fish or sandwiches. We never hit the dehydrated food.

You might not have an appreciation for it, but in reality it isn't that different from what you do for a living. You're not exactly jerking off between ports of call now are you?


----------



## SalNichols94804

Capt.aaron said:


> If harry was as nuts, and jane as well, as RD say's. I could probably take legal control of the ship. Chances are their insanity was greatly exaggerated, but, if they were as nuts as I've been led to imagine, than ya, I would work again if I zip tied 'em. I can tell story's of captains being poisoned with visine till they where deathly ill. I know of crazy captains disapearing completely. And also sabotaged. We can make captains go from hero to zero in a hurry and we are treated with trepidation because of that. I joke with my captain that if he pisses me off I'll just put some cocaine or oxy in his coffee and demand a piss test because i think he is impaired. I would most def. have taken charge of that boat with a stern scolding and pure intimidation.


Well now, that's good to know.


----------



## Capt.aaron

SalNichols94804 said:


> Ok, I have 1 34 gallon tank, and I installed 2 26 gallon bladders, all on the starboard side. No room for Jerry's, and no room for all of the bottled water or trash that it creates.
> 
> We did have a pur survivor on board.
> 
> It's just a different mindset. We have to carry two anchors with 200' of rode, 1/2 b/l of chain. You won't find either of them in the anchor locker. They're stashed below by the mast. Weight is minimized. We give the crew a med size sea bag and tell them, if it doesn't fit, it doesn't go. We give ourselves 3-4 days margin on water, and we ration from day 1. We eat great for the first 7 days, then live on fish or sandwiches. We never hit the dehydrated food.
> 
> You might not have an appreciation for it, but in reality it isn't that different from what you do for a living. You're not exactly jerking off between ports of call now are you?


In all honesty, I have some appreciation for some of it. And a lot of disdain for the rest. But I'm a paradox. I have no engine so no diesel, which gives me room for more water. I carry almost no crap, so i have room for great food and lots of water. I bath in salt water and rinse with fresh etc. On the tug we carry stupid amounts of water, 24,000 gallons of fuel and freezers full of steak and bacon. we wash clothes and take long hot showers. My personal boat is after all an old racer. I would'nt be caught dead on one of today's crewed racing boats.


----------



## CalebD

Time again for me to remind you skippers drinking at the bar that this boat got a "dnf".
They never crossed a finish line.
Who gives a sh!t who behaved badly. What are you all, a bunch of forensic sailors?

I will admit though that I found some of Sal's comments on how "scantily" ocean racers might provision their boats informing. 

Learning about Jacuzzi cooked steak has just been a bonus.

Sweet Baby Cheeses.


----------



## Classic30

CalebD said:


> I will admit though that I found some of Sal's comments on how "scantily" ocean racers might provision their boats informing.


All of the ocean racers I've been associated with have been equipped completely differently, but one thing they did have in common is that all were, basically, giant sail lockers down below ie. no 'crew comforts' whatsoever.

Unnecessary bulkheads, bunks and fancy trimmings all gone. The only seat in the boat is attached to the chart table - for everyone else, if you want to sit down, go on deck. Most still had a head.. but there was always a bucket. The most comfortable berth on the boat was amongst the sails - but don't let the sailing master find you there or you'll get your butt kicked!


----------



## shadowraiths

smackdaddy said:


> On that subject, Sal, where in the story do you come up with 18 days' worth of water? I don't see that stated anywhere.


I'm not Sal but...



LetsGo said:


> we had enough water to last us maybe 18 days.


Btw, and aside, here is a perfect example inconsistency from their stories.



rockDAWG said:


> Jake reminded Harry to top off the water tanks but he left the dock anyway to head to the starting point.





LetsGo said:


> what with the underfilled tank (that had been Harry's responsibility to fill, and that we only found out when we were well underway he hadn't filled)


Regardless, based upon what these two wrote, the water bit sounds more like a folie à deux on the high seas.


----------



## Minnewaska

SalNichols94804 said:


> ....If you were interested in anything but your own agenda, which is focused mainly upon being a dick........
> 
> .......You haven't earned the chops to criticize me.


Text book definition of tu quoque.


----------



## Capt.aaron

CalebD said:


> Time again for me to remind you skippers drinking at the bar that this boat got a "dnf".
> They never crossed a finish line.
> Who gives a sh!t who behaved badly. What are you all, a bunch of forensic sailors?
> 
> I will admit though that I found some of Sal's comments on how "scantily" ocean racers might provision their boats informing.
> 
> Learning about Jacuzzi cooked steak has just been a bonus.
> 
> Sweet Baby Cheeses.


The whole point for me has never been about the finish line but only about who behaved how. Once you are at sea, as we all know, it doesn't matter WHY you are out there it's THAT you are out there that trumps everything else. Acting accordingly is what gets you home. The crazy behavior of harry and jane, if it was even close to accurate, would needed to have been dealt with. Attitude and anger out there can cause serious injury or death. 
A jacuzzi cooked steak and some sweet baby cheese served on a bed sprouts on day 14 can sometimes be exactly what a crew needs for moral.
I love those little sweet baby cheeses, the ones that come in the little wax wrapper...


----------



## Slayer

shadowraiths said:


> Btw, and aside, here is a perfect example inconsistency from their stories.
> 
> Regardless, based upon what these two wrote, the water bit sounds more like a folie à deux on the high seas.


There is no inconsistency here. Jake could have reminded Harry to top off the water tanks, assumed it was done, then didn't learn of the failure to do so until they were at sea. But beyond that, I am a trial lawyer and if two people write out a truthful account of an incident, I can pick it apart like you did and make it look like they are lying. Not because they are lying, but because both memory and communication are not perfect. (The quotes within the quotes above didn't show up, so you'll have to go back to the original post to see what I'm talkin about)


----------



## smackdaddy

Slayer said:


> There is no inconsistency here. Jake could have reminded Harry to top off the water tanks, assumed it was done, then didn't learn of the failure to do so until they were at sea. But beyond that, I am a trial lawyer and if two people write out a truthful account of an incident, I can pick it apart like you did and make it look like they are lying. Not because they are lying, but because both memory and communication are not perfect. (The quotes within the quotes above didn't show up, so you'll have to go back to the original post to see what I'm talkin about)


Absolutely right.

Furthermore, taking the line of reasoning that there was, in fact, 18 days of water (i.e. - "they didn't need to top off") the question now becomes why the skipper is only allowing a dangerously sparse 1.5 liters per day to the crew? This isn't rationing - this is punitive withholding. Again, any way you want to slice it, it comes back to the skipper doing an extremely poor job running that boat. Everything else is a reaction to that fact.


----------



## wavedancer38

Yawn......


----------



## ShoalFinder

I'm still at a loss that people are still talking about what ocean racers do in this context. 

Let's review this "racing crew" shall we?

A late-middle aged restauranteur and his wife who can't sail, two guys they met about ten minutes before the race, and a geriatric patient.

Any talk about racing tactics used by trained, experienced racing crew, who know the deal and are prepared for very bad things to happen should the plan fail, has absolutely no validity in this scenario. None.


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> Absolutely right.
> 
> Furthermore, taking the line of reasoning that there was, in fact, 18 days of water (i.e. - "they didn't need to top off") the question now becomes why the skipper is only allowing a dangerously sparse 1.5 liters per day to the crew? This isn't rationing - this is punitive withholding. Again, any way you want to slice it, it comes back to the skipper doing an extremely poor job running that boat. Everything else is a reaction to that fact.


According to RD, the 1.5l/day rationing doesn't happen until Day 11 or 12. Once again I ask: why would you not agree to ration if your water supplies were "dangerously low" as described?


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> According to RD, the 1.5l/day rationing doesn't happen until Day 11 or 12. Once again I ask: why would you not agree to ration if your water supplies were "dangerously low" as described?


I would agree if that were the case. But obviously there are some real discrepancies in all this wouldn't you say?

On the one hand, you say that LetsGo's estimated 18 days' of water should be plenty. On the other, severe rationing is instituted by the skipper on Day 11 or 12. Why? What happened to a week's worth of water?

Did the skipper and his lady take long hot showers together? Or was it RDawg and LetsGo, assuming that the skipper did what he was supposed to do? Or did the old lady feed the elusive Pacific manatees sweet water along the way? Or was there actually plenty of water aboard and the skipper and his lady were just being jerks? Or was LetsGo's estimate off? From what I've seen, the bottom line is _we don't know. _

One of your assumptions has been that the crew needlessly freaked out about the water situation. Yet the skipper, who ignored the reminder to fill the tanks in the first place, institutes the rationing. So unless we have some evidence that the crew is needlessly "wasting" all the water, creating the problem in the first place (which I don't think we do), that argument is a red herring. As I said, whether it's an actual survival situation, or simply punitive withholding, it's clearly the skipper's screw up.

On a more general note, I do have one honest question for you and other racing skippers/owners though... If I, as a new crew member, come on your boat just before the race and start opening inspection ports on tanks, pulling stuff out of lockers and the lazarette to go through your safety gear, etc., all to see if I, the crew member, agree with how you, the skipper, have set things up - do you just look on with pride that I've taken the initiative for my own safety?


----------



## SlowButSteady

It's pretty apparent that this thread has played itself out. 

Time to get back to bickering about anchors, stove fuels, and keel designs.


----------



## Geoff54

SlowButSteady said:


> I
> Time to get back to bickering about anchors, stove fuels, and keel designs.


You forgot guns, keeping watch while single handing, avoiding paying taxes on your boat, derelict boats and probably a few that I've forgotten


----------



## outbound

Smack I've stopped racing years ago and have very limited experience but part of my pre race was to show all the crew where all the safety equipment was and review the major systems.knowing where the thru hulls , how to check fresh water volume when the bilge was full and stuff like that . Seemed like a good idea then and probably current racing skippers feel the same. Would think if I got on a boat and did that because skipper did not do a run through first and skipper was offended I would hope I would have enough sense to pick up my sea bag and leave.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack I've stopped racing years ago and have very limited experience but part of my pre race was to show all the crew where all the safety equipment was and review the major systems.knowing where the thru hulls , how to check fresh water volume when the bilge was full and stuff like that . Seemed like a good idea then and probably current racing skippers feel the same. Would think if I got on a boat and did that because skipper did not do a run through first and skipper was offended I would hope I would have enough sense to pick up my sea bag and leave.


I totally agree. The skippers of the boats I've raced on did just that - take us crew through everything very thoroughly in the shakedown sails before the races. That's good skippering.

The reason I bring this up is that a few have criticized these guys for not going through all this stuff on their own - trusting that the skipper had done his job. On the one hand, they're right. It's your life and your responsibility.

On the other hand, I can pretty much guarantee that there are plenty of very good, experienced skippers, who may not have taken the time to do what you lay out above prior to the race, who would definitely be offended if you, the new crew, started tearing things apart for your stamp of approval.

It's just a much more difficult call than many want to conclude.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Smack I've stopped racing years ago and have very limited experience but part of my pre race was to show all the crew where all the safety equipment was and review the major systems.knowing where the thru hulls , how to check fresh water volume when the bilge was full and stuff like that . Seemed like a good idea then and probably current racing skippers feel the same. Would think if I got on a boat and did that because skipper did not do a run through first and skipper was offended I would hope I would have enough sense to pick up my sea bag and leave.


Yup, once again we are reminded how astoundingly poor was the organization and preparation aboard AQUARIUS for this race...

Last 2 races I did to Bermuda, and Montego Bay, every member of the crew received - at least one month prior to departure - a detailed schematic diagram of the boat with the location of every thru-hull, every conceivable bit of safety gear, tool, medical supplies, you name it... And, another one of the deck layout, indicating the run of every halyard, sheet, running back, etc... Plus, even a Raymarine quick reference guide for the sailing instruments, and CP/Radar... Then, when the crew arrived, each was presented with laminated sheets of the same, to stow with their personal gear... And all this, despite the fact all but 1 or 2 had sailed aboard the boat previously, and were already well acquainted with her...

NO detail was overlooked, the preparation and forethought was meticulous... And the result was a happy, confident crew, with trust and respect for the watch captains and owner, especially from crewmembers with even greater experience than the captain...

It's really not all that difficult, to get this sort of stuff right...


----------



## blowinstink

JonEisberg said:


> Last 2 races I did to Bermuda, and Montego Bay, every member of the crew received - at least one month prior to departure - a detailed schematic diagram of the boat with the location of every thru-hull, every conceivable bit of safety gear, tool, medical supplies, you name it... And, another one of the deck layout, indicating the run of every halyard, sheet, running back, etc... Plus, even a Raymarine quick reference guide for the sailing instruments, and CP/Radar... Then, when the crew arrived, each was presented with laminated sheets of the same, to stow with their personal gear...
> 
> NO detail was overlooked, the preparation and forethought was meticulous... And the result was a happy, confident crew, with trust and respect for the watch captains and owner, especially from crewmembers with even greater experience than the captain...
> 
> It's really not all that difficult, to get this sort of stuff right...


That's cool Jon. I'm not a racer but that sounds like a pretty good plan for a cruising boat as well. I'd love to see a separate thread about that and how different captains handle distributing that info.


----------



## casey1999

For those of you that put some much weight on the experience people have as to how they will perform, take a guess as to who this Captain is:

From Wikipedia:

Early career Following college, on June 10, 1968 he was hired as a Third Mate by a **** Company, which later **** Shipping Company.[4] His first ship was **** based in Wilmington, North Carolina.[1] The Capt climbed the ranks of the merchant marine until he obtained a master's license at age 31. By age 32, he was the youngest captain working for ***** when he took command of *** Philadelphia, in 1978. In 1985 he was master of ***** Chester when the asphalt carrier ran into a storm during its New York to South Carolina trip. High winds damaged the ship's mast including radar and radio communications antennas. Though the crew was prepared to abandon ship, the Capt rallied them and guided the ship to safety.[1] In 1987, he became the alternate master of ****** which subsequently received ******** Fleet safety awards for the year of 1987 and 1988.[5][6]

This shows that as Capt, you are only as good as your last voyage, no matter how much experience you have, same goes for pilots. Hats off to those folks.


----------



## happy_sailor

Ok so after reading the vast majority of the 76 pages of posts here's my two cents.

Obviously you can't lay all the blame on one person. 99% of the time in life that's just not how things work. Therefore everyone has to get some part of the blame.

I think most of the blame belongs to the captain. Obviously he was very ill-prepared and not ready for this race. If you believe even part of the posts from RD and Jake you can see that, as well as the posts from the local sailors who decided not to race with him. Not being able to sail with the chute up is a serious issue on a mostly downwind race. Obviously he had MAJOR communication and interpersonal issues and couldnt' control his temper. So clearly he shouldn't have entered the race in the first place.

As for RD, i don't think he should've agreed to crew on a boat with an owner he hadn't met before. This past summer I started sailing seriously with a program in the detroit area who found me via a crew board. I then met the owner at a yacht club work day and I agreed to sail with him for the season. After our first 3 day event, I asked if he needed help for the Port Huron-Mac race, and he said I'd be welcome. I didn't want to ask him that until I had sailed with him and his crew and knew what his racing philosophy was like, and I'm sure he didn't want to offer that to me until he knew my skills and personality. I think it's very rash and irresponsible to sail on a much longer race with a crew you didn't know. 

Also, I think that even if you were signed up as navigator, you clearly didn't have the experience for that job. If you're going to be in charge of the navigation of the boat, and be partially responsible for where that boat goes, you need to know how EVERYTHING works on board the boat. It's completely ludicrous to expect that on a 5 person crew with an 86 y/o woman on board that you wouldn't be expected to go on the foredeck and handle problems. If the problems came all the time, then it was perfectly reasonable to talk to Harry about it and try to correct the issues. But going on the foredeck at night in 17 knot winds is part of the job. HTFU.

Sorry for the post, I'm sure everything I've said has been said before, I just want to get it off my chest, and writing it down helps me think it through more clearly.

RD and Jake, I'm very sorry for your awful experience on what should've been an awesome race, I hope this doesn't discourage you, but I would also caution you about doing something this rash again. Get to know good sailors, build your resume, develop a reputation and then start getting on some good programs. That's the best way to have good racing experiences. Also, seriously, HTFU.


----------



## Slayer

casey1999 said:


> For those of you that put some much weight on the experience people have as to how they will perform, take a guess as to who this Captain is:
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> Early career Following college, on June 10, 1968 he was hired as a Third Mate by a **** Company, which later **** Shipping Company.[4] His first ship was **** based in Wilmington, North Carolina.[1] The Capt climbed the ranks of the merchant marine until he obtained a master's license at age 31. By age 32, he was the youngest captain working for ***** when he took command of *** Philadelphia, in 1978. In 1985 he was master of ***** Chester when the asphalt carrier ran into a storm during its New York to South Carolina trip. High winds damaged the ship's mast including radar and radio communications antennas. Though the crew was prepared to abandon ship, the Capt rallied them and guided the ship to safety.[1] In 1987, he became the alternate master of ****** which subsequently received ******** Fleet safety awards for the year of 1987 and 1988.[5][6]
> 
> This shows that as Capt, you are only as good as your last voyage, no matter how much experience you have, same goes for pilots. Hats off to those folks.


Joseph Hazlewood?? Just a wild guess.


----------



## casey1999

Slayer said:


> Joseph Hazlewood?? Just a wild guess.


Your the winner....
Congrads


----------



## SalNichols94804

smackdaddy said:


> I would agree if that were the case. But obviously there are some real discrepancies in all this wouldn't you say?
> 
> On the one hand, you say that LetsGo's estimated 18 days' of water should be plenty. On the other, severe rationing is instituted by the skipper on Day 11 or 12. Why? What happened to a week's worth of water?
> 
> Did the skipper and his lady take long hot showers together? Or was it RDawg and LetsGo, assuming that the skipper did what he was supposed to do? Or did the old lady feed the elusive Pacific manatees sweet water along the way? Or was there actually plenty of water aboard and the skipper and his lady were just being jerks? Or was LetsGo's estimate off? From what I've seen, the bottom line is _we don't know. _
> 
> One of your assumptions has been that the crew needlessly freaked out about the water situation. Yet the skipper, who ignored the reminder to fill the tanks in the first place, institutes the rationing. So unless we have some evidence that the crew is needlessly "wasting" all the water, creating the problem in the first place (which I don't think we do), that argument is a red herring. As I said, whether it's an actual survival situation, or simply punitive withholding, it's clearly the skipper's screw up.
> 
> On a more general note, I do have one honest question for you and other racing skippers/owners though... If I, as a new crew member, come on your boat just before the race and start opening inspection ports on tanks, pulling stuff out of lockers and the lazarette to go through your safety gear, etc., all to see if I, the crew member, agree with how you, the skipper, have set things up - do you just look on with pride that I've taken the initiative for my own safety?


Who said that anything happened to a weeks worth of water? It "appears" that they began rationing when they had a weeks worth of water remaining, and about 9-10 days of sailing to make Honolulu. You're not suggesting that stretching your water supply should begin when you're dry are you? Your logic seems rather confounding.


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, you gotta put the water thing into proper perspective. Mariners have been running low on water since before Columbus' time. Yes, perhaps they left without topping off a tank, they also could have easily suffered a leak in a tank or line (sound familiar?), they could have had a stuck valve, cycling pump, sea water contamination, or even over usage (that is my guess). All we know is these guys were down at the halfway mark. What really counts is how they handled the adversity. It seems that only the boat owners were concerned with rationing and RD/ "Jake's" only solution was to sail "faster" (isn't that the whole point in racing anyway?) and not to conserve water.

One of my Dad's stories was how the desalinators on his can in WWII couldn't keep up with the boiler needs when they were screening for TF58. The Captain ordered the fresh water be TURNED OFF to the crew (except for meal times) and divert all available water to the boilers. A couple of crew who were caught sneaking water from an unguarded bib were brought to Captain's Mast, confined, and subsequently reduced in rank and pay.

Smack, can you use your computer skills in reproducing for us the track's from Yellow Brick? (link below) You might find the track very interesting. You can see that they were pretty much always below the rhumb line and pretty much the southernmost boat in their division. You can see pretty graphically that the wheels fell off at the halfway point. I suspect that this is about the time when reality and fatigue set in for the crew resulting in a series of really poor decisions being made. They probably lost a day here in their bickering and inability to set a single course. When they did their final course change to fetch Hilo, they were closer to Honolulu, albeit, the AP most likely couldn't hold the deep wind angles required. Knowing that Tropical Storm Flossie was bearing down on the main island, why would they go there (impaired judgment from lack of experience?) Also, with water running short, wouldn't you want to stay in the shipping lane if you needed help. Heck, RIMPAC is going on at that time and you can't swing a cat without hitting a warship when you are within 500 nm of Pearl.

I'm not sure I would want to have a crew onboard, who didn't personally familiarize themselves with everything on the boat. The last few days before a race or crossing are usually very hectic and things can be overlooked on even a well-run boat. That is why crew need to check and re-check everything. RD & Jake's experience level was showing when they didn't see the warning signs when they first stepped on the boat, and then not checking and helping get the boat ready for sea. Don't get me wrong, "Harry" appeared to have made plenty of mistakes himself, but as he hasn't responded to this thread so we can only speculate )and spin any scenario that suits our personal bias).

Transpac 2013 PUBLIC - Powered by Yellowbrick Tracking


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, you gotta put the water thing into proper perspective. Mariners have been running low on water since before Columbus' time. Yes, perhaps they left without topping off a tank, they also could have easily suffered a leak in a tank or line (sound familiar?), they could have had a stuck valve, cycling pump, sea water contamination, or even over usage (that is my guess). All we know is these guys were down at the halfway mark. What really counts is how they handled the adversity. It seems that only the boat owners were concerned with rationing and RD/ "Jake's" only solution was to sail "faster" (isn't that the whole point in racing anyway?) and not to conserve water.


I'm with you GB. And, yes, the water leak sounds very familiar! Maybe that's why I'm so interested in this whole water thing.

As you point out, the problem is we don't really know what the deal was. We only know that the skipper made a decision to forego taking on more water at the start, then "selectively" rationed it at a dangerously low level midway through the race. I'd love to know more details about this. Because I agree with The Sal-inator that everything in this story turns on this issue.

I'll see if I can figure out the YB thing.


----------



## smackdaddy

GB - you're right about things getting crazy right in the middle (purple)...Alaska...no Tahiti...no Alaska....no Tahiti...


----------



## Cruisingdad

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, you gotta put the water thing into proper perspective. Mariners have been running low on water since before Columbus' time. Yes, perhaps they left without topping off a tank, they also could have easily suffered a leak in a tank or line (sound familiar?), they could have had a stuck valve, cycling pump, sea water contamination, or even over usage (that is my guess). All we know is these guys were down at the halfway mark. What really counts is how they handled the adversity. It seems that only the boat owners were concerned with rationing and RD/ "Jake's" only solution was to sail "faster" (isn't that the whole point in racing anyway?) and not to conserve water.
> 
> One of my Dad's stories was how the desalinators on his can in WWII couldn't keep up with the boiler needs when they were screening for TF58. The Captain ordered the fresh water be TURNED OFF to the crew (except for meal times) and divert all available water to the boilers. A couple of crew who were caught sneaking water from an unguarded bib were brought to Captain's Mast, confined, and subsequently reduced in rank and pay.
> 
> Smack, can you use your computer skills in reproducing for us the track's from Yellow Brick? (link below) You might find the track very interesting. You can see that they were pretty much always below the rhumb line and pretty much the southernmost boat in their division. You can see pretty graphically that the wheels fell off at the halfway point. I suspect that this is about the time when reality and fatigue set in for the crew resulting in a series of really poor decisions being made. They probably lost a day here in their bickering and inability to set a single course. When they did their final course change to fetch Hilo, they were closer to Honolulu, albeit, the AP most likely couldn't hold the deep wind angles required. Knowing that Tropical Storm Flossie was bearing down on the main island, why would they go there (impaired judgment from lack of experience?) Also, with water running short, wouldn't you want to stay in the shipping lane if you needed help. Heck, RIMPAC is going on at that time and you can't swing a cat without hitting a warship when you are within 500 nm of Pearl.
> 
> I'm not sure I would want to have a crew onboard, who didn't personally familiarize themselves with everything on the boat. The last few days before a race or crossing are usually very hectic and things can be overlooked on even a well-run boat. That is why crew need to check and re-check everything. RD & Jake's experience level was showing when they didn't see the warning signs when they first stepped on the boat, and then not checking and helping get the boat ready for sea. Don't get me wrong, "Harry" appeared to have made plenty of mistakes himself, but as he hasn't responded to this thread so we can only speculate )and spin any scenario that suits our personal bias).
> 
> Transpac 2013 PUBLIC - Powered by Yellowbrick Tracking


George...

Here is where you and I disagree on a few things.

I will first say that Nick and I agree on the sanctity of the captain, as I believe he said in a previous thread. I believe in that because everything that goes wrong and all responsibilities are his in the end. The buck stops with him, so he demands considerable respect and as the recognized leader - period. I have already tried to express this in some detail earlier in this thread.

My issue here is that you guys say (or infer... correct me if I am wrong) RD and Jake should not have gotten on that boat in the first place. Seems that way to me too, but it was the captain that should not have let them on. He should take the blame for them being on that boat, not them. This is assuming he knew exactly what he was getting when they showed up and they were up front with their experience. Why didn't he try to get to know them before the race and spend time with them? Test their knowledge and their sailing skills? Let them test his? I am not suggesting months of prep. This isn't the AC for Gawd's sakes. But they could have at least had a decent idea ho they were going to get along... right??

SO they did or they didn't have enough water when they left? Although I see that as an important issue, the more important one is why didn't the captain sit down and explain to his crew the circumstances and why they were taping the faucets? Why he was rationing? Why he didn't fill the tanks? WHat their allowance on water should be?

Hell, they apparently couldn't even decide on whether to use the auto pilot or which course to steer! WHy didn't he tell them why they couldn't or shouldn't and which course to steer?

He couldn't fly a spinnaker at night (purportedly) while Jake and Rd could. Someone asked why they didn't split up their shifts. I ask you why HE didn't split them up? WHy didn't he set the watches?

Do I think RD and Jake, from the story we have read, screwed up? Yes, I do. I think a lot of the things that Nick have said make some sense. My issue, with all due respect, is that what RD an Jake did is kinda irrelevant because it was a lack of leadership from the captain that caused it. Nick says they shouldn't have been on that boat (right Nick?) and could have done a lot of things to make that ride better. I say maybe, maybe not, but if they were let on it then the Captain should have the responsibility for that and any short comings they had.

I personally think that Nick (and you George) have an issue with the OP here because of how they acted or things they did on the race. That may be true. Where I am coming from is that it is irrelevant because if the captain had been a leader, these issues would not have happened. THe reality is that I suspect Nick and yourself put yourselves in the captains shoes, and you get really PO'd (understandably) when you read this and imagine your crew doing that to you. Hey, more than most on here, I completely agree. But what I think you fail to see is that it would not have happened to you because you would have taken control. You would have explained. You would have resolved the issues probably before they ever left the dock. You would have had more preparation. ANd maybe (or maybe not), they would have never been on your boat to begin with... or they might have been the best crew you ever had. Seems to me that communication killed this voyage (in more ways than one).

I suspect RD and Jake didn't know what they didn't know. In some respects, this is like shooting the messenger. But like you guys, I take all and full responsibility for what happens on my boat. I have to. I raise kids on this boat and 'I'm sorry' or 'you shouldn't have' just doesn't cut it if they get hurt or killed. You think you get stressed before a race, try taking your children offshore. That is real stress (and pleasure).

Brian

PS I want to emphasize that my opinions are based on the fact that the owner has not responded so I am inferring a lot of stuff based solely on what I read from RD and Jake. The owner likely has a completely different story and may or may not have done some of the things above. But like you said George, his isn't here, so I am assuming (and we know what that stands for).


----------



## smackdaddy

Bingo.


----------



## casey1999

smackdaddy said:


> I'm with you GB. And, yes, the water leak sounds very familiar! Maybe that's why I'm so interested in this whole water thing.
> 
> As you point out, the problem is we don't really know what the deal was. We only know that the skipper made a decision to forego taking on more water at the start, then "selectively" rationed it at a dangerously low level midway through the race. I'd love to know more details about this. Because I agree with The Sal-inator that everything in this story turns on this issue.
> 
> I'll see if I can figure out the YB thing.


They made it to Hawaii without running out of water right? So the water was not an issue. I would have much rather have sailed Oahu rather than Hilo. Oahu much better wind strength and direction (Hilo on Big Island blocks the trades, poor wind, and on top of that, if you miss Hilo, you will either run into a shear sea cliff or hot lava running into the sea. Better have a good engine.

Where is boat now and where is it going?


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, thank you for getting the Yellow Brick track up on a graphic. I think it will be helpful to illustrate what went on.


Dad, So “SalNichols94804” is “Nick” and not “Sal” ? (As they say, “you can’t tell the players without a scorecard”). I agree with the roles and responsibilities of the skipper/owner. He (or she) has the responsibility for everything and should act accordingly. That said, neither one of us would appreciate a crew taking over (or is it hijacking?) our boats. Just as the skipper has the over-all responsibility, the crew has the responsibility to be good crew. 


Without being able to dialog with “Harry” how do we know that RD/”Jake” are accurately depicting the course of events? All we have are their original statements and their clarifications then comparing that to our own experiences. For example, did Jake or RD come out and clearly say that the skipper and his family were abusing the water rationing while imposing it only on them? Or were they merely complaining about the rationing itself and that lack of trust the family had for the crew? In the end, if we are only to take RD/Jake’s statements only at face value, where is the learning? Where is the teachable moment? You are right, this isn’t the AC (BTW, saw a couple of the Artemis races live – it was awesome!). This is one of the longest regularly scheduled point-to-point races on the planet however. 


I believe that there was miss-communication from the start. RD and Jake over sold themselves in their resumes and telecons. As stated from that other poster, Harry was unprepared to participate in the race. RD, Jake and Harry all let their desire to do the race cloud their judgment. The endeavor started falling apart even before RD and Jake got to the marina. They started to polarize from the skipper from the start. Experience would have told them to go home. But once they signed on they should have been committed to the success of the endeavor which they failed to do when they started usurping the authority of the skipper. 


They were brought on as navigator and spinnaker expert. They talked about the skipper taking over the function and that he sailed rhumb line and above. Yet the Yellow Brick showed them south of rhumb and south of the rest of the fleet. The wild gyrations started at about midpoint about the time that they were clicking on the AP, talking to USCG, RC, rationing water, "fighting" for control etc. The course did straighten out once they decided (cajoled?) to divert to Hilo. IMHO, the navigation was poor. I was not born an “ace” spinnaker driver. I was taught. I was mentored into the driver I am today. I am happy to pass that knowledge on. It’s my duty to mentor “junior drivers” coming up through the ranks. Why couldn’t Jake do the same? As an instructor, he must know how to apply different teaching techniques and reach even difficult students? Going up the mast in the middle of the night, peals and gybes in squalls are all part of the game. If you don’t like it, perhaps ocean sailing is not for you.


Now, let’s dump on Harry, who hasn’t the opportunity to defend himself. We do know he was successful in doing a pair of MDR-Cabo (or was it SD-PV?) races in the past. These are over 1,000nm or about half the distance to Hawaii. From the other poster, we can assume that it was on the strength of having some really skilled crew with him. Harry’s first mistake was perhaps not understanding this and reading much more into his new crew’s qualifications than really were there. He should have been better prepared for the race. On my PacCup, I started to work on the boat a year ahead of time and that boat was a Van Isle vet. He should have demanded that the crew come out early and prep the boat. (“paying” for crew by buying their plane tickets doesn’t seem to be a smart thing unless you are willing to buy lots of tickets). He should have been a better planner - he didn’t have the proper crew or the numbers given every one’s skill set. “Mother” and Jane probably should have flown, not sailed. If on board, they should have done the mid-day watch and flown wing on wing. Mid-day conditions are almost always too light to fly a 1.5 oz kite (Jake should have known this). Sushi chef training probably doesn’t afford the same leadership skills as does the military or lots of crewing/sailing experience. Harry should have been more self-aware and worked on his command presence. Finally, he shouldn’t have deviated from his original game plan. The fighting with the crew added at least a day to his trip (see Smack’s graphic) and the diversion to Hilo, the better part of another one. (Besides being stupid when the long range GRIBS are predicting a tropical storm heading your way.)


As I said in my first post I feel bad for RD (and Jake too). This was a crappy experience and not really thier fault. He and Jake just didn’t have the experience to see the train wreck coming and once on board, couldn’t keep it from escalating and ultimately blowing up. They risked a lot to their reputations by going public and I hope it doesn’t hurt them in the end.


----------



## casey1999

Day 16, July 23
283 nm to go. Water temp 85.4F.

Since the heated oral exchange between Jakeues and the owners, they escalated his punishment. His night watch duty has been removed. Fucck lucky him... Now I have to do more ... Haha.

They intend to impose more rules to make him more miserable. It is all about control. Instead of being a leader to bring out the best in others, they bring the worse from their crew. It certainly not a right way to be a host or a leader. I guess some are destined to be great men and some are destined to be little 'men' in their own little world.

Back to original topic. Wind is good, we were moving fast. Wind from east at 15 to 19 knots. Still has current behind us at 0.6 Kn.

At the current condition, we may be at Molokai light at Thursday dawn. Be in marina at dusk.

*I studied charts yesterday to work out my approach. Book says don't go in harbor at night, not sure what is the deal. The harbor is well marked, plenty of water and we will have almost full moon at nite. I will let Harry makes the decision. But at the worst, I am comfortable to go in in the dark*.

Above from RD's log. RD even questions a chart book. There are many good reasons to not go into Ala Wai Channel at night, many boats run aground both leaving and coming in at night. When you run aground, you boat is done, you are on coral reef with big breaking swell pounding. Have you ever tried to navigate at night in a channel with the lights of one of the biggest cities in the US as your back drop. Do you think you can make out the bouey marker lights, or where those street signal lights. And RD was the navigator?

Also note RD says "plenty of water", looks like Capt did good with his water rationing......


----------



## Cruisingdad

George, you nailed it. Cant reply further but we basically agree on everything.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, thank you for getting the Yellow Brick track up on a graphic. I think it will be helpful to illustrate what went on.
> 
> Dad, So "SalNichols94804" is "Nick" and not "Sal" ? (As they say, "you can't tell the players without a scorecard"). I agree with the roles and responsibilities of the skipper/owner. He (or she) has the responsibility for everything and should act accordingly. That said, neither one of us would appreciate a crew taking over (or is it hijacking?) our boats. Just as the skipper has the over-all responsibility, the crew has the responsibility to be good crew.
> 
> Without being able to dialog with "Harry" how do we know that RD/"Jake" are accurately depicting the course of events? All we have are their original statements and their clarifications then comparing that to our own experiences. For example, did Jake or RD come out and clearly say that the skipper and his family were abusing the water rationing while imposing it only on them? Or were they merely complaining about the rationing itself and that lack of trust the family had for the crew? In the end, if we are only to take RD/Jake's statements only at face value, where is the learning? Where is the teachable moment? You are right, this isn't the AC (BTW, saw a couple of the Artemis races live - it was awesome!). This is one of the longest regularly scheduled point-to-point races on the planet however.
> 
> I believe that there was miss-communication from the start. RD and Jake over sold themselves in their resumes and telecons. As stated from that other poster, Harry was unprepared to participate in the race. RD, Jake and Harry all let their desire to do the race cloud their judgment. The endeavor started falling apart even before RD and Jake got to the marina. They started to polarize from the skipper from the start. Experience would have told them to go home. But once they signed on they should have been committed to the success of the endeavor which they failed to do when they started usurping the authority of the skipper.
> 
> They were brought on as navigator and spinnaker expert. They talked about the skipper taking over the function and that he sailed rhumb line and above. Yet the Yellow Brick showed them south of rhumb and south of the rest of the fleet. The wild gyrations started at about midpoint about the time that they were clicking on the AP, talking to USCG, RC, rationing water, "fighting" for control etc. The course did straighten out once they decided (cajoled?) to divert to Hilo. IMHO, the navigation was poor. I was not born an "ace" spinnaker driver. I was taught. I was mentored into the driver I am today. I am happy to pass that knowledge on. It's my duty to mentor "junior drivers" coming up through the ranks. Why couldn't Jake do the same? As an instructor, he must know how to apply different teaching techniques and reach even difficult students? Going up the mast in the middle of the night, peals and gybes in squalls are all part of the game. If you don't like it, perhaps ocean sailing is not for you.
> 
> Now, let's dump on Harry, who hasn't the opportunity to defend himself. We do know he was successful in doing a pair of MDR-Cabo (or was it SD-PV?) races in the past. These are over 1,000nm or about half the distance to Hawaii. From the other poster, we can assume that it was on the strength of having some really skilled crew with him. Harry's first mistake was perhaps not understanding this and reading much more into his new crew's qualifications than really were there. He should have been better prepared for the race. On my PacCup, I started to work on the boat a year ahead of time and that boat was a Van Isle vet. He should have demanded that the crew come out early and prep the boat. ("paying" for crew by buying their plane tickets doesn't seem to be a smart thing unless you are willing to buy lots of tickets). He should have been a better planner - he didn't have the proper crew or the numbers given every one's skill set. "Mother" and Jane probably should have flown, not sailed. If on board, they should have done the mid-day watch and flown wing on wing. Mid-day conditions are almost always too light to fly a 1.5 oz kite (Jake should have known this). Sushi chef training probably doesn't afford the same leadership skills as does the military or lots of crewing/sailing experience. Harry should have been more self-aware and worked on his command presence. Finally, he shouldn't have deviated from his original game plan. The fighting with the crew added at least a day to his trip (see Smack's graphic) and the diversion to Hilo, the better part of another one. (Besides being stupid when the long range GRIBS are predicting a tropical storm heading your way.)
> 
> As I said in my first post I feel bad for RD (and Jake too). This was a crappy experience and not really thier fault. He and Jake just didn't have the experience to see the train wreck coming and once on board, couldn't keep it from escalating and ultimately blowing up. They risked a lot to their reputations by going public and I hope it doesn't hurt them in the end.


Another bingo.


----------



## MedSailor

Geoff54 said:


> You forgot guns, keeping watch while single handing, avoiding paying taxes on your boat, derelict boats and probably a few that I've forgotten


INSURANCE!!! We need to know if the boat was insured? If not, then they are bad bad people with no moral compass. 

MedSailor


----------



## SlowButSteady

casey1999 said:


> ...
> Also note RD says "plenty of water", looks like Capt did good with his water rationing......


Given the context of that phrase, it looks more like he was referring to the depth of the water at the entrance to the harbor.


----------



## rgscpat

Agree -- I also read the "plenty of water" in the log as referring to his judgment of the channel.


----------



## rgscpat

Thought: If any of the participants had been real cruisers, would we have heard anything about rum rationing?


----------



## Classic30

rgscpat said:


> Thought: If any of the participants had been real cruisers, would we have heard anything about rum rationing?


I doubt it.. because that would have been a genuine reason for mutiny!


----------



## JonEisberg

casey1999 said:


> *I studied charts yesterday to work out my approach. Book says don't go in harbor at night, not sure what is the deal. The harbor is well marked, plenty of water and we will have almost full moon at nite. I will let Harry makes the decision. But at the worst, I am comfortable to go in in the dark*.
> 
> Above from RD's log. RD even questions a chart book. There are many good reasons to not go into Ala Wai Channel at night, many boats run aground both leaving and coming in at night. When you run aground, you boat is done, you are on coral reef with big breaking swell pounding. Have you ever tried to navigate at night in a channel with the lights of one of the biggest cities in the US as your back drop. Do you think you can make out the bouey marker lights, or where those street signal lights. And RD was the navigator?


When I first read that, it hadn't occurred to me that it was the _Ala Wai Entrance_ that he was referring to... WOW, it's probably just as well they never made it that far...

There's a great shot out there somewhere of a sailboat surfing a swell into the Ala Wai entrance on a pretty flat day...

Can't seem to find it, so this one from Ala Wai will have to do...


----------



## Sal Paradise

I found this decription of that harbor entrance --
Cruising Guide to the Hawaiian Islands - Carolyn Mehaffy, Bob Mehaffy - Google Books


----------



## SalNichols94804

I think he was referring to Hilo.

BTW, RD is the one that was whining about " Water is so short we are not allow to wash our face or brush teeth let alone sponge bath or shower on board."

I don't know if this means that they showered their way across the Pacific until rationing began.


----------



## JonEisberg

SalNichols94804 said:


> I think he was referring to Hilo.


I assumed that the first time I read the log, as well...

However, reading casey's re-post, sounds like he's referring to Oahu...



> At the current condition, we may be at Molokai light at Thursday dawn. Be in marina at dusk.


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> I assumed that the first time I read the log, as well...
> 
> However, reading casey's re-post, sounds like he's referring to Oahu...


My understanding is they were first headed to Oahu and the Ala Wai (that is where the Transpac ends), then the decided to head to Hilo on Island of Hawaii. My read is the description is for the Ala Wai. Never the less it is best to enter any harbor in the day, especially one you are not familar with or have never entered before. If it is at night, and your engine dies when goint into the channel, you have just reduced your odds of a sucessful docking significantly. And if you need assistance by CG or a tow, much better off in day than at night.

You are probably right on "good water", probably refering to channel depth.


----------



## casey1999

Here is a nice vid of an experienced sailor going out of Ala Wai, and even he has engine concerns.


----------



## shadowraiths

Slayer said:


> But beyond that, I am a trial lawyer and if two people write out a truthful account of an incident, I can pick it apart like you did and make it look like they are lying.


Well, IANAL, nor do I think they were lying. Memory is malleable, after all. Now, sprinkle that with a good dose of embellishment, and you end up with inconsistencies. What I was primarily focusing upon, was that rock wrote this bit:



rockDAWG said:


> Jake reminded Harry to top off the water tanks but he left the dock anyway to head to the starting point.


on Day zero. Importantly, he explicitly stated his account was his "_daily log_"



rockDAWG said:


> Here is my daily log while on board a 2002 Jeanneau 43 DS on on route from Long Beach, CA to Diamond Head, Honolulu, HI during the 2013 Transpac Race.


and that the notes were written while en route.



rockDAWG said:


> My post is directly coming from my notepad in my iPhone. It is not written as a book, but rather a note to myself to remind me the key fact during my voyage to Hawaii.


So, by his account, rock, at the very least, knew the captain had not topped off the tanks when they headed to the start line.

What I, personally, believe, is that they started panicking around the time they decided to call the CG, Navy, etcetera. Considering the already explosive dynamics, I think all of them (_as in both captain and crew_) worked themselves up into a frenzy that resulted in the violence that erupted on day 12. In other words, that day is when everything boiled over... frustration, anger, resentment, etcetera.

By the time Rock & Jake come here to post their account, they hold the strong belief that their lives were actually in imminent danger, when in reality, the psycho-social dynamics were the real issue.

And this, imho, is the lesson to be learned.

Yes, knowing how to sail, fly a kite, provision, etcetera, is important. Of course it is. However, the psycho-social dynamics are important as well.

To wit:

We know that harry did fine on the two San Diego to Puerto Vallarta races. Came in first on the cat and second on aquarius, iirc. And that is with the confirmation that he is a yeller, has no spinnaker experience, is a PIA, etcetera. We also know that Randy sailed with him, as crew, both times. And that the primary reason he chose not to sail with him this time is bc he was asked to trade one of his crew for the 86 year old mother-in-law.

What that says to me is that, with the right crew and right psycho-social dynamics, this trip could have been, at the very least successful as opposed to the DNF.

What I see throughout the tale, as told by both rock and jake, is a trip that involved a power struggle that began before they boarded the boat. And part of that power struggle involved beginning with speculating and then escalating the imminent danger scenario to that end. Such that, by the time they called the CG, etcetera, they truly believed they were in imminent danger.

This is not to suggest, or in any way imply, that it was planned. Rather, the recognition that this captain was incompetent and resulting lack of respect played a role in the overall tension and, over time, resentment, thereby setting the tone, trajectory, and outcome. It is important to note here, that this process would not be something that was necessarily conscious.

Which is why, to my mind, outside of the obvious, not getting on the boat in the first place, the Q to be pondered is, how does one work within this sort of environ to mitigate, rather than exacerbate this minefield of a situation?

I suspect that the answer will differ due to individual personalities and characteristics. However, I do think it is worthwhile to consider. Even for those who think they'd never actually find themselves in such a position.

Eta ~ the psycho-social dynamics is precisely why I find this thread interesting.


----------



## blowinstink

shadowraiths said:


> Well, IANAL, nor do I think they were lying. Memory is malleable, after all. Now, sprinkle that with a good dose of embellishment, and you end up with inconsistencies. What I was primarily focusing upon, was that rock wrote this bit:
> 
> on Day zero. Importantly, he explicitly stated his account was his "_daily log_"
> 
> and that the notes were written while en route.
> 
> So, by his account, rock, at the very least, knew the captain had not topped off the tanks when they headed to the start line.
> 
> What I, personally, believe, is that they started panicking around the time they decided to call the CG, Navy, etcetera. Considering the already explosive dynamics, I think all of them (_as in both captain and crew_) worked themselves up into a frenzy that resulted in the violence that erupted on day 12. In other words, that day is when everything boiled over... frustration, anger, resentment, etcetera.
> 
> By the time Rock & Jake come here to post their account, they hold the strong belief that their lives were actually in imminent danger, when in reality, the psycho-social dynamics were the real issue.
> 
> And this, imho, is the lesson to be learned.
> 
> Yes, knowing how to sail, fly a kite, provision, etcetera, is important. Of course it is. However, the psycho-social dynamics are important as well.
> 
> To wit:
> 
> We know that harry did fine on the two San Diego to Puerto Vallarta races. Came in first on the cat and second on aquarius, iirc. And that is with the confirmation that he is a yeller, has no spinnaker experience, is a PIA, etcetera. We also know that Randy sailed with him, as crew, both times. And that the primary reason he chose not to sail with him this time is bc he was asked to trade one of his crew for the 86 year old mother-in-law.
> 
> What that says to me is that, with the right crew and right psycho-social dynamics, this trip could have been, at the very least successful as opposed to the DNF.
> 
> What I see throughout the tale, as told by both rock and jake, is a trip that involved a power struggle that began before they boarded the boat. And part of that power struggle involved beginning with speculating and then escalating the imminent danger scenario to that end. Such that, by the time they called the CG, etcetera, they truly believed they were in imminent danger.
> 
> This is not to suggest, or in any way imply, that it was planned. Rather, the recognition that this captain was incompetent and resulting lack of respect played a role in the overall tension and, over time, resentment, thereby setting the tone, trajectory, and outcome. It is important to note here, that this process would not be something that was necessarily conscious.
> 
> Which is why, to my mind, outside of the obvious, not getting on the boat in the first place, the Q to be pondered is, how does one work within this sort of environ to mitigate, rather than exacerbate this minefield of a situation?
> 
> I suspect that the answer will differ due to individual personalities and characteristics. However, I do think it is worthwhile to consider. Even for those who think they'd never actually find themselves in such a position.
> 
> Eta ~ the psycho-social dynamics is precisely why I find this thread interesting.


Slayer, I think you have found your expert witness . . . now if you can only figure out how to tell her what to say


----------



## oceangirl

This is a bit on/off topic, but I love this log entry and wanted to share.

Captains, good Captains, well they are born I think. I think they are a special breed, not a dying breed, if this Captain is testament. It really is a beautiful thing to have complete trust in your captain, I've only had a few( my hubby included). And to have faith in your vessel at the same time, well that is just heaven. 
https://empiricusembarks.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/morale-afloat/

Sorry if this is an annoying thread drift


----------



## casey1999

JonEisberg said:


> When I first read that, it hadn't occurred to me that it was the _Ala Wai Entrance_ that he was referring to... WOW, it's probably just as well they never made it that far...
> 
> There's a great shot out there somewhere of a sailboat surfing a swell into the Ala Wai entrance on a pretty flat day...
> 
> Can't seem to find it, so this one from Ala Wai will have to do...


Here is the vid for that pic:


----------



## mark2gmtrans

I am guessing that guy was at the helm thinking "oh crap, oh crap, oh crap, I really wish I had a bigger motor".


----------



## JonEisberg

mark2gmtrans said:


> I am guessing that guy was at the helm thinking "oh crap, oh crap, oh crap, I really wish I had a bigger motor".


One can only imagine what that moron clinging onto the mast was thinking...

Unbelievably, according to the person who posted this to Youtube, this appears to be a local licensed captain, taking guests out for a ceremony to scatter someone's ashes at sea...

Perhaps one of the stoopidest calls since the late actor George C Scott tried to take the yacht MOJO out of Morro Bay with a big swell running...


----------



## mark2gmtrans

JonEisberg said:


> One can only imagine what that moron clinging onto the mast was thinking...
> 
> Unbelievably, according to the person who posted this to Youtube, this appears to be a local licensed captain, taking guests out for a ceremony to scatter someone's ashes at sea...
> 
> Perhaps one of the stoopidest calls since the late actor George C Scott tried to take the yacht MOJO out of Morro Bay with a big swell running...


No, the guy on the mast was definitely not thinking anything, his brain was erased about two seconds before the first wave, and the rest was pure clinging by instinct. Later after it was over he was thinking " Eww, what is that smell and why am I so wet?".

The rest were thinking "Dagnabit, I just know all of my dry clothes are not dry now, and how long will it take my bunk to dry out after we get the water out of the cabin." Except for the cook, who was thinking "I don't know who is going to clean the spaghetti off of everything, but it sure is not gonna be me!". The one who was cleaning it later was thinking "Man, I sure hope that is only spaghetti, and only from the pot."


----------



## thefacts

SalNichols94804 said:


> Who said that anything happened to a weeks worth of water? It "appears" that they began rationing when they had a weeks worth of water remaining, and about 9-10 days of sailing to make Honolulu. You're not suggesting that stretching your water supply should begin when you're dry are you? Your logic seems rather confounding.


We had reason to believe that Dawg and Jonah(jake) were scuttling the water, to justify their violation of FCC title 14 regulations in calling PonPon. We caught The Dawg washing his eye glasses under running water for several minutes, although Windex, was stipulated as the solvent to use. At anytime they could have verified the on board water in the hold, as well as the bottled water. They never asked. The facts are not as sexy, understood, but sailor is not a noun, it is a verb. It takes 8hrs to learn how a wind foil works, but a lifetime to perfect a sail in open water. Character is the most important quality that a sailor can have. What kind of sailor will sully a 107yr old revered Trans Pacific Race and its qualified participants as members of ORR/US Sail? To cast themselves as the archetypes of 'Super Hero's' ? Hmm their agenda has yet to be perfected. TRANSPAC has been upping crew standards for at least 47 years, friends and sympathizers along with Dawg and Jake, how about upping yours? Jane


----------



## thefacts

thefacts said:


> We had reason to believe that Dawg and Jonah(jake) were scuttling the water, to justify their violation of FCC title 14 regulations in calling PonPon. We caught The Dawg washing his eye glasses under running water for several minutes, although Windex, was stipulated as the solvent to use. At anytime they could have verified the on board water in the hold, as well as the bottled water. They never asked. The facts are not as sexy, understood, but sailor is not a noun, it is a verb. It takes 8hrs to learn how a wind foil works, but a lifetime to perfect a sail in open water. Character is the most important quality that a sailor can have. What kind of sailor will sully a 107yr old revered Trans Pacific Race and its qualified participants as members of ORR/US Sail? To cast themselves as the archetypes of 'Super Hero's' ? Hmm their agenda has yet to be perfected. TRANSPAC has been upping crew standards for at least 47 years, friends and sympathizers along with Dawg and Jake, how about upping yours? Jane


 THANKS SAL NICHOLS FOR attempting to but some lite on this dark thread. I do not want to get into a he said they said kind of twaddle, you just have been so Corinthian in putting (?) into the 'fable' I felt I owed you the validation by stating facts. Jane


----------



## thefacts

smackdaddy said:


> Absolutely right.
> 
> Furthermore, taking the line of reasoning that there was, in fact, 18 days of water (i.e. - "they didn't need to top off") the question now becomes why the skipper is only allowing a dangerously sparse 1.5 liters per day to the crew? This isn't rationing - this is punitive withholding. Again, any way you want to slice it, it comes back to the skipper doing an extremely poor job running that boat. Everything else is a reaction to that fact.


There was 25 days worth of water on board. Crew could have verified by dropping a line and sinker into the holds to check! They never asked to!! 1.5 liters bottled was to drink on deck, and was supervised only after numerous partially drank from bottles were discovered. Jake had left water bottles scattered everywhere. We had reason to believe they could not be trusted not to skuttle the water, to avoid the FCC Title 14 Regulation Violation. Further the 1.5 liters wasn't punitive, it didn't include the beer, wine, soups, and juices consumed. How about that, not such a sexy story, heh? Jane


----------



## thefacts

casey1999 said:


> They made it to Hawaii without running out of water right? So the water was not an issue. I would have much rather have sailed Oahu rather than Hilo. Oahu much better wind strength and direction (Hilo on Big Island blocks the trades, poor wind, and on top of that, if you miss Hilo, you will either run into a shear sea cliff or hot lava running into the sea. Better have a good engine.
> 
> Where is boat now and where is it going?


Water issue pure fable. Could have been verified by Dawg and Jake (Jonah) but they never asked. Not a good story, without survival tension or abuse, heh? The Captain could have sailed the race single handed if need be. There was not another Navigator!!! The insurrections being more frequent, and the scuttling of water etc , the Captain decided to resign the race, and off load our mutineers'. Much to my, Jane's (not a girlfriend but business partner) protesting in favor of sailing the course. 'such an evil thing to do, I know!'
The vessel is in Honolulu, and plans are being drawn to sail to Fuji, and the exotics.
Or alternatively to buddy boat with a vessel leaving for California in October depending on Weather Routers, recommendations.


----------



## thefacts

No regret, SD. I would do it again in a heart beat. It is too bad it was not the element of nature threaten us survival but from the other human that acted upon us.

As for the CG's comment, I think it is a wise one. Deescalate is the perfect word in our situation, since we were just half way point. No one can be here within a short time. We were on our own. Our call to CG is not for help, but rather to inform them if something happens to us or the boat, they have to clues to go by.

We waited for a long time and waited until physical violence has occurred before calling. It was a right and calculated decision to call. We were not a bunch of pu55ies to cry for help. [/quote]

OH, yeh? Clues? Silly Dawg the TPYC had yellowbrick tracking! Your call was a waste of taxpayer money. "we were not a bunch of pu55ies to cry for help"!! You just lacked the character, scruples and integrity to stay the course you committed too, heh? Not comfortable enough? No fun without AP? No skin in the game? Why are you sullying a 107year Race, the committee and qualified participants, members of ORR/US Sail??? They all have upped crew standards for at least 47 years? So how about upping yours!!!!??? Sailor is not a noun, it is a verb.


----------



## thefacts

SalNichols94804 said:


> RD and Jake would have been stunned to discover that most of us disconnect the hydraulic ram from the steering system on the way TO HI. LOL.
> 
> Come to think of it, seeing the looks on their faces when they started mashing AP buttons would have been priceless!


Thanks SalNichols94804 that's how I got the title of Evil, I think. To disconnect the AP, while at sea, I had to turn off all electronics to the Pedestal. Ruined Dawg and Jakes' fun!!They had to try and SAIL, either to course or to weather. Sorry Harry didn't have the temperament of a Cruise Director, and we didn't cater as a Carnival Cruise. They had the 'Notice to Sail' and 'Sailing Instructions', just lacked the character and will to complete the course. Our motto should have been 'Trust but verify' instead of 'A CHALLENGE TO PERFECT, AN ADVENTURE TO LIVE, TROPICAL PARADISE TO REST'!!!! JANE


----------



## weinie

well this just got more interesting.


----------



## thefacts

86year old has more integrity and gonads that than 6 Dawgs and 10 Jakes x 12 put together. She is doing fine, living her life. She appreciated 'An Adventure to Live'. Will write articles for seniors to continue to 'Live Big'!!! 
'Will trumps age!!!"


----------



## thefacts

smackdaddy said:


> I totally agree with this statement, and that's exactly the kind of crew I've aimed to be on the off-shore races I've done. I think I've done a pretty good job of it as I've been assigned watch captain on the past three races I've done by the skipper I raced with. And he is a tremendous skipper whom I like, respect, and most importantly TRUST, very much
> 
> The issue is that I now own my own boat and will race it next season. So, now I'm the skipper and will be looking for crew. That's where the "sanctity" of the position comes in. If I'm a poor a skipper as the one portrayed in this story - I don't deserve to be out there, and I don't deserve to have crew at all. For a skipper to _deserve_ that sanctity, he/she has to perform.
> 
> Digs aside, like I've said all along, Sal, you seem to be able to perform. Harry couldn't - Harry didn't deserve that sanctity, yet demanded it to the point of compromising safety. The crew/skipper sword cuts both ways.


SMACKED IN THE HEAD DADDY, What are you about. Deserve sanctity? He was the reason all had a chance to 'live the adventure'. Did you forget it takes a lifetime to perfect the sail of oceans? Sailing is a not a noun it is a verb. Yes sailing may be seen as more risky than waiting for someone to help you out of bed!!! When you traverse the seas of inequity, with nothing but a fine tuned edge of a wind foil to cleave a path, remember not to cry wolf, because you lack the fortitude to put on sea boots and steer the course.!! You can break a leg when exiting your comfy bed!!!!


----------



## Minnewaska

I see we have an alternate point of view on the water/AP and confirmation of the ranting and raving. That would get on my nerves.


----------



## lancelot9898

Thanks for posting "Jane".

Would you be able to shed any light as to why Jake arranged for a film crew at the departure and then again at the arrival?


----------



## JomsViking

Minnewaska said:


> I see we have an alternate point of view on the water/AP and confirmation of the ranting and raving. That would get on my nerves.


Sure provides some food for thought - Interesting dynamics for sure...


----------



## thefacts

smackdaddy said:


> Interesting snippet from SA:
> 
> Sound familiar RDawg?


SMACK IN THE HEAD DADDY!! YES in your pc world all skippers should have the temperament of Cruise Directors. And crews should not be expected to do anything uncomfortable, the Skipper should be grateful for their ungrateful company only. Jane


----------



## Sal Paradise

Minnewaska said:


> I see we have an alternate point of view on the water/AP and confirmation of the ranting and raving. That would get on my nerves.


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> I see we have an alternate point of view on the water/AP and confirmation of the ranting and raving. That would get on my nerves.


As would hearing repeatedly the mantra _"Sailor is not a noun, but a verb"_ get on mine


----------



## weinie

JonEisberg said:


> As would hearing repeatedly the mantra _"Sailor is not a noun, but a verb"_ get on mine


It's not a mantra, it's a way of life. It's traversing the inequities of finely tuned wind foils while wearing sea boots and cleaving a path and trying not to break a leg in bed while resting in a tropical paradise... or something like that.


----------



## JomsViking

weinie said:


> It's not a mantra, it's a way of life. It's traversing the inequities of finely tuned wind foils while wearing sea boots and cleaving a path and trying not to break a leg in bed while resting in a tropical paradise... or something like that.


Thanks for the clarification


----------



## Coquina

Wow - this boat was FULL of crazy 
If that really is "Jane", I think a 10 minute conversation would have had me swimming for shore. I am starting to think they all deserved each other.


----------



## smackdaddy

thefacts said:


> We had reason to believe that Dawg and Jonah(jake) were scuttling the water, to justify their violation of FCC title 14 regulations in calling PonPon. We caught The Dawg washing his eye glasses under running water for several minutes, although Windex, was stipulated as the solvent to use. At anytime they could have verified the on board water in the hold, as well as the bottled water. They never asked.





thefacts said:


> There was 25 days worth of water on board. Crew could have verified by dropping a line and sinker into the holds to check! They never asked to!! 1.5 liters bottled was to drink on deck, and was supervised only after numerous partially drank from bottles were discovered. Jake had left water bottles scattered everywhere. We had reason to believe they could not be trusted not to skuttle the water, to avoid the FCC Title 14 Regulation Violation. Further the 1.5 liters wasn't punitive, it didn't include the beer, wine, soups, and juices consumed. How about that, not such a sexy story, heh? Jane





thefacts said:


> Water issue pure fable. Could have been verified by Dawg and Jake (Jonah) but they never asked. The insurrections being more frequent, and the scuttling of water etc , the Captain decided to resign the race, and off load our mutineers'. Much to my, Jane's (not a girlfriend but business partner) protesting in favor of sailing the course. 'such an evil thing to do, I know!'





thefacts said:


> SMACKED IN THE HEAD DADDY, What are you about. Deserve sanctity? He was the reason all had a chance to 'live the adventure'.





thefacts said:


> SMACK IN THE HEAD DADDY!! YES in your pc world all skippers should have the temperament of Cruise Directors. And crews should not be expected to do anything uncomfortable, the Skipper should be grateful for their ungrateful company only. Jane


Okay, Jane, admit it. You think I'm hot. It's okay. I get that a lot.

As for your posts...

1. You seem to say you have no proof they were "scuttling" water - yet you take punitive action against them because you were convinced of this strange FCC plot. Did you see them scuttling water? If not, you might have been seriously overreacting - which would be in line with their complaints that you guys were seriously overreacting.

2. thefacts....The fact that Jake asked Harry to top off the tanks before leaving the dock, and the fact that Harry did not makes your argument that they didn't ask about how full the tanks were, or check them themselves, a bit weak. The water issue, and/or the communication thereof was on you and Harry. You guys blew it.

3. Harry was the skipper. Being a skipper means a lot more than just being an owner giving people a nice opportunity to "live the adventure" or even a nice cruise director. Think Stubing instead of Julie. In my opinion, the way this whole thing turned out points first and foremost to Harry's poor skippering (and potentially your poor advisement in and co-management of the situation). Bad decisions before and during the race. Remember, sanctity is a participle, not a dangling adjective.

As for the rest, I can't wait for SalNichols to show up and support you and Harry. That will be fun.

Sal?

(PS - Sal said you guys had 18 days of water. You say 25. You really shouldn't disagree with Sal. Remember...sanctity.)


----------



## mark2gmtrans

After reading this entire thing I am fairly sure I would have thrown everyone else over the rail and told God they died.


----------



## Donna_F

thefacts, Jane, whomever:

Please stick with the facts of the race as you see them. The moderators thought this thread would be a good learning tool for others. It is not the place for you to insult the forum members.


----------



## smackdaddy

DRFerron said:


> thefacts, Jane, whomever:
> 
> Please stick with the facts of the race as you see them. The moderators thought this thread would be a good learning tool for others. It is not the place for you to insult the forum members.


Ah, c'mon, I don't mind a little insult here or there. As long as it doesn't get too personal, it's just a bit of spice in the gravy.


----------



## Donna_F

smackdaddy said:


> Ah, c'mon, I don't mind a little insult here or there. As long as it doesn't get too personal, it's just a bit of spice in the gravy.


I know you can take care of yourself but the posts read like just the wind up. I don't want the gravy to burn. The moderators are ready for a post full moon break.


----------



## krisscross

You can actually learn a lot about a person just by counting the number of exclamation marks in their posts.


----------



## bljones

Doesn't a new contributor have to have a minimum of 10 posts before he/she gets to start disparaging Smacky?


----------



## JomsViking

bljones said:


> Doesn't a new contributor have to have a minimum of 10 posts before he/she gets to start disparaging Smacky?


No, it's 10 posts disparaging SmackO before you can add links and Pictures?


----------



## Sal Paradise

I just have to say this, because no one else has--

sailor is definately a noun, not a verb. 

sailing is also a noun.


----------



## miatapaul

bljones said:


> Doesn't a new contributor have to have a minimum of 10 posts before he/she gets to start disparaging Smacky?


I think you have to have 10 posts before you can begin photo shopping photos of him. You can put funny facial hair and glasses on him after 10 posts, after 15 posts you can give him funny teeth but I believe it takes 25 posts before you can put a dress on him and other gender changing things.

But disparaging is encouraged after your first post! :laugher


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh.


----------



## MarkSF

weinie said:


> It's not a mantra, it's a way of life. It's traversing the inequities of finely tuned wind foils while wearing sea boots and cleaving a path and trying not to break a leg in bed while resting in a tropical paradise... or something like that.


while flouting the rules of grammar, presumably.


----------



## steve77

Sal Paradise said:


> I just have to say this, because no one else has--
> 
> sailor is definately a noun, not a verb.
> 
> sailing is also a noun.


I was going to point that out, thanks for playing grammar police. Sailing can also be a verb of course.


----------



## MarkSF

krisscross said:


> You can actually learn a lot about a person just by counting the number of exclamation marks in their posts.


Amen to that, and smilies


----------



## MarkSF

thefacts said:


> SMACKED IN THE HEAD DADDY, What are you about. Deserve sanctity? He was the reason all had a chance to 'live the adventure'. Did you forget it takes a lifetime to perfect the sail of oceans? Sailing is a not a noun it is a verb. Yes sailing may be seen as more risky than waiting for someone to help you out of bed!!! When you traverse the seas of inequity, with nothing but a fine tuned edge of a wind foil to cleave a path, remember not to cry wolf, because you lack the fortitude to put on sea boots and steer the course.!! You can break a leg when exiting your comfy bed!!!!


If I was in your position, I would write some coherent and cogent arguments, explaining why I was in the right and behaved appropriately, backed up with facts.

The fact that you instead used the opportunity to post some utterly incoherent rants speaks volumes. I think we've all come to our own conclusions here.


----------



## Minnesail

This is a fascinating thread, I'm so glad "Jane" could chime in and authenticate the high level of crazy that was present from all parties.

I think "Jake" might be a member of The Yes Men, a political media prank group:




This would explain why he had a videographer around. If I were doing something cool like the Transpac and I knew a bunch of media people I would definitely have one or two show up to film me.


----------



## MarkSF

steve77 said:


> I was going to point that out, thanks for playing grammar police. Sailing can also be a verb of course.


No it can't, could be a compound noun though.

Yours pedantically,

Mark


----------



## MarkSF

Maybe we should all restrict ourselves to use of this :


----------



## Slayer

MarkSF said:


> No it can't, could be a compound noun though.
> 
> Yours pedantically,
> 
> Mark


It is a verb used as a noun phrase. But it can be a verb.


----------



## steve77

MarkSF said:


> No it can't, could be a compound noun though.
> 
> Yours pedantically,
> 
> Mark


If I say, "I am _sailing_"... that's a verb, no? I'm conjugating the verb "to sail".

Conjugation of the English verb sail - conjugate sail


----------



## chris_gee

I wonder how many of you might use unusual turns of phrase in a non native language?


----------



## Donna_F

This is an awesome thread drift.


----------



## steve77

chris_gee said:


> I wonder how many of you might use unusual turns of phrase in a non native language?


I would, and have. But if I was speaking French to a French person I wouldn't correct (incorrectly) his or her grammar. Which is the case here.


----------



## outbound

Been told repetitively by law enforcement I know their worse nightmare is "domestics". When reading this thread I am oft reminded of that. Stand by my earlier posts. In my view, crew had no business boarding that boat without doing due diligence. Afterguard had no business taking on this crew without prior due diligence. Campaign was not run to standard pre race protocol most would adhere too. Rest is a domestic disturbance best handled by professionals.


----------



## ottos

Sal Paradise said:


> sailing is also a noun.


I think it might even be a gerund! :laugher


----------



## Sal Paradise

well, Jane wrote that sailing is a verb, not a noun. I was responding. In fact it is a noun. It may also be a gerbil.


----------



## MedSailor

I think things would have turned out differently if the boat had the padded walls that it needed. Perhaps antipsycotics and lithium in the dwindling water supply? 

Full of crazy is right! (note the use of an exclamation mark) 

It's always nice when the other side of the story confirms more than it doesn't....

MedSailor

PS 10 points have been awarded to DRFerron for the awesome thread drift comment.


----------



## Sal Paradise

I suspect 50% of the problem was language. Jane, if you are still reading.... is English your native language? No offense intended. How much English does Harry speak? RD I think might be a native speaker of Chinese. Then again he is a PhD so his English might be better than mine.


----------



## JulieMor

DRFerron said:


> This is an awesome thread drift.


----------



## hellosailor

"Did you see them scuttling water? "
Now, I know how to scuttle a boat, but how exactly does one scuttle water? No matter how much C4 I put on the water, I can't seem to blow a hole in it, much less sink it.


----------



## miatapaul

I may owe rockDAWG a bit of an apology as I did not think the skipper and Jane could have been as crazy as he made them sound, but if in fact it is truly Jane, then she makes herself sound even battier than he made her out to sound! But I still think the water issue was a bit of an exaggeration.


----------



## mark2gmtrans

Sal Paradise said:


> well, Jane wrote that sailing is a verb, not a noun. I was responding. In fact it is a noun. It may also be a gerbil.


Nope, everyone knows gerbils do not go out on boats, but hamsters, now those guys love to sail.


----------



## Bene505

Wow.

This one sets off a very specific type of alarm.










Sometimes people don't even agree on what time it is, like in the above picture.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## hellosailor

Brian-
"I want to emphasize that my opinions are based on the fact that the owner has not responded "
Well, you could always give him a call, or his wife. The corporate entities for both are openly listed and phone numbers should take about two minutes to find. It sure would be interesting to hear their thoughts on this.


----------



## Grunthrie

Please Jane, Tell us how you really feel


----------



## getwet

What a story! I can't believe some of the things you went through in such a short period of time! Thanks for posting here, good luck to you in the future, I hope you have some good experiences ahead after the mess you've been through!


----------



## MarkSF

hellosailor said:


> "Did you see them scuttling water? "
> Now, I know how to scuttle a boat, but how exactly does one scuttle water? No matter how much C4 I put on the water, I can't seem to blow a hole in it, much less sink it.


I think to scuttle water, you climb out of it, onto dry land.


----------



## lowtide

Face it, the absolute isolation of the sea has a drastic effect on the psychology of individuals, and the dynamics of couples and groups.

Sometimes for the better, not always.

On land you can walk away. Once while practicing for dinghy racing with light winds and hot weather, I made the wrong comment to my crew (wife). Without hesitation, she grabbed her life jacket and began swimming for shore. 

We always have options and exits. Until we go to sea. 

'


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Ok, I read Jane's post? and is it me or are they extraordinarily odd in light of it all?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

poopdeckpappy said:


> Ok, I read Jane's post? and is it me or are they extraordinarily odd in light of it all?


Jane is incoherent jbbering twit which is what the first post in the thread said.

And the jibbering incoherent senior members of this forum chose to believe the "Janes" of this world for the last few weeks rather than a fellow forum member's tale of woe.

Neither Rocky nor Jake have reappeared on this forum since dumped upon.

Well, those who didnt believe Rockdawg and Jake should be ashamed of yourselves. :hothead

Mark <---- I hope like hell I dont come here for a bit of support if/when needed!


----------



## chef2sail

Minnewaska said:


> I see we have an alternate point of view on the water/AP and confirmation of the ranting and raving. That would get on my nerves.


Hmmmm,,,And you don't consider Rawkdawgs post a rant on its face value........

coupled with the previous few years worth of Rockdawgs comments on here to some...It looks like she figured him out in about 2 days.


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> It looks like she figured him out in about 2 days.


So now you're saying you admire her intellect? Wow.


----------



## chef2sail

DRFerron said:


> thefacts, Jane, whomever:
> 
> Please stick with the facts of the race as you see them. The moderators thought this thread would be a good learning tool for others. It is not the place for you to insult the forum members.


And you allowed Rockdawg and Jake to do what....insult the owners Harry and Jane freely.....how about a little fair play and letting them defend themselves.

You allow Smack full reign with his sarcastic comments about Jane/ Harry.....why not allow them to be sarcastic back.

Whats good for the Goose....is good for the gander..

Jake...were still waiting for that movie Rockdawg promised?


----------



## Slayer

lowtide said:


> Once while practicing for dinghy racing with light winds and hot weather, I made the wrong comment to my crew (wife). Without hesitation, she grabbed her life jacket and began swimming for shore.
> '


That is f.ing beautiful. :laugher. Now that you have both cooled off that will make for a good story for years to come. I seriously thought about doing that while canoeing with my girlfriend earlier this summer. Now I wish I had had the balls to do it.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Chef, Jane has 9 posts, 9 oppertunities to lay her/their side of the story on the tale and what did we get? a new use of the word scuttle and sailor is a noun or some sh*t like that.

A golden oppertunity pissed away


----------



## smackdaddy

This has got to be one of my faves:



thefacts said:


> Further the 1.5 liters wasn't punitive, it didn't include the beer, wine, soups, and juices consumed.


"What do you mean _'you're thirsty'_? After all the salty broth and alcohol we've given you? HTFU and _thank me_ for that 1.5 liters! THIRST IS VERB!"


----------



## chef2sail

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Jane is incoherent jbbering twit which is what the first post in the thread said.
> 
> And the jibbering incoherent senior members of this forum chose to believe the "Janes" of this world for the last few weeks rather than a fellow forum member's tale of woe.
> 
> Neither Rocky nor Jake have reappeared on this forum since dumped upon.
> 
> Well, those who didnt believe Rockdawg and Jake should be ashamed of yourselves. :hothead
> 
> Mark <---- I hope like hell I dont come here for a bit of support if/when needed!


Maybe its because you joined a few years ago and some of us have endured the travels of Rockdawg a few years longer than you.

I think *they all *caused this scenario

I hope Harry learned from this experience too....to vet his crew,,,,he took a fake delivery captain who had no experience who almost took over his boat, used physical force, never raced before on a 14 day trip. And the person he took as crew got on a public forum...trashed his ride....trashed his crew...and threatened to sue him...all out in the open.

When you look at lunacy and dynamics rememeber...that Harry/ Jane had skin in the game...their boat...their race....Jake and Rockdawg had absolutely none. All acted foolishly as their lives were the skin in the game also. All took uneccesary risks by setting out together on this *SHIP OF FOOLS> *

We should revived the Bounty story. Harry as Captain Bligh....Rawkdawg as Flethcher Christian.....subtitles only...dialogue in Chinese and Manderin.
Harry and jane are lucky Jake and Dawg didn't cast them adrift in the dinghy.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Jane is incoherent jbbering twit which is what the first post in the thread said.
> 
> And the jibbering incoherent senior members of this forum chose to believe the "Janes" of this world for the last few weeks rather than a fellow forum member's tale of woe.
> 
> Neither Rocky nor Jake have reappeared on this forum since dumped upon.
> 
> Well, those who didnt believe Rockdawg and Jake should be ashamed of yourselves. :hothead


Classic example of an Either/Or Fallacy:

_"Jane is not credible, ergo RD's account is deemed unquestionably accurate..."_


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Classic example of an Either/Or Fallacy:
> 
> _"Jane is not credible, ergo RD's account is deemed unquestionably accurate..."_


How about this: _"RD's account is now more credible."_


----------



## poopdeckpappy

> To disconnect the AP, while at sea, I had to turn off all electronics to the Pedestal


I've never seen a boat where that was the case, all AP's I've delt with were/are on seperate circuits


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> How about this: _"RD's account is now more credible."_


Or, this?

_Given Jane's recent 'contributions', RD's decision to get aboard that boat was even dumber than it originally appeared to be..."_


----------



## BentSailor

smackdaddy said:


> How about this: _"RD's account is now more credible."_


How so? I don't think Jane's personality was ever really in question (whether people believed RD or not, I can't recall anyone calling him about Jane's personality). The issues that most people seemed to have with the story are about different things.

I'm not saying this because I have a beef against either side, but because her personality really isn't where the doubt comes in on the story. If I tell you I looked up at the blue sky then looked across the street to see Elvis with Buddy Holly having a beer - just because the sky happens to be blue doesn't make the story any more credible.

Jane seems a sandwich or two short of a picnic. Honestly, I've met some sailors (good ones) that come across just as bad online (& almost as bad in person). Sorry, but that really doesn't change the elements I have doubt about myself.

--
Please note, I'm not taking sides. This is not a post supporting Jane/Harry nor taking a pot-shot at Dawg/Jake.


----------



## mark2gmtrans

smackdaddy said:


> This has got to be one of my faves:
> 
> "What do you mean _'you're thirsty'_? After all the salty broth and alcohol we've given you? HTFU and _thank me_ for that 1.5 liters! THIRST IS VERB!"


I know that 1.5 liters is not anywhere near enough water for people who are performing the labor of sailing, especially when sailing in tropical climates. The Mayo Clinic doctors think so too....



> How much water do you need?
> 
> Every day you lose water through your breath, perspiration, urine and bowel movements. For your body to function properly, you must replenish its water supply by consuming beverages and foods that contain water.
> 
> So how much fluid does the average, healthy adult living in a temperate climate need? The Institute of Medicine determined that an adequate intake (AI) for men is roughly 3 liters (about 13 cups) of total beverages a day. The AI for women is 2.2 liters (about 9 cups) of total beverages a day.





> Factors that influence water needs
> 
> You may need to modify your total fluid intake depending on how active you are, the climate you live in, your health status, and if you're pregnant or breast-feeding.
> 
> Exercise. If you exercise or engage in any activity that makes you sweat, you need to drink extra water to compensate for the fluid loss. An extra 400 to 600 milliliters (about 1.5 to 2.5 cups) of water should suffice for short bouts of exercise, but intense exercise lasting more than an hour (for example, running a marathon) requires more fluid intake. How much additional fluid you need depends on how much you sweat during exercise, and the duration and type of exercise. During long bouts of intense exercise, it's best to use a sports drink that contains sodium, as this will help replace sodium lost in sweat and reduce the chances of developing hyponatremia, which can be life-threatening. Also, continue to replace fluids after you're finished exercising.
> Environment. Hot or humid weather can make you sweat and requires additional intake of fluid. Heated indoor air also can cause your skin to lose moisture during wintertime. Further, altitudes greater than 8,200 feet (2,500 meters) may trigger increased urination and more rapid breathing, which use up more of your fluid reserves.
> Illnesses or health conditions. When you have fever, vomiting or diarrhea, your body loses additional fluids. In these cases, you should drink more water. In some cases, your doctor may recommend oral rehydration solutions, such as Gatorade, Powerade or CeraLyte. Also, you may need increased fluid intake if you develop certain conditions, including bladder infections or urinary tract stones. On the other hand, some conditions such as heart failure and some types of kidney, liver and adrenal diseases may impair excretion of water and even require that you limit your fluid intake.
> Pregnancy or breast-feeding. Women who are expecting or breast-feeding need additional fluids to stay hydrated. Large amounts of fluid are used especially when nursing. The Institute of Medicine recommends that pregnant women drink 2.3 liters (about 10 cups) of fluids daily and women who breast-feed consume 3.1 liters (about 13 cups) of fluids a day.


See more here.... Water: How much should you drink every day? - MayoClinic.com

I would say that the Captain/Owner should have planned for a minimum of four gallons per, day per person, plus a ten day reserve. This is a lot of water, and I know the boat would not be able to carry that much, so there is an issue from the start. I wonder why the owner of a race boat would not go with a three day sized tank and a watermaker that would fill it with a short time of running the generator or engine every day to keep it topped off? That would keep the weight lower, and help them make the passage more comfortably.

This is a long open ocean race, the boat has to finish with a healthy crew, and that includes the mental health of the crew as well, or starting the race does not make sense. You cannot finish the race in a good position if you are not performing at your peak levels, you cannot perform at peak levels if you are dehydrated. Mentally a person loses performance when dehydrated, in fact it can make you crazy, insane, doing things that are dangerous crazy.

Now I am sure there will be someone who will want to lecture us all about how open ocean racing means going without water. How having water is not a priority, and keeping your socks is too much weight, and stuff like that, which is insane. This is probably one of the long term side effects of being continually dehydrated, or perhaps just being an a$$. I personally do not understand why some people think that being dehydrated is a good thing, especially while performing the extremely strenuous labor of open ocean racing.

Apparently the folks over at the VOR agree with me on needing a watermaker, and plenty of water for the crew. In fact they seem to even be concerned about proper space, and crew comfort aboard the racing boats.



> Q - How much fuel will a Volvo Open 70 carry and what is it used for?
> 
> A - The minimum fuel tank size is 230ltrs. The fuel is used mainly to generate power for the navigation and instrument systems, lights, keel movement, communications, the water maker and the media equipment.


From: The Volvo Ocean 70 Explained | Sailing World



> Volvo Ocean 60-Class Stats
> 
> Required number of motorized desalinators: 1
> Required number of manual desalinators: 2
> Required amount of emergency fresh water: 11 gal (50 L)
> Humans can survive about three days without fresh water; VO 60s carry enough to last about one. So the desalinator, which turns pumped-in seawater potable, may be the most essential item onboard-and the greatest weight saver, given how heavy stored water would be.
> 
> If the motorized desalinator breaks down, it's time to break into the emergency stash or break out the manual pumps. But be warned: "The amount of fresh water produced is about equivalent to the amount of sweat lost using them," according to one skipper during the 1997-98 race.


National Geographic | Volvo Ocean Race 2001-2002



> (7) Desalination Units: Two (additional to the one stowed in each life raft) hand desalination
> units, one of which shall be capable of desalinating 100 litres per day. This unit shall have
> an ergonomically sound mounting to facilitate routine water production in the event of a
> failure in the motor driven desalination units. The second unit shall be capable of
> desalinating 20 litres of water per day. Both shall be stored in the Emergency Equipment
> Locker refer Volvo Open 70 Rule 12.6.1.


http://www.volvooceanrace.com/stati...es/m21173_notice-of-race-inc-amendment-12.pdf

I was thinking of making another comment or two about the so called expert open ocean racers who say they run the race with nearly empty tanks, but I am going to stay silent because I think that sensible parties have already come to understand that the idea of sailing thirsty is just not a good plan.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Note to self:

Never commit to a sailing trip without having known the other crew members (including the skipper) for at least as long as the voyage is going to last.


----------



## hellosailor

"And the jibbering incoherent senior members of this forum chose to"

Eh, Mark? If they are incoherent, how can you figure out what they chose or said? By definition...you've just committed a Jane?

I have to wonder, if you're taking along 86 year olds...not that they can't sail and sail well, but when you take the mother-in-law along, that says to me "Not seriously racing here, just going out for a ride" and that just doesn't add up to carrying less than full tanks of water. Only _serious _racers try to cut weight by shorting the water and fuel, and they don't take supercargo along for the ride.

Even if I thought dawg was off his meds (which I don't) it just don't all add up. Especially, why Harry would need to _import crew from the east coast. _ Rock stars, sure, you take 'em where you can get 'em. But it also says to me that he couldn't get any local crew, and that suggests the locals don't want to sail with him.

You know?

There's always some reason when that happens.

Maybe next year, the TransPac folks could get GoPro to loan them four cameras on each boat.


----------



## hellosailor

skuttle the water...Uh, no, sailors know how to spell "scuttle" and that you can't skuttle water.

"We caught The Dawg washing his eye glasses under running water for several minutes, although Windex, was stipulated as the solvent to use."
Again, no. I do use Windex myself but the folks at SC Johnson are _adamant _about the fact at it should NEVER be used for coated lenses, which means pretty much all modern glasses. Never for many plastics, and most lenses today fall into those categories too.

"Stipulated" is also meaningless unless one says who it was stipulated by and whether anyone raised that objection, or otherwise.

Back to water...Oh come on now, are we aboard the HMS Bounty? Really, _dipping _the _hold _to determine water level? If I read that in a book, I'd say the author had never been on a boat.

And "FCC Title 14" ?? That's pure gibberish, the FCC refers to "Part ##" of their regulations, which in turn appear in the CFR, typically Title 47 of the CFR. I can't find any reference to FCC Title or Part 14.

Jane, Jane, is there a medical problem here? I understand what stroke damage and dementia can do, I've had family work through both, and I'd have to say that what you are saying reminds me strongly of that. What you are posting is only serving to confirm that there is something very simply wrong here.


----------



## mark2gmtrans

hellosailor said:


> skuttle the water...Uh, no, sailors know how to spell "scuttle" and that you can't skuttle water.
> 
> "We caught The Dawg washing his eye glasses under running water for several minutes, although Windex, was stipulated as the solvent to use."
> Again, no. I do use Windex myself bu the folks at SC Johnson are adamant about the fact at it should NEVER be used for coated lenses, which means pretty much all modern glasses. "Stipulated" is also meaningless unless one says who it was stipulated by and whether anyone raised that objection, or otherwise.
> 
> Back to water...Oh come on now, are we aboard the HMS Bounty? Really, dipping the hold to determine water level? If I read that in a book, I'd say the author had never been on a boat.
> 
> And "FCC Title 14" ?? That's pure gibberish, the FCC refers to "Part ##" of their regulations, which in turn apear in the CFR, typically Title 47 of the CFR. I can't find any reference to FCC Title or Part 14.
> 
> Jane, Jane, is there a medical problem here? I understand what stroke damage and dementia can do, I've had family work through both, and I'd have to say that what you are saying simply does not make sense except in a context like that. What you are posting is only serving to confirm that there is something very simply wrong here.


 Prolonged dehydration probably did it, that and absorbing the windex into her brain via the ocular tissue.


----------



## SalNichols94804

mark2gmtrans said:


> I know that 1.5 liters is not anywhere near enough water for people who are performing the labor of sailing, especially when sailing in tropical climates. The Mayo Clinic doctors think so too....
> 
> See more here.... Water: How much should you drink every day? - MayoClinic.com
> 
> I would say that the Captain/Owner should have planned for a minimum of four gallons per, day per person, plus a ten day reserve. This is a lot of water, and I know the boat would not be able to carry that much, so there is an issue from the start. I wonder why the owner of a race boat would not go with a three day sized tank and a watermaker that would fill it with a short time of running the generator or engine every day to keep it topped off? That would keep the weight lower, and help them make the passage more comfortably.
> 
> This is a long open ocean race, the boat has to finish with a healthy crew, and that includes the mental health of the crew as well, or starting the race does not make sense. You cannot finish the race in a good position if you are not performing at your peak levels, you cannot perform at peak levels if you are dehydrated. Mentally a person loses performance when dehydrated, in fact it can make you crazy, insane, doing things that are dangerous crazy.
> 
> Now I am sure there will be someone who will want to lecture us all about how open ocean racing means going without water. How having water is not a priority, and keeping your socks is too much weight, and stuff like that, which is insane. This is probably one of the long term side effects of being continually dehydrated, or perhaps just being an a$$. I personally do not understand why some people think that being dehydrated is a good thing, especially while performing the extremely strenuous labor of open ocean racing.
> 
> Apparently the folks over at the VOR agree with me on needing a watermaker, and plenty of water for the crew. In fact they seem to even be concerned about proper space, and crew comfort aboard the racing boats.
> 
> From: The Volvo Ocean 70 Explained | Sailing World
> 
> National Geographic | Volvo Ocean Race 2001-2002
> 
> http://www.volvooceanrace.com/stati...es/m21173_notice-of-race-inc-amendment-12.pdf
> 
> I was thinking of making another comment or two about the so called expert open ocean racers who say they run the race with nearly empty tanks, but I am going to stay silent because I think that sensible parties have already come to understand that the idea of sailing thirsty is just not a good plan.


Frankly, there is no physical way of putting that much water on most boats. In my case that would have been: 5 persons * 4= 20 gal/ day * 12= 240 gal + 200 gal in reserve + the 5 sealed gallons of emergency water required under the rules. 445 gallons...in a 37' Baltic.

With all due respect, stick to cruising.

As for your other suggestion, we don't do it (go with minimal tanks and a watermaker) because we're not permitted to do so under the rules.

I previously described how we provision, the rationale, and the rules, so I'll not bother repeating myself. I will say that 100 years of sailors racing the Transpac have done so on a water budget of 1 gal/day/person, and no one has died of thirst.

You provision in your way, well continue to provision in our way. My bet is that your boat won't be able to get out of its own way, but to each his or her own.


----------



## weinie

1. Are we being trolled?

2. Who's going to volunteer to crew with Jane next year and corroborate this lunacy?


----------



## aeventyr60

weinie said:


> 1. Are we being trolled?
> 
> 2. Who's going to volunteer to crew with Jane next year and corroborate this lunacy?


Maybe a SN lottery to crew with these guys? Could be kinda of a reunion, with the dawg and jake + the camera crew, sure to be next years hottest reality tv show. Any nominations? I think Smackdaddy would like some more offshore racing experience. What say the tribe?


----------



## Coquina

Jane vs. RD - I am amused people think there is a "side" here. Jane pretty much confirmed RD is as bad as his own posts make him look and ALSO confirmed she is as bad as RD says she was. Like I said, boat FULL of crazy, except the 86 year old maybe. She is the only one out of that bunch I would ever let on my boat 

BTW - I may be doing an offshore trip next year and we are starting the planning and get-to-know everyone phase NOW. NFW would I hop on a random boat and leave after reading this thread. Not like I would have before, but now I *really* would not!


----------



## JonEisberg

BentSailor said:


> How so? I don't think Jane's personality was ever really in question (whether people believed RD or not, I can't recall anyone calling him about Jane's personality). The issues that most people seemed to have with the story are about different things.
> 
> I'm not saying this because I have a beef against either side, but because her personality really isn't where the doubt comes in on the story. If I tell you I looked up at the blue sky then looked across the street to see Elvis with Buddy Holly having a beer - just because the sky happens to be blue doesn't make the story any more credible.
> 
> Jane seems a sandwich or two short of a picnic. Honestly, I've met some sailors (good ones) that come across just as bad online (& almost as bad in person). Sorry, but that really doesn't change the elements I have doubt about myself.
> 
> --
> Please note, I'm not taking sides. This is not a post supporting Jane/Harry nor taking a pot-shot at Dawg/Jake.


Exactly...

Some of he aspects of RD's account I initially found "implausible" have only been shown over the course of this thread to be more so...

He initially claimed that Harry & Jane had "no offshore or long passage experience"... Well, turned out the guy actually did a couple of races to Puerto Vallarta...

And now, their 'alleged' encounter with the HSV-2 SWIFT is sounding even less believable...

Especially, given the fact that Navy ship wasn't even in the same freakin' _OCEAN_ that AQUARIUS was at the time

She arrived in Mayport, FL on 23 May after a 4 month deployment... Next stop, her home port of Norfolk, VA:

Swift returns from deployment | News - Home


----------



## Minnewaska

Still no doubt in my mind that RDs original post was an outcry after a traumatic experience. While there's plenty of blame to go around, it is the Skipper job to establish healthy morale and I'm getting the impression there was zero effort. From provisioning, to crew selection, to water, to skill, to choice of mate, to tone aboard, etc. One common denominator, the Skipper, with several supporting characters.


----------



## Slayer

This thread is like Jason from Friday the 13th.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Or, this?
> 
> _Given Jane's recent 'contributions', RD's decision to get aboard that boat was even dumber than it originally appeared to be..."_


Or this?

_Have you ever dated a sweet Jane that was really nice on the first date, then tried to push you off a boat when you didn't talk to her enough the next day? In retrospect, that first date was a bad call and you just didn't know it._

Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing this is the famed Jane. The command of language is just too poor.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing this is the famed Jane. The command of language is just too poor.


Yeah, but what do you know, you see "command" as a noun, not a verb... 

You might get a clue, once you've finally sailed upon "The Seas of Inequity"...


----------



## smackdaddy

At least my windfoil isn't dangling like a limp participle.


----------



## Sal Paradise

smackdaddy said:


> Or this?
> 
> _Have you ever dated a sweet Jane that was really nice on the first date, then tried to push you off a boat when you didn't talk to her enough the next day? In retrospect, that first date was a bad call and you just didn't know it._
> 
> Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing this is the famed Jane. The command of language is just too poor.


Actually I have. Seriously - its just a matter of time before Sushi Chef/ Captain Harry and Grandma get their own profiles and appear on this read to give their side of the story, probably in much worse english!! :laugher


----------



## sailordave

krisscross said:


> You can actually learn a lot about a person just by counting the number of exclamation marks in their posts.


SPEWWWW! EXE's emails contain multiple exclamation marks multiple times!!!!!

Always cracks me up!!

!!!!


----------



## smackdaddy

Sal Paradise said:


> Actually I have.


Yeah - me too. And she almost succeeded! I would have fallen 20' into the nasty, sea urchin infested harbor of Honiara. Caaaarazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Coquina

Maybe Jane can explain why no one that knows them would go?


----------



## Cruisingdad

mark2gmtrans said:


> I would say that the Captain/Owner should have planned for a minimum of four gallons per, day per person, plus a ten day reserve. This is a lot of water, and I know the boat would not be able to carry that much, so there is an issue from the start. I wonder why the owner of a race boat would not go with a three day sized tank and a watermaker that would fill it with a short time of running the generator or engine every day to keep it topped off? That would keep the weight lower, and help them make the passage more comfortably.


No way. Surely that was in jest.

We, as cruisers with kids and a fat Bulldog don't go through anywhere NEAR that much water... even with showers and washing dishes in fresh water. Realistically, we can make it 14 days @135g with good conservation. Good conservation is salt water washes, fresh water rinses, and very brief showers which likely wont be everyday. If we take showers everyday and fresh water washes and are generally non-conservative, we are about 10-12 days. If we had to, we could push the two week limit (and if we were crossing the ocean, we would have to). In the marina, we can go under the 12 days - esp if the kids do the dishes.

Now, in fairness, we do drink gatorades and keep water bottles around for hikes or outings. But we also drink alcoholic beverages and we will generally keep a 5g bucket of water with ammonia in it for washing which could get refilled depending on spaghetti-to-mouth malfunctions. SO realistic numbers are 8g/day for us pretty conservative but comfortable. This will include the periodic showers and fresh water rinses for dishes. Also, as you increase the people, you can decrease some of the water/pp. THis is because a single person may still have to fill the 5g bucket of fresh water or the sink for rinses. But that same water can be used by others without decreasing the supply.

You also need to add into this discussion (as Jane pointed out) that you will be getting water from foods. If you eat a can of brothy soup, you probably are not going to drink a large cup of water afterwards. SO depending on the foods (excluding alcohol, that is ridiculous), you may not use as much water. Also, your suggestion for a 10 day reserve on top of that is ludicrous. Using your numbers, some boats may not even carry 10 days worth of water for that crew!

Regarding the watermaker, there is no way in Hades that I would have the lives of my crew dependent on a mechanical piece of equipment that could fail without warning. Like Nick did, I would have it as a backup, not as a primary use. If he says he can do it, and has done it, on 1g of water/person - I will take his word for it. THat would not be my comfort level, but with severe conservation, I can see how that could work (also including food/soups and excluding alcohol).

My opinion (and real life experience).

Brian


----------



## smackdaddy

Cruisingdad said:


> No way. Surely that was in jest.
> 
> We, as cruisers with kids and a fat Bulldog don't go through anywhere NEAR that much water... even with showers and washing dishes in fresh water. Realistically, we can make it 14 days @135g with good conservation. Good conservation is salt water washes, fresh water rinses, and very brief showers which likely wont be everyday. If we take showers everyday and fresh water washes and are generally non-conservative, we are about 10-12 days. If we had to, we could push the two week limit (and if we were crossing the ocean, we would have to). In the marina, we can go under the 12 days - esp if the kids do the dishes.
> 
> Now, in fairness, we do drink gatorades and keep water bottles around for hikes or outings. But we also drink alcoholic beverages and we will generally keep a 5g bucket of water with ammonia in it for washing which could get refilled depending on spaghetti-to-mouth malfunctions. SO realistic numbers are 8g/day for us pretty conservative but comfortable. This will include the periodic showers and fresh water rinses for dishes. Also, as you increase the people, you can decrease some of the water/pp. THis is because a single person may still have to fill the 5g bucket of fresh water or the sink for rinses. But that same water can be used by others without decreasing the supply.
> 
> You also need to add into this discussion (as Jane pointed out) that you will be getting water from foods. If you eat a can of brothy soup, you probably are not going to drink a large cup of water afterwards. SO depending on the foods (excluding alcohol, that is ridiculous), you may not use as much water. Also, your suggestion for a 10 day reserve on top of that is ludicrous. Using your numbers, some boats may not even carry 10 days worth of water for that crew!
> 
> Regarding the watermaker, there is no way in Hades that I would have the lives of my crew dependent on a mechanical piece of equipment that could fail without warning. Like Nick did, I would have it as a backup, not as a primary use. If he says he can do it, and has done it, on 1g of water/person - I will take his word for it. THat would not be my comfort level, but with severe conservation, I can see how that could work (also including food/soups and excluding alcohol).
> 
> My opinion (and real life experience).
> 
> Brian


These are the kinds of numbers breakdowns I like to see. Very helpful. Thanks CD.


----------



## Cruisingdad

hellosailor said:


> skuttle the water...Uh, no, sailors know how to spell "scuttle" and that you can't skuttle water.
> 
> "We caught The Dawg washing his eye glasses under running water for several minutes, although Windex, was stipulated as the solvent to use."
> Again, no. I do use Windex myself but the folks at SC Johnson are _adamant _about the fact at it should NEVER be used for coated lenses, which means pretty much all modern glasses. Never for many plastics, and most lenses today fall into those categories too.
> 
> "Stipulated" is also meaningless unless one says who it was stipulated by and whether anyone raised that objection, or otherwise.
> 
> Back to water...Oh come on now, are we aboard the HMS Bounty? Really, _dipping _the _hold _to determine water level? If I read that in a book, I'd say the author had never been on a boat.
> 
> And "FCC Title 14" ?? That's pure gibberish, the FCC refers to "Part ##" of their regulations, which in turn appear in the CFR, typically Title 47 of the CFR. I can't find any reference to FCC Title or Part 14.
> 
> Jane, Jane, is there a medical problem here? I understand what stroke damage and dementia can do, I've had family work through both, and I'd have to say that what you are saying reminds me strongly of that. What you are posting is only serving to confirm that there is something very simply wrong here.


Sorry Hello, my friend, I don't agree with you there.

Even cruising, if I were to tell you NOT to do something, and you did it anyways, that would seriously piss me off. It would piss you off too. If he didn't want to clean his glasses with windex, he should have bought a different pair or left them in his bunk. Many of the racers I know have one pair for racing and another for 'life/cruising' because they dont want to lose a $250 set of Costas to Neptune. Clean, fresh water rinsed glasses are not a matter of life-death. Wasting water is. So if they are intentionally disobeying the ship rules, what do Harry and Jane do? I guess they tape the faucets.

If you turned on the AP, and I told you not to, I probably would disconnect it and you would have just seriously pissed me off.

If you forced me to fly a kite and I couldn't (or did it yourself against my wishes), that would seriously piss me off.

Somehow in all of this, there was a massive loss of trust and communication. I mean, can you imagine being the captain of your boat Hello, and having someone call the USCG and reporting you!?? At that point, any and all chances of the crew getting along are gone (if they were not before). And how does that captain feel when his crew calls the RC and complains? Geez, I'd feel like a genuine arse when I saw them again and it might even burn me out of racing with them again. Wouldn't you?

I am not trying to be unfair to RD or Jake in this... I simply cannot imagine the trip they had. Crazy, as one person put it. The reality is that the trip was a nightmare for all involved, and I wonder if any of them will race again (and that is the real tragedy in all of this). But to be clear, I hold the captain completely at fault in all of this because the buck stops with him. That being the case, it doesn't mean the captain doesn't have a gripe or two in this matter that would be completely justified.

But I wasn't there. I am being a Monday morning quarterback and basing my responses on what I have read here which we ASSUME is from both sides. Sure wish it would have been different for them all. And that is another reason why I think this thread is one of the best we have had in quite some time. I am hoping it will be a warning sign for those looking to crew or looking for crew as to what can happen. This does not mean Jake/RD are bad crew. Not at all. Nor does it mean that J/Harry were bad captains. It just shows the reality of being out there, the reality that once you go you are on your own, and the necessity to be cautious in making sure everyone can get along and not just hopping the first boat leaving port.

Again, my opinions.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

smackdaddy said:


> These are the kinds of numbers breakdowns I like to see. Very helpful. Thanks CD.


If you are serious about water conservation, I can start another thread and we can discuss some more specifics. But if you are setting this up for cruisers versus racing, I think the numbers will be different (less conservative).

Brian


----------



## Coquina

Offshore, for us, fresh water is for final washing and drinking. Rain is for showers 
I used to have a mesh bag to drag dishes behind the boat for the initial rinsing before they even hit the sink. That worked great except the time a shark just about took my hand off homing in on beef stew residue 

BTW< race or cruise, 1 gal/person/day would be fine for offshore IMHO.


----------



## JonEisberg

Cruisingdad said:


> ... I wonder if any of them will race again (and that is the real tragedy in all of this).


Actually, I would suggest that if each and every one of these people involved NEVER participate in a race again, that might be the _BEST_ possible thing to come out of this mess 

Especially, the one(s) who were actually mulling over the possibility of resorting to legal action...


----------



## smackdaddy

Cruisingdad said:


> If you are serious about water conservation, I can start another thread and we can discuss some more specifics. But if you are setting this up for cruisers versus racing, I think the numbers will be different (less conservative).
> 
> Brian


I'm serious about it...for both racing and cruising. However, as I've said in the "Slow Racing/Fast Cruising" thread, I have no intention to go Full Sparta in our racing.

So seeing real-life tips like yours, and Sal's, is important. What works, what doesn't? Where do I want to fall in that spectrum?


----------



## Cruisingdad

thefacts said:


> Why are you sullying a 107year Race, the committee and qualified participants, members of ORR/US Sail???


Well quite frankly, you didn't do them any favors either. I suspect your monitor must be covered in spit and your exclamation key probably popped off a few times.

You know, now that I have jumped on RD and Jake, I gotta say, your comments shocked me (not that you could really give a pattotie what I think, I understand, sometimes I don't care what I think either). But if this is how you respond to his accusations after many weeks of cooling down, then you must have been really interesting on that boat in the heat of it.

Duct tape? Really? Why didn't you just sit down with them as adults and discuss what you were doing and why? Did that not work or did you bother?

Did you discuss the water up front (not that I think that was the main issue, I think it was a failure of trust)?

Did you discuss the AP and they made you do it anyways?

Do you and Harry not know how to fly a kite?

Why did you pick them for crew? Why not a different team you have worked with in the past or people you knew? What were the minimum qualifications for that trip to be on your boat?

Obviously you wouldn't choose RD or Jake for a trip again, but how has this changed how you will choose your crew in the future?

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, I would suggest that if each and every one of these people involved NEVER participate in a race again, that might be the _BEST_ possible thing to come out of this mess
> 
> Especially, the one(s) who were actually mulling over the possibility of resorting to legal action...


I don't know Jon. There are a lot of assumptions here. THere may very well be crews that work well with them and they all get along. Certainly not RD and Jake, but others. The same thing is true for RD and Jake. THere may be captains that they would get along with too. For example, I wonder how they would have done on Nick (SalNick's) boat? I don't think he would have put up with any BS, but his crew obviously trusts him and he trusts them. I think that would have come through.

That was the failure here - trust on both sides. Sometimes you can have two really good people that simply have personalities that cannot get along. Divorce lawyers make a killing off of that.

My opinions.

Brian

PS On the legal action bit, I whole heatedly agree. That was a mistake to say or think that. But I doubt RD is pursuing that... at least I assume he is not.


----------



## Coquina

Offshore you wash things in SALT water. Fresh is only for a rinse. Joy soap is famous for sudsing in salt water  Most old-time watermaker-less cruisers only showered when nature provided the shower during a rainstorm. You can catch a LOT of water during rainstorms too if you have a good setup. If you just HAVE to clean yourself, a wipedown can be done with a washcloth and around a quart of water.



smackdaddy said:


> I'm serious about it...for both racing and cruising. However, as I've said in the "Slow Racing/Fast Cruising" thread, I have no intention to go Full Sparta in our racing.
> 
> So seeing real-life tips like yours, and Sal's, is important. What works, what doesn't? Where do I want to fall in that spectrum?


----------



## Cruisingdad

smackdaddy said:


> I'm serious about it...for both racing and cruising. However, as I've said in the "Slow Racing/Fast Cruising" thread, I have no intention to go Full Sparta in our racing.
> 
> So seeing real-life tips like yours, and Sal's, is important. What works, what doesn't? Where do I want to fall in that spectrum?


I am battling a cold right now, but will see what I can do. It will be a good discussion, esp if we get Jon, Aaron, WingnWing and other cruisers in there as their numbers may be different.

B


----------



## smackdaddy

Cruisingdad said:


> I am battling a cold right now, but will see what I can do. It will be a good discussion, esp if we get Jon, Aaron, WingnWing and other cruisers in there as their numbers may be different.
> 
> B


No worries. I just copied yours and Coq's posts to the Slow Racing thread to keep them handy. Good stuff.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Really, _washing eyegalsses _is a matter of life or death??? Come on... what that indicates is just the depth of petty b.s. to which they did sink, be it technicaly their prerogative to do so,.. it is still petty. And the fact that Jane brings it up herself shows me how incredibly blind she is to how something like that is perceived.

Guy is sailing to Hawaii with you for 2 weeks. Let him have a couple ounces of water to wash his glasses. He wasn't taking a shower.


----------



## jorgenl

Sal Paradise said:


> Guy is sailing to Hawaii with you for 2 weeks. Let him have a couple ounces of water to wash his glasses. He wasn't taking a shower.


Yeah, but you do not rinse stuff and let the water run while doing it, not even on a cruising boat.

It is like letting the water run while brushing your teeth.

you turn on water 
wet the brush
turn off water
brush
turn on water briefly to rinse mouth
turn off water.

simple.


----------



## hellosailor

Sal, you may disagree with Mark about water stowage, but his main point was that 1.5 liters per day is nuts. He suggests twice as much, 3 liters, while you are actually increasing that to FOUR liters, one gallon more or less.

And one gallon per person per day also happens to be the rough number used by many organizations, like DHS in all of their domestic preparation training. Been the same since the old Civil Defense fallout shelters, which also were stocked with one gallon per person per day. That's for couch potatoes in moderate climates allowing for some hygiene as well as drinking. Your only real difference comes at carrying the double reserve and of course a really good racing skipper arrives at the finish with zero reserves of anything, if the rules allow it. Which is why Bermuda races _require _a minimum of fuel onboard when the race is started. (Although I don't remember them requiring water, ever. Funny, maybe they figure sailors should have that much sense.)

The multiple comments about dehydration...Yes, it is interesting that one of the first consequences of dehydration is muddled thinking and that can also produce speech patterns similar to stroke. Dehydration will quickly lead to heat stroke or heat exhaustion and if no one on the boat treats that, it can lead to death on the same day.

But Sal, it sure sounds like you have good eyes that don't need glasses. Keeping salt spray off glasses, off real corrective lenses that can easily run $500 a pair these days, isn't easy. If you don't use adequate WATER on them, potable fresh water, then the salt rapidly abrades the coatings and the lenses and ruins them. Yes, that takes fresh water and clean soft paper towels to get them clean without damage. Yes, it is a wasteful PITA unless you need glasses and you're trying to keep them clean. You just try suggesting you'll use Windex to clean a camera lens, or binocs. Ask Nikon or Canon or Fuji what they have to say about that, and what will happen if you let some salt "dust" build up before you clean their lenses--which have the same coatings on them. Letting water RUN...would be excessive. Using enough water to dissolve and remove any salt solids, would be _necessary_.

Jon-
You're knocking RD over seeing the Swift, but that video clip was from MAY about a prior deployment. The race was more than halfway into JULY (May, June, July...) and Swift is designed as a high-speed craft. Unclassified speed, 48 knots, according to the DoD.

MSC Ship Inventory - High-Speed Vessels (HSV)

Other comments indicate Swift has made at least 66 knots on occasion, and the Wiki says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSV-2_Swift
"Swift returned to Incat at Hobart in July 2013 for refit for sale or charter.[6]"

That's Hobart AUSTRALIA, conveniently across the path of the TransPac during JULY, when the race was running. Sorry, but that UFO citing checks out. Apparently Swift only spent two weeks in port swapping crews, like a nuke sub, and then checked out again. She was built in Oz, which is why she "returned" to Hobart.

Unless you think the USN and the Wiki are in on the conspiracy? The dates and times _do _check out. Sixty knots...damn that must be fun.


----------



## smackdaddy

And I bet those guys on the Swift were using those new-fangled "digital charts".


----------



## MarkSF

"Other comments indicate Swift has made at least 66 knots on occasion, and the Wiki says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSV-2_Swift
"Swift returned to Incat at Hobart in July 2013 for refit for sale or charter.[6]"

The Wikipedia entry says she saw an apparent wind of 66 kts while retrieving a helicopter. As we all know, that doesn't equal speed through the water. If only it did, would make for some lively days in the slot.


----------



## Sal Paradise

jorgenl said:


> Yeah, but you do not rinse stuff and let the water run while doing it, not even on a cruising boat.
> 
> It is like letting the water run while brushing your teeth.
> 
> you turn on water
> wet the brush
> turn off water
> brush
> turn on water briefly to rinse mouth
> turn off water.
> 
> simple.


I believe that for eyeglasses there may be some paper towels or kleenex involved too.


----------



## JonEisberg

hellosailor said:


> Jon-
> You're knocking RD over seeing the Swift, but that video clip was from MAY about a prior deployment. The race was more than halfway into JULY (May, June, July...) and Swift is designed as a high-speed craft. Unclassified speed, 48 knots, according to the DoD.
> 
> MSC Ship Inventory - High-Speed Vessels (HSV)
> 
> Other comments indicate Swift has made at least 66 knots on occasion, and the Wiki says:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSV-2_Swift
> "Swift returned to Incat at Hobart in July 2013 for refit for sale or charter.[6]"
> 
> That's Hobart AUSTRALIA, conveniently across the path of the TransPac during JULY, when the race was running. Sorry, but that UFO citing checks out. Apparently Swift only spent two weeks in port swapping crews, like a nuke sub, and then checked out again. She was built in Oz, which is why she "returned" to Hobart.
> 
> Unless you think the USN and the Wiki are in on the conspiracy? The dates and times _do _check out. Sixty knots...damn that must be fun.


Looks like I stand corrected, that's what I get for relying on a mainstream media report  The video I cited said she was returning to her homeport of Norfolk after her stay in Mayport, and I mistakenly presumed that meant for 'a while'...

However, I still stand by my skepticism first expressed back in Post #46 re RD's account of the encounter with the SWIFT, and the ease with which a ship of the US Navy was simply "sent away" by Harry, smells like BS, to me...


----------



## blowinstink

JonEisberg said:


> Looks like I stand corrected, that's what I get for relying on a mainstream media report  The video I cited said she was returning to her homeport of Norfolk after her stay in Mayport, and I mistakenly presumed that meant for 'a while'...
> 
> However, I still stand by my skepticism first expressed back in Post #46 re RD's account of the encounter with the SWIFT, and the ease with which a ship of the US Navy was simply "sent away" by Harry, smells like BS, to me...


Wouldn't you think that if RD had made up any significant details such as the SWIFT incident, "Jane" would have gone to town on him for it?


----------



## Bene505

IIRC, groups go through several stages:
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Transforming​









Seems like this crew never got past the Storming stage.

Here are some more details on each step:









IMHO, a good skipper watches to see what stage the crew is at, even if it's just subconsciously. You can then work through the issues that are holding your team back.

There are more specifics (and written very well) here: http://joeypauley.com/leading-high-performing-teams

In the very limited eperience I've had looking for crew, I did phone interviews looking for something specific. Then we talked on the boat prior to departure, learning about each other, and covering safety scenarios. Of course this was for a 2-day coastal cruise, a much shorter trip.

Regards,
Brad
(MS Applied Behavioral Science from Johns Hopkins -- was going for an MBA originally, but found this type of training personally interesting, so I started loading up on these types of courses.)

By the way, my personal favorite sayings for this are: "criticize behaviors not the person", and "politeness goes a long way". To me, those two guidelines help keep the stages progressing.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Sal Paradise said:


> Really, _washing eyegalsses _is a matter of life or death??? Come on... what that indicates is just the depth of petty b.s. to which they did sink, be it technicaly their prerogative to do so,.. it is still petty. And the fact that Jane brings it up herself shows me how incredibly blind she is to how something like that is perceived.
> 
> Guy is sailing to Hawaii with you for 2 weeks. Let him have a couple ounces of water to wash his glasses. He wasn't taking a shower.


Those were the rules of the boat. He abides by them or finds a different ride. If she said he had to wipe his butt with one square to conserve paper, then he better dang good and well wipe it with one square.

But in one hand he is worrying about the water, and in the other he is rising off his glasses in fresh water? Toss the glasses overboard. They aint required racing equipment.

On our boat, we often keep a sink with a bit of water in the bottom for little things like this (and also to collect water that can be used later in rinsing off plates or other items). If he just let it run down the drain, it makes you wonder??

Again, I am not saying that he did this. What I am saying is that it aint his boat it is his ride. On matters like this, I don't see why you dont just deal with it. This wasn't marriage for gawds sakes. It was a couple of weeks.

Brian


----------



## jorgenl

Sal Paradise said:


> I believe that for eyeglasses there may be some paper towels or kleenex involved too.


There could be lots of things involved....


----------



## MedSailor

hellosailor said:


> ...
> Eh, Mark? If they are incoherent, how can you figure out what they chose or said? By definition...*you've just committed a Jane?*


Jane is now a verb. Awesome! 

MedSailor


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Thank god I'm happy solo sailing.


----------



## casey1999

I read this thread with interest as in the early 1980's I used to do yacht deliveries from Maryland and Florida down to the West Indies. These were non stop trips that normally lasted 2 to 3 weeks. The boats I sailed were in the 37-41 foot lengths and we had a total crew of 3 including Capt. We had no auto pilot (shifts were 3 hrs on and 6 hours off 24/7). We never took showers, and only used the freshwater for rinsing dishes and cooking/drinking. Bottled water and Gatorade and not been invented yet (those are both terrible inventioins as they generate tremendous plastic waste). We also navigated only by sextant as GPS and chart plotters had not been invented. We only had a VHF (epirbs, sat phone had not been invented and SSB was too expensive) We did have a life boat on board.

When I did the yacht deliveries, I never met the Capt or crew prior to boarding the ship. After boarding and helping provision and ready the boat (took a couple days) we left. The Capt or crew never had a problem, in fact, we all had a good time.

Man times have changed....


----------



## steve77

MedSailor said:


> Jane is now a verb. Awesome!
> 
> MedSailor


When used in that manner, wouldn't "Jane" be a noun? Although it wouldn't be a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Cruisingdad said:


> Those were the rules of the boat. He abides by them or finds a different ride. If she said he had to wipe his butt with one square to conserve paper, then he better dang good and well wipe it with one square.
> 
> But in one hand he is worrying about the water, and in the other he is rising off his glasses in fresh water? Toss the glasses overboard. They aint required racing equipment.
> 
> On our boat, we often keep a sink with a bit of water in the bottom for little things like this (and also to collect water that can be used later in rinsing off plates or other items). If he just let it run down the drain, it makes you wonder??
> 
> Again, I am not saying that he did this. What I am saying is that it aint his boat it is his ride. On matters like this, I don't see why you dont just deal with it. This wasn't marriage for gawds sakes. It was a couple of weeks.
> 
> Brian


Brian

I have no dawg in this fight. I cannot say who is to blame. My point is just this

were there even consistent rules to obey? Does it not sound like the rules changed as they went? A bit punitive? You think Jane sat RD and Jake down and explained to them at the dock that they must never use water on eyeglasses? and stipulated windex! Ha! We are talking about Jane's account here, so lets keep to it- she said there was plenty of water. Then she/ or they denied RD the necessity of cleaning his glasses. I say its petty and shows the poor leadership they had.

You may have your rules and you may enforce them on your boat. But I personally doubt that you would throw a sketchy crew in a sketchy situation into such a panic and provoke them, just to be vindictive. It seems like a stupid thing to do. I read your blog and I don't see that... I see intelligence and the opposite personality from Jane.


----------



## rbrasi

The amount of time I've wasted on this thread is Janing me.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Sal Paradise said:


> Brian
> 
> I have no dawg in this fight. I cannot say who is to blame. My point is just this
> 
> were there even consistent rules to obey? Does it not sound like the rules changed as they went? A bit punitive? You think Jane sat RD and Jake down and explained to them at the dock that they must never use water on eyeglasses? and stipulated windex! Ha! We are talking about Jane's account here, so lets keep to it- she said there was plenty of water. Then she/ or they denied RD the necessity of cleaning his glasses. I say its petty and shows the poor leadership they had.
> 
> You may have your rules and you may enforce them on your boat. But I personally doubt that you would throw a sketchy crew in a sketchy situation into such a panic and provoke them, just to be vindictive. It seems like a stupid thing to do. I read your blog and I don't see that... I see intelligence and the opposite personality from Jane.


That was very nice and thank you.

But hey, I sail with kids. I have the final say with my crew no matter what - with the 'Don't Make Me Get Your Momma'!!! I suspect you may be right that they did not sit down with them and discuss matters. As I said before, this trip fell apart at the dock. But who really knows? THe crew and owners know. We are just guessing. Darn shame though. It could have been a blast.

Brian


----------



## JonEisberg

blowinstink said:


> Wouldn't you think that if RD had made up any significant details such as the SWIFT incident, "Jane" would have gone to town on him for it?


Here is RD's account of their encounter with the SWIFT:



> Day 6, July 13:
> Conditions were not getting better despite Jane talking to Harry. There was a significant mistrust towards Jake and I. We were not allowed to talk to each other and not permitted to sit at the navigation table and must stay in our berth, per Jane orders. *In despair, Jake contacted a military ship "HS V2 Swift" nearby for rescue, claiming unsafe environment. Unfortunately Harry and Jane refused to let us leave the boat. The captain of Swift talked on the radio that they would monitor for 3 hours. They took away the VHF radio and sent Swift away. We were officially their prisoners.*


It seems likely that Jake would have identified himself as an American citizen in his call for "rescue"... In his perfect English, "non-detectable New York lawyer accent", no less...

Later on, Harry - in English so poor and heavily-accented that RD stated at the outset was extremely difficult to understand/decipher - apparently tells the command of the SWIFT, in effect, "Never mind, everything's fine here, please go on your merry way... No, I'm sorry, you may not speak to the gentleman who called asking to be removed from the vessel. Besides, he's resting peacefully at the moment, and specifically requested that his sleep not be interrupted... Buh-BYE..."

Some might find such a scenario plausible... However, I do not...


----------



## smackdaddy

rbrasi said:


> The amount of time I've wasted on this thread is Janing me.


Dude, you've been Janed.


----------



## MarkSF

Is it me, or has "thefacts"/Jane gone very quiet?


----------



## GMFL

MarkSF said:


> Is it me, or has "thefacts"/Jane gone very quiet?


I think it's you. I can still hear the "Sailing is a Verb, sailing is a noun." or WETF she was saying.


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> Dude, you've been Janed.


Come-on, don't go all Jane on me. (adjective?)


----------



## smackdaddy

blowinstink said:


> Come-on, don't go all Jane on me. (adjective?)


Don't Jane me, bro.


----------



## BentSailor

And as almost every word in a sentence?

_Janing Jane the Janed Janers!_


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> So now you're saying you admire her intellect? Wow.


Did I say that Steve? Point it out will you > or did you just make that up and assign it to me.

It was interesting to hear another side to the story though.

Even with her limited patience her racing knowledge and miles seem to outnumber yours, Dawgs, Jakes. I find it may be possible to listen to someone with the experience than someone who just talked the big game.


----------



## smackdaddy

chef2sail said:


> Even with her limited patience her racing knowledge and miles seem to outnumber yours, Dawgs, Jakes. I find it may be possible to listen to someone with the experience than someone who just talked the big game.


That's cool Chef. Listen to her if you like.


----------



## chef2sail

smackdaddy said:


> That's cool Chef. Listen to her if you like.


I listen to everybody


----------



## JulieMor

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Thank god I'm happy solo sailing.


Not so fast Mark! Stephanie is now 2.8 miles away and closing!


----------



## mark2gmtrans

JulieMor said:


> Not so fast Mark! Stephanie is now 2.8 miles away and closing!


How could she, the tart!


----------



## aeventyr60

Stepahine is only 2.8 miles from me too...geez this gal gets around.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

JulieMor said:


> Not so fast Mark! Stephanie is now 2.8 miles away and closing!


 Do I have to have a shower? I know I have some after shave somewhere... not for me, the bilges....


----------



## tomandchris

Please do not olet what has become a ridiculous thread reach 1000 posts. Show some restraint and STOP!


----------



## jackdale

jorgenl said:


> Yeah, but you do not rinse stuff and let the water run while doing it, not even on a cruising boat.
> 
> It is like letting the water run while brushing your teeth.
> 
> you turn on water
> wet the brush
> turn off water
> brush
> turn on water briefly to rinse mouth
> turn off water.
> 
> simple.


Just like at home.


----------



## Classic30

tomandchris said:


> Please do not olet what has become a ridiculous thread reach 1000 posts. Show some restraint and STOP!


Maybe we should just ignore it?!?.. That could be fun.  

Where's master Denby when you need him.


----------



## CalebD

tomandchris said:


> Please do not olet what has become a ridiculous thread reach 1000 posts. Show some restraint and STOP!


He!!, I've got over 4000 posts. I'm in!

Just Janing ya' buddy.


----------



## jackdale

A couple of folks have made reference to Gatorade.

Are you drinking the bottled stuff or the crystals. I have a condition that necessitates me increasing my electrolytes and salt. I drink tank water with Gatorade crystals. My crew drinks tank water either with Gatorade, iced tea or straight. I do carry medicinal ginger ale.

Bottled water is a ridiculous provision on a boat. I have some in the ditch bag, period.


----------



## SalNichols94804

hellosailor said:


> Sal, you may disagree with Mark about water stowage, but his main point was that 1.5 liters per day is nuts. He suggests twice as much, 3 liters, while you are actually increasing that to FOUR liters, one gallon more or less.
> 
> And one gallon per person per day also happens to be the rough number used by many organizations, like DHS in all of their domestic preparation training. Been the same since the old Civil Defense fallout shelters, which also were stocked with one gallon per person per day. That's for couch potatoes in moderate climates allowing for some hygiene as well as drinking. Your only real difference comes at carrying the double reserve and of course a really good racing skipper arrives at the finish with zero reserves of anything, if the rules allow it. Which is why Bermuda races _require _a minimum of fuel onboard when the race is started. (Although I don't remember them requiring water, ever. Funny, maybe they figure sailors should have that much sense.)
> 
> The multiple comments about dehydration...Yes, it is interesting that one of the first consequences of dehydration is muddled thinking and that can also produce speech patterns similar to stroke. Dehydration will quickly lead to heat stroke or heat exhaustion and if no one on the boat treats that, it can lead to death on the same day.
> 
> But Sal, it sure sounds like you have good eyes that don't need glasses. Keeping salt spray off glasses, off real corrective lenses that can easily run $500 a pair these days, isn't easy. If you don't use adequate WATER on them, potable fresh water, then the salt rapidly abrades the coatings and the lenses and ruins them. Yes, that takes fresh water and clean soft paper towels to get them clean without damage. Yes, it is a wasteful PITA unless you need glasses and you're trying to keep them clean. You just try suggesting you'll use Windex to clean a camera lens, or binocs. Ask Nikon or Canon or Fuji what they have to say about that, and what will happen if you let some salt "dust" build up before you clean their lenses--which have the same coatings on them. Letting water RUN...would be excessive. Using enough water to dissolve and remove any salt solids, would be _necessary_.
> 
> Jon-
> You're knocking RD over seeing the Swift, but that video clip was from MAY about a prior deployment. The race was more than halfway into JULY (May, June, July...) and Swift is designed as a high-speed craft. Unclassified speed, 48 knots, according to the DoD.
> 
> MSC Ship Inventory - High-Speed Vessels (HSV)
> 
> Other comments indicate Swift has made at least 66 knots on occasion, and the Wiki says:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSV-2_Swift
> "Swift returned to Incat at Hobart in July 2013 for refit for sale or charter.[6]"
> 
> That's Hobart AUSTRALIA, conveniently across the path of the TransPac during JULY, when the race was running. Sorry, but that UFO citing checks out. Apparently Swift only spent two weeks in port swapping crews, like a nuke sub, and then checked out again. She was built in Oz, which is why she "returned" to Hobart.
> 
> Unless you think the USN and the Wiki are in on the conspiracy? The dates and times _do _check out. Sixty knots...damn that must be fun.


To begin with, the 1.5l number did NOT come about until after day 12 at the earliest. AFAIK, there was no rationing before that time.

Secondly, you won't find me arguing that 1.5l is adequate. I never said that, and I defy that numb nuts Texan to find where I did. 1 gal/day is enough, and I've proven it 6x.

That said, when you are running out of water, 1.5l is far better than 0l, which is what you get when you don't ration. This is the one thing that boggles my mind about some of you people. THEY DID NOT RATION AT A 1.5L AMOUNT UNTIL DAY 12. Do you get that? They didn't ration until it became a matter of necessity, and you are arguing about it.

As for my eyesight. Don't presume to know diddly squat about my $500 Kaenons with the prescription lenses. I've ruined three pair.

Finally, there are NO dishes on my boats when doing a long race. Each crew member gets a bowl and a set of utensils. They're washed and rinsed in salt water. Who the hell ever said that fresh water rinses were required? Seriously...


----------



## MedSailor

steve77 said:


> When used in that manner, wouldn't "Jane" be a noun? Although it wouldn't be a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized.


Your mother is a verb!!! 

MedSailor


----------



## CalebD

Anyone remember that tv show called: "My mother the car"?
Classic, just like this thread.


----------



## SalNichols94804

Btw, there are never any plastic/bottled water aboard. Each crew member is asked to bring their favorite drinking bottle. They're filled from the foot pump. No plastic=significantly less garbage.


----------



## SalNichols94804

As for your specs: fill your coffee cup with water. Take a drink. One lens at a time, rins your specs. Don't use paper towels to dry them or you'll scratch them. Use a tshirt. Now brush your teeth and rinse with the remainder.


----------



## smackdaddy

SalNichols94804 said:


> THEY DID NOT RATION AT A 1.5L AMOUNT UNTIL DAY 12. Do you get that?


Ahm, yeah Sal, we get it. See, that's the whole problem we've been talking about since pretty much the beginning: Poor water management by the skipper (among many other things).

Pssst - I think Jane likes you.


----------



## Minnewaska

No boat that is carrying a hundred pounds of grandma can possibly care about shorting water in the tanks for a race. They just blew it.


----------



## mark2gmtrans

Minnewaska said:


> No boat that is carrying a hundred pounds of grandma can possibly care about shorting water in the tanks for a race. They just blew it.


I was just about to say the same thing.

Oh and for the WATER MAKER IS NOT PERMITTED guy...

ISAF RULES FOR TRANSPAC



> 3.21.2	Drinking Water
> a)	Each yacht shall have the necessary equipment (which may include watermakers and tanks containing water) permanently installed to provide at least 3 litres of drinking water per person per day for at least the likely duration of the voyage	MoMu0
> 3.21.3	Emergency Drinking Water	MoMu0,1,2,3
> a)	At least 9 litres (2 UK gallons, 2.4 US gallons) of drinking water for emergency use shall be provided in a dedicated and sealed container or container(s)	MoMu1,2,3
> b)	In the absence of a power driven watermaker, at least 1 litre per person per day in at least two separate containers shall be provided for the expected duration of the voyage	MoMu0
> c)	When a power-driven watermaker is on board, at least 500ml per person per day in at least two separate containers shall be provided for the expected duration of the voyage	MoMu0
> d)	Facilities shall be provided to collect rainwater for drinking purposes including when dismasted	MoMu0
> e)	All drinking water and any desalination units should be so arranged that drinking water is readily accessible when the yacht is inverted.


Also ISAF and Transpac require that the skipper and crew be trained, and experienced on the very same boat they sail on, they must practice together, and a whole lot of other stuff that never happened on this boat for this race.

This should have been a really fun trip, a great story for the kids and grandkids about the time "I was in the Transpac Ocean Race" but instead it was a nightmare. I kind of think it was probably not much better on some of the other boats, because of the anger management, the stupidity of doing things the hard way on the basis of "because that is the way it is done".

Minne, when you sail do you like to enjoy it? If you went sailing with me I would really want you and everyone else to enjoy it, especially if we were going to be on the boat nonstop for say three weeks. I would want you to have a shower too. If I went sailing with someone who was angry, arrogant, and cruel I would not enjoy it.

Kind of a weird vacation. Get in a small confined space, go out to the middle of the ocean where I cannot get away from anyone and be treated all kinds of wrong by a crazy screaming lady and her crazy screaming partner. Nope, does not sound like fun to me.

If anyone comes sailing with me I will let them keep their socks.


----------



## JulieMor

tomandchris said:


> Please do not olet what has become a ridiculous thread reach 1000 posts. Show some restraint and STOP!


----------



## Coquina

I *STILL* want to know how they got in the race in the first place. At first glance they don't look like they could have got into the Bermuda race(s). How many of them did the Safety-At-Sea training?


----------



## smackdaddy

mark2gmtrans said:


> Minne, when you sail do you like to enjoy it? If you went sailing with me I would really want you and everyone else to enjoy it, especially if we were going to be on the boat nonstop for say three weeks. I would want you to have a shower too. If I went sailing with someone who was angry, arrogant, and cruel I would not enjoy it.


Mark, I agree with many of your points. But I also have to say that you really are missing the point of serious racing. Enjoyment in racing comes from _winning_. And winning requires a lot of the stuff you list above that makes you uncomfortable. It's the desire to win that allows racers to endure the discomfort.

All that means is that you're probably not a racing kind of guy. You like showers. I'm a "semi-racing" kind of guy. I love to race - and can forego the showers, but my boats will be heavy because I want good food and plenty of water.

But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the racing mindset. This is an important thing to keep in mind in this debate. I admire that mindset.

As in this example, where it goes wrong is when someone plans like they're a serious racer (maybe because they are advised by a serious racer on how to plan) - when, in fact, they're not very good at sailing in the first place. Dangerous combo.


----------



## blowinstink

smackdaddy said:


> As in this example, where it goes wrong is when someone plans like they're a serious racer (maybe because they are advised by a serious racer on how to plan) - when, in fact, they're not very good at sailing in the first place. Dangerous combo.


Oh and then the 86 year old . . . and the last minute cobbled together crew like it was a coastal delivery . . . and the personality disorders . . . lack of leadership . . . and then there is the little matter of Jane . . ..

I don't think anyone "planned as if they were a serious racer" I think Harry didn't plan at all or was too harried  to carry out whatever plans he might have had . . ..


----------



## miatapaul

jackdale said:


> A couple of folks have made reference to Gatorade.
> 
> Are you drinking the bottled stuff or the crystals. I have a condition that necessitates me increasing my electrolytes and salt. I drink tank water with Gatorade crystals. My crew drinks tank water either with Gatorade, iced tea or straight. I do carry medicinal ginger ale.
> 
> Bottled water is a ridiculous provision on a boat. I have some in the ditch bag, period.


And all this time I thought the only medicinal beverage was rum!

Actually someone at work said they had an upset stomach and was surprised when I got them a ginger ale and how well it works.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bene505

After thinking about this a bunch, and explaining the thread to my wife, I've come to a simple conclusion of my own, based on what I've read so far - yes Harry hasn't been heard, so this is based on what I know so far. I'll state it as if I'm talking to Harry, because that's the simplest way to explain it.

To Harry:

1) If you don't know how to use your spinnaker in a downwind race, you can't claim that you purposely left with partially full tanks. Simple as that.

EVERYTHING else flowed from that part of the chain of events that likely started with your being rushed to start. The end result was destined to be the use of the autopilot. You didn't have the water to proceed quickly enough with your current steering skill level.

You weren't racing, you were going for the grandma-was-here pickle dish. You never told that to the crew, so they had no idea that was your true goal, no idea that the boat was going to be slower than normal due to no spinnaker, and therefore they were less than concerned about the tanks being topped off.

Part way through, when your spinnakerless progress was slow, and after the crew had time to think about it, the water situation became evident. It was a real eye-opener to the crew. Two members of your crew realized it long before you did.

Now for part 2.

You lacked the leadership skills to setup a contructive environment where crew ideas would be valued, or at the very least you didn't have the listening skills to listen to them. That coupled with #1, meant that a "vehemment disagreement" was preordanied. Again, simple as that.

Either way, when the crew realized their predicament and you could not, they were forced to act to save their own hides.

In my opinion, Dawg and Jake saved your life, your wife's life, and grandma's life, at the cost of the pickle dish. I think you should thank them, but I'm not sure you will.

The responsibility for the trip rests with you. From this (admittedly one-sided) account, you demonstrated a lack of leadership, planning, and organization. You never communicated your true goal, which is against leadership 101 principles, if not downright devious. You needlessly endangered others. 

---

That is all about your behaviours, it's not meant to condemn you. Far from it. And hearing your side of things would be wonderful for the sailing community -- for those eager to learn and those who follow us. If my summary is wrong please tell me. If my summary is correct, there's even more for us to learn from each other (like how to not be rushed at the start). For we all need to learn, progress, and move on.

I'm sincerely hoping you participate. None of us are perfect.

Regards,
Brad

PS. To Dawg and Jake: Best you can do in these situations is remember that feelings are facts. Communicate that you are scared. Say it, and say why. Say it again, and why. It helps others start to realize that maybe things aren't going well.


----------



## smackdaddy

^^^^^^^^^This!


----------



## chef2sail

Bene505 said:


> After thinking about this a bunch, and explaining the thread to my wife, I've come to a simple conclusion of my own, based on what I've read so far - yes Harry hasn't been heard, so this is based on what I know so far. I'll state it as if I'm talking to Harry, because that's the simplest way to explain it.
> 
> To Harry:
> 
> 1) If you don't know how to use your spinnaker in a downwind race, you can't claim that you purposely left with partially full tanks. Simple as that.
> 
> EVERYTHING else flowed from that part of the chain of events that likely started with your being rushed to start. The end result was destined to be the use of the autopilot. You didn't have the water to proceed quickly enough with your current steering skill level.
> 
> You weren't racing, you were going for the grandma-was-here pickle dish. You never told that to the crew, so they had no idea that was your true goal, no idea that the boat was going to be slower than normal due to no spinnaker, and therefore they were less than concerned about the tanks being topped off.
> 
> Part way through, when your spinnakerless progress was slow, and after the crew had time to think about it, the water situation became evident. It was a real eye-opener to the crew. Two members of your crew realized it long before you did.
> 
> Now for part 2.
> 
> You lacked the leadership skills to setup a contructive environment where crew ideas would be valued, or at the very least you didn't have the listening skills to listen to them. That coupled with #1, meant that a "vehemment disagreement" was preordanied. Again, simple as that.
> 
> Either way, when the crew realized their predicament and you could not, they were forced to act to save their own hides.
> 
> In my opinion, Dawg and Jake saved your life, your wife's life, and grandma's life, at the cost of the pickle dish. I think you should thank them, but I'm not sure you will.
> 
> The responsibility for the trip rests with you. From this (admittedly one-sided) account, you demonstrated a lack of leadership, planning, and organization. You never communicated your true goal, which is against leadership 101 principles, if not downright devious. You needlessly endangered others.
> 
> ---
> 
> That is all about your behaviours, it's not meant to condemn you. Far from it. And hearing your side of things would be wonderful for the sailing community -- for those eager to learn and those who follow us. If my summary is wrong please tell me. If my summary is correct, there's even more for us to learn from each other (like how to not be rushed at the start). For we all need to learn, progress, and move on.
> 
> I'm sincerely hoping you participate. None of us are perfect.
> 
> Regards,
> Brad
> 
> PS. To Dawg and Jake: Best you can do in these situations is remember that feelings are facts. Communicate that you are scared. Say it, and say why. Say it again, and why. It helps others start to realize that maybe things aren't going well.


So how did Jake and Dawg save their lives? Were they in danger?


----------



## hellosailor

" Toss the glasses overboard. They aint required racing equipment. "
Shame on you, Brian! MARPOL violation! <VBG>

Running water is "tenant mentality" in the real estate business. Tenants, who usually don't ever see the water bills their landlords are paying, tend to run it and let it run. On boats I think "lubberly" covers that equally well, but of course, who's to say that Jane didn't make yet another gibberation by typing "running water" when she meant "ruining water". After all, it is ruined when you toss in the candies and Skittle it, right?

As to the Swift going about her business...Isn't that pretty much SOP? You've been told to make a five thousand mile transit, to report for drydock, and there's probably a schedule you're expected to keep because that dock costs money to stay empty. Someone says "Help!" Someone else says "No problem here, I'm the captain." so what do you do? File a report and keep on schedule. Really doesn't seem so peculiar, absent a verbatim log of the communications.


----------



## abrahamx

Sal Paradise said:


> I just have to say this, because no one else has--
> 
> sailor is definately a noun, not a verb.
> 
> sailing is also a noun.


I was getting around to posting the definition of the word but I think we can take your word on it.


----------



## steve77

abrahamx said:


> I was getting around to posting the definition of the word but I think we can take your word on it.


Given the course this thread has taken, I'm not sure it's wise to take anybody's word for anything.


----------



## abrahamx

chef2sail said:


> And you allowed Rockdawg and Jake to do what....insult the owners Harry and Jane freely.....how about a little fair play and letting them defend themselves.
> 
> You allow Smack full reign with his sarcastic comments about Jane/ Harry.....why not allow them to be sarcastic back.
> 
> Whats good for the Goose....is good for the gander..
> 
> Jake...were still waiting for that movie Rockdawg promised?


Yea, but they were not members then.


----------



## Bene505

chef2sail said:


> So how did Jake and Dawg save their lives? Were they in danger?


You're asking this because they could have gotten outside help, right?

Let's use a fun analogy...

You are strapped to a huge barrel of explosives, with a very long, slow fuse buring. It's a 6 hour duration fuse. When it gets to the barrel you die. You can't move or twist or get to the fuse. You look over and other loved ones are firmly strapped to the barrel too. They can't move or reach the burning fuse. You have a working cell phone. You believe that dialing 911 will get the police there in about 3 hours.

Are you in danger then? Does anyone in their right mind think otherwise? Yes, absolutely, you are in danger.

--

Along comes someone else who stumbles across your plight, cuts the fuse, and releases you. Did he/she save your lives? Yes he/she did, just as surely as the police would be saving your lives otherwise.

--end of analogy--

Even slow danger is danger. Yes, Dawg and Jake saved the crew's lives. For them to say it's no big deal, that someone else (Coast Guard, Navy) could also have saved their lives would be ingratious at best.

Regards,
Brad
P.S. I believe this is one of the reasons why people have differing views on many things -- time horizons. When you add long term effects and short term effects to a political discussion, you learn a lot.


----------



## hellosailor

But Brad, the weatherman _swore _that there would be intense storms in three hours, four tops, so really, the only question is whether the fuse was waterproof, wasn't it?


----------



## JonEisberg

Bene505 said:


> Even slow danger is danger. Yes, Dawg and Jake saved the crew's lives.


Uhhh, that seems like quite a stretch, to me...

George B's very considered and informed analysis of their track would not seem to support such an assertion... There appears to be negligable difference in their VMG towards Hawaii between 'pre-mutiny', and 'post-mutiny', after all...



> Smack, can you use your computer skills in reproducing for us the track's from Yellow Brick? (link below) You might find the track very interesting. You can see that they were pretty much always below the rhumb line and pretty much the southernmost boat in their division. You can see pretty graphically that the wheels fell off at the halfway point. I suspect that this is about the time when reality and fatigue set in for the crew resulting in a series of really poor decisions being made. They probably lost a day here in their bickering and inability to set a single course. When they did their final course change to fetch Hilo, they were closer to Honolulu, albeit, the AP most likely couldn't hold the deep wind angles required. Knowing that Tropical Storm Flossie was bearing down on the main island, why would they go there (impaired judgment from lack of experience?) Also, with water running short, wouldn't you want to stay in the shipping lane if you needed help. Heck, RIMPAC is going on at that time and you can't swing a cat without hitting a warship when you are within 500 nm of Pearl.


----------



## Sal Paradise

:worthless:

Here is a picture purported to be Aquarius on another forum. I can't vouch for it, but I did a google search and its the right type of boat and fits the description.










http://www.pressure-drop.us/forums/content.php?3717-Transpac-Mutiny

and this from facebook, apparently this is grandma waving--


----------



## DJR351

WOW! 95 Pages.......I think I'll wait for the mini series on HBO.....


----------



## smackdaddy

DJR351 said:


> WOW! 95 Pages.......I think I'll wait for the mini series on HBO.....


You may not be that far off. Why the camera crew?








> The Yes Men are a culture jamming activist duo and network of supporters created by Jxxxxxx Sxxxxx *(JAKE)* and Igor Vamos.[1] Through actions of tactical media,[citation needed] the Yes Men primarily aim to raise awareness about what they consider problematic social issues. To date, the duo has produced two films: The Yes Men (2003) and The Yes Men Fix the World (2009).[1] In these films, they impersonate entities that they dislike, a practice that they call "identity correction". The Yes Men operate under the mission statement of lies and exposing truth. They create and maintain fake websites similar to ones they intend to spoof, which have led to numerous interview, conference, and TV talk show invitations. They espouse the belief that corporations and governmental organizations often act in dehumanizing ways toward the public. Elaborate props are sometimes part of the ruse (e.g. Survivaball), as shown in their 2003 DVD release The Yes Men. The Yes Men have collaborated with other groups of similar interest, including Improv Everywhere and Steve Lambert.[2]


I just love culture jamming and lying.

Jake? You have some splainin' to do!

(Somebody posted this earlier and it flew right by me at the time. Seems relevant.)


----------



## shadowraiths

Here's a short blurb from a crew member of another transpac 2013 boat.

This was a hard fought and well-earned victory for the Cirminal Mischief crew. The whole crew worked together and worked hard. No one had any ego, everyone pitched in- packing kites, grinding, making each other coffee or a snack, you name it. We gelled as a team and endured a 9 day long dog fight with two Rodgers 46's, two J/125's and an Open 50. Every morning when the navigator Brendan came up to brief us on our position, the report was the same, "we're in a dead heat, guys. we have to push 100%." So we did. We had some sail issues, failures and other little problems but we dealt with all of them impressively well, losing almost no time. I'll be doing a full write up in the next couple of days, maybe after the awards this Thursday.

Epic race with a great crew! Go the Criminal Mischief!​
link

Too bad Ronnie didn't write the more detailed post. However, I had a chance to chat with him regarding this year's race. He said the boat was designed for racing, not cruising, and was therefore quite uncomfortable. Add that dynamic to the stress of ocean racing, in general, and you have a situation that could have made the trip unbearable. Instead, he said it was quite invigorating. And, from my understanding, the crew worked together like a well-oiled machine. They came in first in their division, and importantly, now have another great memory to add to their life book. Pretty awesome, imo.


----------



## Sal Paradise

smackdaddy said:


> You may not be that far off. Why the camera crew?
> 
> The Yes Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> (Somebody posted this earlier and it flew right by me at the time. Seems relevant.)







Wow!!! Could this GET any crazier?


----------



## JonEisberg

Sal Paradise said:


> :worthless:
> 
> and this from facebook, apparently this is grandma waving--


Hmmm, an inmast furling main, huh?

Yup, definitely NOT a Transpac race boat


----------



## Minnesail

smackdaddy said:


> You may not be that far off. Why the camera crew?
> 
> The Yes Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I just love culture jamming and lying.
> 
> Jake? You have some splainin' to do!
> 
> (Somebody posted this earlier and it flew right by me at the time. Seems relevant.)


I posted that link, I was familiar with The Yes Men before and when I tracked "Jake" back to them I chuckled a bit.

But in this case I don't think "Jake" was organizing some kind of prank. They tend to take on governments and mega-corps, and I don't think a low-rent sushi stall really fits that bill.

I think he just likes to sail and took an opening on the only Transpac boat willing to take crew without experience. And since he's the sort that hangs out with videographers and just generally tapes everything, why not get some good video of departure and arrival?

I really would like to see his videos from during the trip though... Jake, come back to us! Post video!


----------



## bljones

steve77 said:


> Given the course this thread has taken, I'm not sure it's wise to take anybody's word for anything.


anytime. anywhere. anyhow.


----------



## smackdaddy

shadowraiths said:


> Here's a short blurb from a crew member of another transpac 2013 boat.
> 
> This was a hard fought and well-earned victory for the Cirminal Mischief crew. The whole crew worked together and worked hard. No one had any ego, everyone pitched in- packing kites, grinding, making each other coffee or a snack, you name it. We gelled as a team and endured a 9 day long dog fight with two Rodgers 46's, two J/125's and an Open 50. Every morning when the navigator Brendan came up to brief us on our position, the report was the same, "we're in a dead heat, guys. we have to push 100%." So we did. We had some sail issues, failures and other little problems but we dealt with all of them impressively well, losing almost no time. I'll be doing a full write up in the next couple of days, maybe after the awards this Thursday.
> 
> Epic race with a great crew! Go the Criminal Mischief!​
> link
> 
> Too bad Ronnie didn't write the more detailed post. However, I had a chance to chat with him regarding this year's race. He said the boat was designed for racing, not cruising, and was therefore quite uncomfortable. Add that dynamic to the stress of ocean racing, in general, and you have a situation that could have made the trip unbearable. Instead, he said it was quite invigorating. And, from my understanding, the crew worked together like a well-oiled machine. They came in first in their division, and importantly, now have another great memory to add to their life book. Pretty awesome, imo.


If that's Ronnie Simpson - that dude has a story. Definitely a sailor I look up to.


----------



## blowinstink

bljones said:


> anytime. anywhere. anyhow.


Anyhow?


----------



## lowtide

Anyhow, by whatever source it is delivered.

'


----------



## MedSailor

blowinstink said:


> Anyhow?


It's another verb...

MedSailor


----------



## jameswilson29

Sal Paradise said:


> and this from facebook, apparently this is grandma waving--


That's not a wave - she is signalling for more water, please!


----------



## Sal Paradise

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, an inmast furling main, huh?
> 
> Yup, definitely NOT a Transpac race boat


If part of the problem was language, another part might have been different expectations. No clear consensus on the goal. Maybe Harry and Jane really were just going for the " oldest person to cross" pickle dish, but Jake and RD thought they were racing. That explains the spinnaker disagreement, and some of the water disagreement as well.


----------



## mark2gmtrans

Sal Paradise said:


> :worthless:
> 
> Here is a picture purported to be Aquarius on another forum. I can't vouch for it, but I did a google search and its the right type of boat and fits the description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure Drop - Transpac Mutiny
> 
> and this from facebook, apparently this is grandma waving--


She is saying "HELP I AM ON A BOAT WITH CRAZY PEOPLE AND I CAN'T GET OFF"


----------



## Grunthrie

steve77 said:


> Given the course this thread has taken, I'm not sure it's wise to take anybody's word for anything.


Definition of SAILING (Meaning of SAILING), a 7 Letter Word

2 dictionaries on one page, multiple citations of sailing 

That said I believe 'to sail' can be conjugated to 'sailing' as has been mentioned. Ain't english grand


----------



## Classic30

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, an inmast furling main, huh?
> 
> Yup, definitely NOT a Transpac race boat


Well, whadayaknow.. I didn't realise the Transpac had a Cruising Division.


----------



## tdw

Classic30 said:


> Well, whadayaknow.. I didn't realise the Transpac had a Cruising Division.


Why not ... the Sydney - Hobart seems to have a motor boat division these days.


----------



## Classic30

tdw said:


> Why not ... the Sydney - Hobart seems to have a motor boat division these days.


Don't most of them turn back after the Heads?.. Maybe what you're seeing are the "support vessels" for the go-fast racers.


----------



## xort

One thing that jumped out at me...there was a 'large' video crew at the departure and at arrival as well as a lot of video taping during the voyage. In my direct experiences with cable and reality television, I have seen a consistent pattern of MANUFACTURED conflict.


----------



## Classic30

Well, here's a question: Aside from this one, how many other cruising yachts competed in the Transpac?


----------



## bljones

"Survivor: Beneteau"?


----------



## aeventyr60

Classic30 said:


> Well, here's a question: Aside from this one, how many other cruising yachts competed in the Transpac?


This division was the "Tampax" section.


----------



## tdw

Classic30 said:


> Don't most of them turn back after the Heads?.. Maybe what you're seeing are the "support vessels" for the go-fast racers.


No, I was thinking of the go-fast racers .. running their engines 24 hours a day.


----------



## blt2ski

tdw said:


> No, I was thinking of the go-fast racers .. running their engines 24 hours a day.


That be a generator to operate the non emanual winches, canting keel, my brain........fridge, beer cooler, wine cooler......my brain.....need power for the electronics, so I can send insults to the fugly murderator on sailnet.......get weather reports, operate the satellite phone. oh, did we mention operate the canting keel or my brain yet?!?!?!?!?

have I splained mesylf yeht?

Marty


----------



## Classic30

Marty, you're a mess.. Go back to sleep. 



tdw said:


> No, I was thinking of the go-fast racers .. running their engines 24 hours a day.


Oh, righto.. I must admit, yacht racing isn't the way it used to be.


----------



## smackdaddy

xort said:


> One thing that jumped out at me...there was a 'large' video crew at the departure and at arrival as well as a lot of video taping during the voyage. In my direct experiences with cable and reality television, I have seen a consistent pattern of MANUFACTURED conflict.


If Jake and his mates were indeed "culture jamming" this race - it was a total fail.

Jam the AC or the VOR. Then I'll give you some cred.


----------



## TakeFive

smackdaddy said:


> If Jake and his mates were indeed "culture jamming" this race - it was a total fail.
> 
> Jam the AC or the VOR. Then I'll give you some cred.


Yes, it occurred to me that given Jake's history, maybe he set this whole thing up, and Harry, Jane, and even grandma were pre-scripted to blowup the race. In other words, our buddy rockDAWG was Punk'd. :laugher


----------



## blt2ski

Classic30 said:


> Marty, you're a mess.. Go back to sleep.
> 
> Oh, righto.. I must admit, yacht racing isn't the way it used to be.


Need daily requirement of glyphosate and monabor chlorate........oh, that is a different thread is it not?!?!?!?!?

Time for bed.......so how is monday looking Cam? it is sunday eve about 830 here on the left coast of NA> Saw Dodenjas results from the northern 100. He finished, so he figures he won........ok, so he was about 5th from last with 90 some odd in front.......but do not let him and daughter trying this for the first time they did not win! at least she did not mutiny on him!LOLOLOL

Marty


----------



## Classic30

blt2ski said:


> Need daily requirement of glyphosate and monabor chlorate........oh, that is a different thread is it not?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Time for bed.......so how is monday looking Cam? it is sunday eve about 830 here on the left coast of NA> Saw Dodenjas results from the northern 100. He finished, so he figures he won........ok, so he was about 5th from last with 90 some odd in front.......but do not let him and daughter trying this for the first time they did not win! at least she did not mutiny on him!LOLOLOL
> 
> Marty


Another slow day in the office, Marty.. but looking forward to the next race - a Pursuit this time. Means the quick buggers down the back are going to have to catch me!


----------



## blt2ski

Ah yes, prosuits.......have one of them a week from today.......they are fun!

Monday is kinda dark right now.....who knows in an hour or so. Might be a bit cloudy.....dang it!

Marty


----------



## Coquina

If they actully DID that - not saying they did - I would 100% support them being thrown right off the boat in mid ocean with raw steak tied to them.



smackdaddy said:


> If Jake and his mates were indeed "culture jamming" this race - it was a total fail.
> 
> Jam the AC or the VOR. Then I'll give you some cred.


----------



## Bene505

Not to mention the calls to the Coast Guard/Navy being less than genuine.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy

Coquina said:


> If they actully DID that - not saying they did - I would 100% support them being thrown right off the boat in mid ocean with raw steak tied to them.


This kind of thing is why we carry a couple of these particular survival suits on our boat:










This way we get to keep the steaks.


----------



## bljones

982 posts, 966 likes. For a RACING thread about 4 people at each other's throats and Betty White, the likeost ratio is impressive.


----------



## JulieMor

smackdaddy said:


> You may not be that far off. Why the camera crew?
> 
> The Yes Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I just love culture jamming and lying.
> 
> Jake? You have some splainin' to do!
> 
> (Somebody posted this earlier and it flew right by me at the time. Seems relevant.)


*The Yes Men?!?!?*

Oh boy... I can see it now - *"What do rich business owners do with their money? They buy boats they can't sail and pretend they are Captain Bly. We hopped aboard a sailboat in California headed for Hawaii in a race called the Transpac, where million dollar yachts are the toys of billionaires. Here's our story..."*

And from the little I've read here, they will have a story to tell. These guys specialize in finding people who make fools of themselves.

This clip is preceded by a talk they gave (posing as DOW execs) regarding acceptable loss of life in order to make a profit. You wouldn't think anyone would fall for that. Just watch.





How will it be for RD and company? Who knows... I wonder if RD signed a release? And the rest of the hapless crew? Probably.


----------



## Minnesail

JulieMor said:


> Oh boy... I can see it now - *"What do rich business owners do with their money? They buy boats they can't sail and pretend they are Captain Bly. We hopped aboard a sailboat in California headed for Hawaii in a race called the Transpac, where million dollar yachts are the toys of billionaires. Here's our story..."*


I don't think that's their style. They take shots at Exxon and Dow Chemical and the government, not small business owners. And I'm fine with that, Exxon could stand to be taken down a peg or two.

I think he's probably a funny/crazy guy who had the bad luck to end up on a crazy/dysfunctional boat.

"Jacques grew up in Arizona and began sailing (elsewhere) as a teenager. Since then he's sailed on five oceans and a few lakes. He recently obtained a US Coast Guard master's license and is ASA accredited to teach basic sailing, coastal cruising, and bareboat chartering; he also teaches sailboat racing. In his spare time, Jacques makes movies and runs environmental activism workshops at NYU, where he's a professor."
HRCS Crew Hudson River Community Sailing

If you're in New York and want to check him out, you can hire him to captain a day cruise:
Captains

This doesn't seem like the kind of guy who's out to take down the sailing.


----------



## JulieMor

Minnesail said:


> I don't think that's their style. They take shots at Exxon and Dow Chemical and the government, not small business owners. And I'm fine with that, Exxon could stand to be taken down a peg or two.
> 
> I think he's probably a funny/crazy guy who had the bad luck to end up on a crazy/dysfunctional boat.
> 
> "Jacques grew up in Arizona and began sailing (elsewhere) as a teenager. Since then he's sailed on five oceans and a few lakes. He recently obtained a US Coast Guard master's license and is ASA accredited to teach basic sailing, coastal cruising, and bareboat chartering; he also teaches sailboat racing. In his spare time, Jacques makes movies and runs environmental activism workshops at NYU, where he's a professor."
> HRCS Crew Hudson River Community Sailing
> 
> If you're in New York and want to check him out, you can hire him to captain a day cruise:
> Captains
> 
> This doesn't seem like the kind of guy who's out to take down the sailing.


I agree, but why the film crew?


----------



## MarkSF

15 posts to go, here's my contribution to the "1000 post fund"


----------



## Minnesail

JulieMor said:


> I agree, but why the film crew?


It is a bit odd....

I'm wondering if what RD described as a "film crew" was actually just a couple buddies with nice cameras. Jake is a guy who makes movies and travels a lot, it's possible he knows people at both ends and was like "Hey, dudes, come shoot some footage me going on an ocean race!"

I wish he'd come back and post some of that video here.


----------



## rgscpat

I assume Jake's (Jacques) "fifth ocean" was the "Southern".


----------



## JonEisberg

rgscpat said:


> I assume Jake's (Jacques) "fifth ocean" was the "Southern".


Hmmm, you'd think someone who has sailed the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans might have had the occasion to have flown a spinnaker at least _ONCE_ before, no?


----------



## happy_sailor

I still can't past the fact that these guys agreed to sail with the skipper without knowing him, and even more so that the skipper agreed to sail with THEM. I mean, that's a HUGE race, and with only 4 able bodies on board, you better make damn well sure that everyone gets along and that everyone is a REALLY GOOD sailor.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, you'd think someone who has sailed the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans might have had the occasion to have flown a spinnaker at least _ONCE_ before, no?


Sometimes things get lost in the mix; This was posted by Jake several pages back



> I have lots of spinnaker experience, and was the one who showed "Harry" how to set up the chute. He never actually got it, though, and rockDAWG and I were the ones who had to set it up each time "Harry" fouled it.
> 
> There was actually nothing difficult about flying the chute at night, even when the wind picked up, and even during the little squalls we encountered.


----------



## JonEisberg

poopdeckpappy said:


> Sometimes things get lost in the mix; This was posted by Jake several pages back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have lots of spinnaker experience, and was the one who showed "Harry" how to set up the chute. He never actually got it, though, and rockDAWG and I were the ones who had to set it up each time "Harry" fouled it.
> 
> There was actually nothing difficult about flying the chute at night, even when the wind picked up, and even during the little squalls we encountered.
Click to expand...

Ooops, my bad... Thanks for that correction, my apologies to Jake...

Could be a sign, that it might be time to quit posting to this one...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ooops, my bad... Thanks for that correction, my apologies to Jake...
> 
> Could be a sign, that it might be time to quit posting to this one...


Don't you hate it when your best smarmy-bomb gets shot down? Heh-heh.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Don't you hate it when your best smarmy-bomb gets shot down? Heh-heh.


LOL! Well, I must confess, I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around the notion that someone who has sailed both to the Arctic, and below 60 degrees South, would not have _immediately_ sized up AQUARIUS as a boat one would most definitely NOT want to be aboard for a 2,000+ NM passage


----------



## Coquina

5 more after this one! Come on 1,000!

I think we need to send the RD+Jake team on the "really old guy sails to the South Pole and might die" trip and see how that goes.

Actually Aquarius looks like a comfortable way to sail a relaxing 2,000 miles and AFAIK the boat had no issues. The CREW would have chased me off in 20 seconds though!


----------



## rgscpat

Of course, the boat itself wasn't really the problem, though it wouldn't have been my first choice, and the provisioning definitely had issues. The skipper, crew, and their management were a whole another matter. Someone could conceivably be a technically competent sailor, but somehow not have had enough experience with unstable, dangerous, or insufferable personalities to recognize their signs in time... or could be too focused on achieving a voyage to listen to warnings.


----------



## oceangirl

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Well, I must confess, I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around the notion that someone who has sailed both to the Arctic, and below 60 degrees South, would not have _immediately_ sized up AQUARIUS as a boat one would most definitely NOT want to be aboard for a 2,000+ NM passage


 Can I get an amen to that!


----------



## oceangirl

Now who is gonna make it 1000?


----------



## happy_sailor

haha I bet everyone's waiting till someone does 999... There ya go!


----------



## aeventyr60

Could I be so lucky to be the 1000....

Or the biggest freaking loser?


----------



## blowinstink

aeventyr60 said:


> Could I be so lucky to be the 1000....
> 
> Or the biggest freaking loser?


DAMN YOU MATT! (lemme see if I can erase a post)


----------



## wavedancer38

aeventyr60 said:


> Could I be so lucky to be the 1000....
> 
> Or the biggest freaking loser?


Uhhh.....I vote for biggest loser. Seriously, people are still responding to this thread?????


----------



## bljones

everyone, apparently, except RockNowhereToBeSeenDawg.


----------



## BentSailor

Everyone? I haven't replied since.... ah, @#$%.


----------



## happy_sailor

aeventyr60 said:


> Could I be so lucky to be the 1000....
> 
> Or the biggest freaking loser?


You're welcome.


----------



## Minnewaska

Didn't RD say he was heading right back out on a delivery? Still, it's been a while.

1000 posts..... epic.


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> Didn't RD say he was heading right back out on a delivery? Still, it's been a while.
> 
> 1000 posts..... epic.


Still a few hundred to go to match the "S/V Triumph Lost in the Atlantic", and almost 1,000 more to tie the BOUNTY thread...


----------



## mark2gmtrans

I am holding out to be number 5000


----------



## Slayer

If any video gets posted would someone notify us on a separate thread, because other than that I am done with this one. Thanks.


----------



## MedSailor

Slayer said:


> If any video gets posted would someone notify us on a separate thread, because other than that I am done with this one. Thanks.


Sorry, you gotta be in it to win it. 

MedSailor <--should have stayed up all night to be the 1000th poster


----------



## miatapaul

JonEisberg said:


> Still a few hundred to go to match the "S/V Triumph Lost in the Atlantic", and almost 1,000 more to tie the BOUNTY thread...


Yea, just started re-reading that thread and found his quote funny:



> 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


Fateful quote from Rockdawg about the embellishment I think.


----------



## xort

"Fateful"?

Perhaps prophetic?


----------



## Mac6464

...go all that way and not stay for a bit in Hawaii...That is CRAZY!


----------



## Skipper Larry

Well, once you used the autohelm you DQ'd yourselves on the race.


----------



## MedSailor

Skipper Larry said:


> Well, once you used the autohelm you DQ'd yourselves on the race.


Skipper Larry.... Let's see, Larry rhymes with Harry, which was a pseudonym. Post count 1.....

Larry, are you the missing link?  Oh, and welcome to SailNet!

Medsailor


----------



## Skipper Larry

Lol


----------



## thefacts

lancelot9898 said:


> Thanks for posting "Jane".
> 
> Would you be able to shed any light as to why Jake arranged for a film crew at the departure and then again at the arrival?


Jake is a known 'Culture Jammer" the real purpose of his film crew is yet to be unveiled. Suffice to say, from clues he dropped in conversation on the voyage include: the belief that the USA is evil, as well as her legal Corporations. Evil for the way they appropriate THE money they control. 'USA should drop all tariffs on developing countries, such as Africa". (No regard for workers in America that such tariffs protect.) His intention can be presumed to call into question, the cultural contribution The Race and our participation represent! Jane


----------



## thefacts

poopdeckpappy said:


> Sometimes things get lost in the mix; This was posted by Jake several pages back


Can you believe anything these two tell in their riveting story? Remember they are CHEATERS, and sabotaged our Race. They had copies of the 2013 'Notice of Race' & 'Sailing Instructions' + both attended the Skippers Meeting, STILL they used auto pilot. We want to have faith in the SaillNet community, but does a horror story trump the facts, because you crave entertainment or do you want to become better sailors? Jane


----------



## thefacts

Skipper Larry said:


> Well, once you used the autohelm you DQ'd yourselves on the race.


You are right the DAWG and Jake are CHEATERS and Sabotaged our Race despite having copies of 2013 ' "Notice of Race" & "Sailing Instructions" + attendees at the Skippers Meeting! What about NO auto pilot did they not understand? Character flaw perhaps? Jane


----------



## SlowButSteady

Give it a rest, Jane. The thread has played itself out, and no one came out looking very good. You can add dozens more posts and you probably won't change the way folks perceive the characters involved. All you're doing now is breathing fresh life into a thread that, deservedly or not, paints a pretty sad picture of everyone on the boat (with the exception of your mom).


----------



## Coquina

+1
NO ONE from that boat other than Jane's mom would ever be getting near my boat.

Jane - it went from some of you looking bad to ALL of you looking bad, with the previously noted exception of your mom. There is no recovery possible in this thread.


----------



## smackdaddy

thefacts said:


> Jake is a known 'Culture Jammer" the real purpose of his film crew is yet to be unveiled. Suffice to say, from clues he dropped in conversation on the voyage include: the belief that the USA is evil, as well as her legal Corporations. Evil for the way they appropriate THE money they control. 'USA should drop all tariffs on developing countries, such as Africa". (No regard for workers in America that such tariffs protect.) His intention can be presumed to call into question, the cultural contribution The Race and our participation represent! Jane


So you hid the water, taped the taps shut, and gave him only 1.5l/day to drink?

As the head of one of these evil legal corporations...well played.

Next time, don't forget to beat him with a wire hanger too.


----------



## RTB

Has anyone heard from rockDAWG? _Last Post: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013 08-04-2013 01:06 AM_

I would hate to think that he left SN for good, over this.

Ralph
Sea turtle visitor | sailing away with R & B


----------



## davidpm

thefacts said:


> Jake is a known 'Culture Jammer"


I had to google that.

Now I learned something new.


----------



## CalebD

Yawn!
You guys are still kicking this old dead horse?


----------



## tdw

CalebD said:


> Yawn!
> You guys are still kicking this old dead horse?


Fair suck of the sauce bottle Caleb .... how does one know the bloody horse has gone to god if you don't give it the occasional kicking ?


----------



## bljones

tdw said:


> how does one know the bloody horse has gone to god...?


Largely by the stench and the lack of any significant progress in any new direction...

Much like this thread.


----------



## AlaskaMC

bljones said:


> Largely by the stench and the lack of any significant progress in any new direction...
> 
> Much like this thread.


Oh come on. This thread has been a fount of information on racing and the culture around it. I have learned 2 very important things from 103 pages of "discussion".

1. Do not volunteer as crew for a race when the owner/skipper is clearly crazy.
2. Do not allow crew on your own boat for a race if they are clearly crazy.

Have I missed anything? I did get a "like" from Jane, which now makes me feel like Joan Crawford was patting me on the back with that look in her eye.


----------



## AlaskaMC

smackdaddy said:


>


Had to like this for the Mommy Dearest reference. I had forgotten about that messed up movie.


----------



## tdw

AlaskaMC said:


> Oh come on. This thread has been a fount of information on racing and the culture around it. I have learned 2 very important things from 103 pages of "discussion".
> 
> 1. Do not volunteer as crew for a race when the owner/skipper is clearly crazy.
> 2. Do not allow crew on your own boat for a race if they are clearly crazy.
> 
> Have I missed anything? I did get a "like" from Jane, which now makes me feel like Joan Crawford was patting me on the back with that look in her eye.


Clearly crazy ....


----------



## Sal Paradise

Crazy people are often good at hiding it. Don't think you can always tell right away.


----------



## glassdad

Does any know if they got the boat back for Hawaii? If so, how did the return trip go?


----------



## oceangirl

Like Andrew alluded to, "clearly crazy" won't work. Remember, little crazy on land makes for lot of crazy offshore.

A little dab will do ya


----------



## JulieMor

AlaskaMC said:


> Oh come on. This thread has been a fount of information on racing and the culture around it. I have learned 2 very important things from 103 pages of "discussion".
> 
> 1. Do not volunteer as crew for a race when the owner/skipper is clearly crazy.
> 2. Do not allow crew on your own boat for a race if they are clearly crazy.
> 
> Have I missed anything?


I heard Oracle's improvement was mainly due to what they learned reading this thread.


----------



## weinie

Are you saying John Kostecki had the cray cray?


----------



## hellosailor

Julie, how strange. You just can't believe these rumours. Why, I heard one directly from an Oracle crew that they were told if they couldn't do any better after the fifth loss, that two of them would be pulled at random and replaced with two from Aquarius! And you can, that changed their entire demeanor.

Of course that's all probably a scurrilous lie, but you'll notice the AC boats were built with no autopilot, no water tanks, and no spinnaker, to ensure they didn't have those kind of problems?


----------



## Sal Paradise

JulieMor said:


> I heard Oracle's improvement was mainly due to what they learned reading this thread.


Hahahahaaa!!!!

:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher

Ladies and Gentleman... I think we have a winner.


----------



## Classic30

JulieMor said:


> I heard Oracle's improvement was mainly due to what they learned reading this thread.


It's more likely that (a) the skipper and tactician were Australian and (b) there were hardly any Americans on board...  

...(ducks for cover)..


----------



## xort

...not surprising. American sailors only know how to chat online !


----------



## chef2sail

What's the big deal. The Stanley cup as been one by American, Czechs, Russians and oh yes Canadians. The NBA has internationals on every team. MLB , Americans pasttime has South Americans, venezualians, Panamanians, Japanese etc. 

Why all the consternation of Aussies or NZ. On Oracle, Team NZ shared info wh the Austrailia,and the Italians.

If you want to watch nationalistic teams watch the Olympics,
If you want to watch nanny safe races watch the Olympics. 
If you want to watch everyone with exactly the same boat, watch the Olympics

AC is about cutting edge technology, pushing limits and the limit, corporate sponsorship which crosses nations borders. 

It made for ooe exciting series, even though the Nannys on here tried to get it stopped before t started and even though some s vendetta ain't Ellison ads hem route for Oenone from another team and country.

Watch the Olympics for the best sailor. Watch AC for the best sailors and the bet technology has to offer. Cutting edge has its risks.

Oracle was impressive in its learning curve and dptatation. They just kept getting better...NZ CID the kopposite


----------



## rgscpat

Some of the comments on this thread seem to imply that only a small minority of sailors are crazy, and by implication all the rest are fully sane. 

Empirical observation might not completely support this notion. 

It's a continuum. And some sailors may be more continuous than others.


----------



## oceangirl

Agreed! but there is good crazy and bad crazy.


----------



## MedSailor

rgscpat said:


> Some of the comments on this thread seem to imply that only a small minority of sailors are crazy, and by implication all the rest are fully sane.
> 
> Empirical observation might not completely support this notion.
> 
> It's a continuum. And some sailors may be more continuous than others.


Agreed, all sailors are crazy, as proof see also: _the decision to buy and own a boat_.

The difference, is medication. Some are just not medicated enough. RUM! is the only proven cure for sailing crazy.  Have another dose!









Dose measures from left to right: Harry, Jane, RD and Jake. 
MedSailor


----------



## kjango

I want to understand something.....was the boat disqualified for using the auto-pilot ???


----------



## Classic30

kjango said:


> I want to understand something.....was the boat disqualified for using the auto-pilot ???


No-one gets disqualified if they don't finish the race..


----------



## Cruisingdad

This thread, as I have said before, is an exceptionally good and educational read for those that are interested in crewing, and those who are captains.


----------



## Cruisingdad

rockDAWG said:


> My crewing/captaining luck finally ran out on me, I was shaken but not broken. I need reinvent my luck to continue to sail the great ocean ours.
> 
> Here is my daily log while on board a 2002 Jeanneau 43 DS on on route from Long Beach, CA to Diamond Head, Honolulu, HI during the 2013 Transpac Race.
> 
> I changed the names of the people involved for now.
> 
> Me - rockDawg or RD. as on-board navigator
> Jake - Near coastal USCG licensed Captain. Serve as a crew.
> Harry - Skipper/Owner - A Japanese national owns a Sushi Restaurant in LA, long time old traditional sailor, but no off shore or long passage experience. Serve as a skipper
> Jane - Partner of Harry, co-owner of the Sushi Restaurant. Has no sailing experience. Serve a watch crew as needed
> Sheryl - Mother of Jane, 86 yo. No official duty.
> Jeanneau 43 - Corporation owned sailing vessel
> 
> ==========================
> Arrived LAX Friday July 5.
> Skipper Harry picked us up at the airport. He looks older than his age and on a heavy side, but nevertheless, a kind and humble gentleman. A number of close calls on the way to the marina, he veered off into other lanes on the highway a few times. I hope Harry sails better than he drives,  but I did not say anything and just sat quietly so he could concentrate on the road.
> When we got the marina, Harry had a hard time to find a parking space. Coming from as an exNYC cabbie, he does not how to drive. We were late for the 'First Time Racer' party. The kitchen at the yacht club was closed but Jane, Harry's business partner bribed the kitchen, and they made us a chicken sandwich for each of us. Actually I would have preferred go to Sam Woo to dinner. Oh well, the guests did not have the choice.
> 
> -Day 2, Sat, July 6
> Clear sunny sky in Long Beach. Oh boy, I really have a hard time understanding Harry's English. We need to develop some sign language. He apologized to us all the time about his language , but this is ridiculous. He has been in this Country for 16 years&#8230;&#8230;hahaha. We leave his marina and head to Long beach. He had me on the helm until we entered Long Beach since I have no idea when I am going. At time I have to rely on my iPhone. His chart plotter on the helm sucks, it is B/W and the screen has no contrast, impossible to read. We moved the boat to Pine Ave Pier, where the race official marina was.
> 
> There were other boats there on the pier. Because of space we were docked stern in with dropping anchor at bow. I was not able to convey my idea to Harry, so I drew pictures to show him my suggestion. He agreed and we docked successfully.
> 
> I saw lots of big boy toys in the race with professional crews. Our Jeanneau 43 just did not fit in the race. But whet the hell, we are here.
> We had the skipper meeting in the late afternoon. I recorded the meeting so that I wouldn't miss anything. I had zero local knowledge and was not familiar with the local names, so it was hard for me to follow what they were saying without a chart/map.
> 
> Obviously the meeting was not geared towards newbies like us. After the meeting was the party. Good food and good entertainment but one has to buy your own drinks in the party. Jake bought me a coke for the evening.
> 
> -Day 1, Sunday, July 7:
> A bit disorganized, lots of things to do were found not done. We tried to help as much as we could. I found out the provisioning was not done as planned. Sat phone and other safety equipment not installed done. Harry refused to buy a pair jack lines from West Marine. He insisted to use an old 3/8" round sheeting rope. Some of the re-inspection from the race committee was not just a joke. Just a check in the box deal. Totally unfocused, Jane hauled in a wind generator she obtained from eBay and asked me to install for the trip. Are you serious? I asked in my head.
> 
> We canceled our trial spinnaker run with Sam of Norht Sail in San Diego because Harry needed to go shopping for our food. Sam was a 17-time TransPac veteran. It was good that I could at least meet him in person. I tried to pick his brain as much as I could for the race. He gave me a lot of local knowledge. Jake and I wrote down as much as we could. I felt much better as I had sometime to study the chart and the weather report. It seemed to all come together well and scientifically made sense to follow the 1020 isobar.
> 
> Rocky start at the top: not sure what was going on, but there must have been big fight between Jane and Harry. Harry barred Jane from boarding the boat until 2 hours before the race started. I got a text message from Harry that was intended for Jane to read. Things were not looking good, I felt uneasy. I finally intervened and made both shake hand and start the team again.
> 
> Jake was also having second thoughts and considered backing out. I sacrificed so much for this race/voyage, I felt like I was being let down. Jake asked me what to do. I told him that I was committed to this trip and if he and Jane wanted to back out, I was comfortable sailing the boat alone with Harry. I told him I know Jeanneau well. We would be fine if Jake backed out.
> 
> Day 0, Monday, July 8: Race Day.
> An unexpected and totally unnecessary event. Harry blew up over the coffee filter left on the coffee maker by Jake. It was a half hour rage and total shut down all operation. My goodness, the man needs an anger management course badly. He threw things all over and around him. He was insulting Jake and everyone else claiming this is his house,&#8230;.. blah, bah.
> I don't think it was a big deal. The filter was still warm and he should have given Jake a chance to clean up. After all, we were being pulled all different directions for the last two days by two bosses. Well&#8230;. I didn't care, I just want to sail the Pacific and nothing can stop me know.
> {Edited: Never knew this was just the beginning of an ordeal that I have never expected}.
> 
> When my daughter was in her second grade, I think she had a better organization skills than that of Harry and Jane. We rushed and rushed in a totally disorganized way, I didn't really have time to think. Somehow, I thought we would have plenty of time to work out the details once the rush is over when on route to Hawaii. Jake reminded Harry to top off the water tanks but he left the dock anyway to head to the starting point. Both Harry and Jane were equally controlling.
> 
> We were 20 min late to the start of the race, but I was happy to see that we were underway; at least I was thinking we will have time to learn or adapt Harry's style. As I often said to other on the net. It is his boat, his house/castle, his rules unless my life is endangered.
> 
> Day 1 and 2, Tuesday and Wednesday, July 9 and 10:
> I am totally confused with this trip. Stress and fatigue were high. We were pulled into different directions at all time, like working with two bosses. We were being watched at all time. Micromanagement is too mild a word on this boat. How about nano- or pico-management?
> 
> And how about constantly remind you:
> 1.	You don't know and thing!!!
> 2.	You are a very bad crew!!!
> 3.	You are a crew and an employee, We don't need your opinion, You should do what you are told.
> 
> Day 3, Thursday, July 11
> Calling it quits.
> Harry exploded with his temper. We had no idea what the hell he was screaming and jumping up and down and stomping his feet like a five year old. He does not use sentences to communicate, just a single words. He continued screaming at you louder and louder with the same mispronounced word. No one knew what he meant, including his partner for 13 years.
> 
> Day 4, Friday July 12
> Weather is getting warmer. Water temp went up to 71 degree from 68. Partial sun is out for the first time. Our jib was tore and need to be repaired. Although it was a bit too early and we were far from the trades wind, at 2 pm. We flew the spinnaker with heading toward HI and wind was on 160 degree. Doing 6 to 8 knots. Argh, finally we got the speed that I was hope for.
> 
> Day 5, July 12.
> Too upset and too exhausted to enter daily log. Micromanagement and constant yelling finally wore me down.
> 
> Day 6, July 13:
> Conditions were not getting better despite Jane talking to Harry. There was a significant mistrust towards Jake and I. We were not allowed to talk to each other and not permitted to sit at the navigation table and must stay in our berth, per Jane orders. In despair, Jake contacted a military ship "HS V2 Swift" nearby for rescue, claiming unsafe environment. Unfortunately Harry and Jane refused to let us leave the boat. The captain of Swift talked on the radio that they would monitor for 3 hours. They took away the VHF radio and sent Swift away. We were officially their prisoners.
> 
> Without any hope of getting off the boat and still has at least 2 weeks of sailing, I tried to repair the jib and the jib track on jib furler. Jake hoisted me up to the forestay to repair the tract and lower down the jib. I ended up being hoisted 4 times. It was no fun and impossible to hold on. The bosun chair was so poorly made, it cut out my circulation from the waist down.
> 
> I was starting to put a doubt on this voyage what would if this bad situation continues. The boat was doing about 4 knots, and every day there are about 2 to 4 hour of yelling and the boat moved less than 3 knots. We are going to run out of food before seeing land.
> 
> Day 7, July 14:
> Things seem getting better since I raised hell or should I say I exploded. Jake and I stopped working, Harry apologized to me telling me that he did not properly maintain his boat for this trip. The forestay track came apart because the loosen allen screws. He thanked me to go up the forestay to fix the track. Otherwise, we have to return to Long Beach.
> 
> I warned him that I made no apology of my behavior of rising hell if he ever endangers my life again. He ordered me to go on the dock immediately to take the spinnaker down with my harrass. At the moment of his rage, I obliged and went on the deck with Jake to take the spinnaker down. That was stupid of me.
> 
> Day 8, July 15:
> Cloudy again
> Since I was ordered to stay in my berth, I did not do any watch. When I was up, I was informed the spinnaker was down, Harry claimed it was a wild gybe or should I say he was not good enough to sail at night with the spinnaker. I told him to use autohelm if needed to control the sudden wind changes. But he avoids and claim that autohelm is dangerous.
> 
> The repaired jib at least held up. But we were moving very slowly again.
> 
> Conditions are getting worse. Blame games begins. It is apparent that it is their boat, it is their decision. They don't care how long it takes to get to Hawaii. Both Jake and I want to get out this situation as soon as possible.
> Jake and I set up the spinnaker again. We were doing quite well and got the speed up. A few hours later, one of the snap shackles came loose and caused the spinnaker fly like a kite. We carefully got spinnaker safely on deck and just used the jib and main sail. Wind was good and we are doing about 6 to 7 knots.
> 
> Day 9, July 16:
> Every day seems like just another explosion. Life on this boat sucks big time. They think we are here to be their servants. Constantly being humiliated, we can't even trim the sails until we are asked. WTF!!!
> Jake and I sewed and repair the bottom part of the spinnaker so that it won't rip further up the sail. We have no control where we are heading where the wind is. Harry just take to rhumb line 243 degree, But we worked all day.
> 
> Jane took away the sat phone preventing Jake from downloading the weather grib file. Harry has a problem controlling his temper and totally lacks people skills, but Harry is not a bad person. Jane is an evil, manipulative, and controlling liar. She appears she controls Harry until he blows up.
> 
> Day 10, July 17
> Got up early in the morning and found out Harry took us directly north for almost 45 nm. WTF. Now we need to spend a whole day sailing back south. Wind died again.
> 
> We saw a j40 passing us. They did not even look at us or wave. They depart 2 days behind us. We are hardly moving.
> 
> Day 11, July 18:
> Jake and I stayed watch from 10 to 4 am. We had a good run with the spinnaker doing 6 to 7.5 knots at all time, we use the autohelm to get us through some hairly situation. It was the best we had for this trip. After more than 7 hrs, Harry came to relieve us. Less than 5 min at the helm. He lost control of the spinnaker and it suffered a total system collapse. We rush back on deck with total disbelief. We knew it would require 5 to 6 hours of me and Jake working hard to get the spinnaker up again to sail in decent speed.
> 
> Both me and Jake worked franticly to prevent any further damage to the spinnaker under a total darkness with 17 plus wind. I almost killed myself and I decided I must quit in the dangerous situation. Jake and I want back to the cockpit and told Jane we could not work under this condition. In less than two hours, it would be dawn. We would try again to fix the fouled spinnaker.
> 
> At day break, Jake woke me up and get ready to rescue the spinnaker that was stuck permanently on the forestay. After 3 hours, fight with the wind we got it down and fly the spinnaker again.
> The rest of the day, we sailed ok. Me and jake tried to dominate at helm as much as we could. Because we don't want harry at the helm to fuuk thing up. If things fuuked up, it is me and Jake to fix the problem.
> 
> Day 12, Friday, July 19:
> Mutiny at dawn
> Got 2 hours sleep in 24 hours, me and Jakeues were on the helm all night until 4 am. Handed the helm to Harry and within 30 min the emergency whistle blew and rushed to deck with my half naked body and harness. The spinnaker collapsed and fouled. The guy line fell. WTF!!!
> Jake and I fought like hell and battled 15 knots wind with huge sail of the spinnaker, and tried to save the spinnaker. We finally reattached the guy and cleared the fouled lines went back down to sleep. We were very lucky this time.
> 
> Must be less than 5 mins, the whistle was blew again, what the **** now. I bet my blood pressure went through the roof. The spinnaker was hopeless wrapped on the forestry. After 2 hours, Jake and I took down the damaged, torn spinnaker.
> 
> Mutiny is the only way to survive. I begged Harry to use the autohelm to control the spinnaker or we quit. We gladly put our lives on the line so many times (6) and we were only half way to Hawaii. We could not do this anymore. Like all the other times, they refused to use autohelm. I instructed Jake to use my satphone to call Dave Cort (Race Committee) The boat's satphone was no Longer accessible to us. I spoke to Dave begging him to help us to resolve the problem. He refused and claimed that is not their problem and we must resolve ourselves. I told him that this had become a safety issue for the crew members. I asked him to contact the CG for us and have the CG to call the owner. He hung up on me.
> 
> Because of poor reception, we moved up to cockpit to call the CG. Harry came behind and attacked Jake and use his arm around his neck and tried to get our sat phone and throw it over board. I struggled with him and he turned around and picked up the winch handle trying to strike Jake's head. I blocked his arm from hitting Jake. I dared him to strike me. But I was in a combat mode to block and struck his nose. He hesitated for a second and I grabbed and threw the handle away. Jane jumped in the midst of this for our phone, I grabbed her hands and pushed her to the starboard side of the cockpit and sat still. I told Jake to escape into the v-berth with the phone.
> I shouted both of them with fouled language that they were no match with my strength and speed. 'Don't be stupid'!!!
> 
> I went to the v-berth after Jake and locked ourselves in. Harry stepped on the hatch, preventing us from opening the hatch for air and better reception.
> 
> I had my iPhone with me and CG number. We contacted the Norfolk region and worked ourselves to west coast region. I asked Jake to call CG, since he speaks perfect English with un-detectable Jewish New Yorker accent.
> 
> After explaining the situation to CG, the remaining question was to ask CG for advice on how to take control of the boat legally. Under what situation we must follow to get us safely to Hawaii.
> 
> If we don't take control for the boat and sail her properly, our sails will suffer more damage and water supply will become an issue. We would be in trouble. We were totally out of CG Helo range. The wild gybe that Harry causes because his inability to sail at night, put me and Jake a greater danger.
> 
> Our water is dangerously low. Jake only given 1.5 L bottle of water to drink each day. And we are carrying an 86 year old lady who has no idea what is going on around her.
> 
> The CG informed us to deescalate the situation best I know how while he seeks legal advice. Lt. Daniel Han asked us to call back in an hour.
> =======================
> 
> I will download the rest from my iPhone later.


It starts here.


----------



## FSMike

Cruisingdad said:


> This thread, as I have said before, is an exceptionally good and educational read for those that are interested in crewing, and those who are captains.


And those who are students of abnormal psychology.
I suggest we delete the whole thing.


----------



## hellosailor

"And those who are students of abnormal psychology."
STUDENTS?

How about for practitioners of abnormal psychology?

And we get to charge the students tuition, just like everyone else. Discount on the tuition if we get to practice on them, too. (WEG)


----------



## Heinous

I just found this thread and haven't read all 100 pages, but wow. What a story. We were wondering what the deal was with those guys.


----------



## nighthawk

Only posting to mark the occaion of having gotten through this entire thread. Learned a lot from some of the comments and think that the majority of SNetters are at least on the verge of certifiable! HEHEHE. Thanks for sharing DR Ferron-I think?! No wonder you have a dragon.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

You deserve a medal for reading tenacity. Or do you have insomnia?


----------



## nighthawk

You know how, sometimes, your're just flipping through the channels and you pause, just for a moment, on something stupid like Jerry Springer or one of those housewife shows, because something in the sheer unbelieveability of it all catches your eye. Then, as the end credits are rolling, you realize that there is a large portion of you life that you can never get back again? Yeah, it was kinda like that! All I really wanted to know was why RD felt people on SN hated him. I now know entirely too much about too many people!


----------



## chall03

nighthawk said:


> You know how, sometimes, your're just flipping through the channels and you pause, just for a moment, on something stupid like Jerry Springer or one of those housewife shows, because something in the sheer unbelieveability of it all catches your eye. Then, as the end credits are rolling, you realize that there is a large portion of you life that you can never get back again? Yeah, it was kinda like that! All I really wanted to know was why RD felt people on SN hated him. I now know entirely too much about too many people!


And you suddenly crave some sushi and a drink of water?


----------

