# Bounty captain Robin Walbridge's 'reckless decision' blamed for sinking



## flyingwelshman

"The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has ruled the captain's "reckless decision to sail into the well-forecasted path of Hurricane Sandy" was the probable cause for the high-profile sinking of the HMS Bounty in 2012." - By CBC News, cbc.ca


----------



## JonEisberg

flyingwelshman said:


> "The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has ruled the captain's "reckless decision to sail into the well-forecasted path of Hurricane Sandy" was the probable cause for the high-profile sinking of the HMS Bounty in 2012." - By CBC News, cbc.ca


Well, _DUH_...


----------



## jameswilson29

How astonishing! Never saw that coming. Glad we waited until after the investigation.


----------



## TakeFive

jameswilson29 said:


> How astonishing! Never saw that coming. Glad we waited until after the investigation.


Nobody denies that sailing into the hurricane was the primary root cause. However, this finding is significant, and is the reason why the investigation had to be undertaken:



> The NTSB also pointed out in its report that the company responsible for the ship, HMS Bounty Organization, LLC, "did nothing to dissuade the captain from sailing into known severe weather conditions."
> 
> The board said that oversight contributed to the ship's sinking.


----------



## nolatom

When I first saw the video wherein Capt Walbridge said, with a Mona Lisa smile, "we chase hurricanes", I could have predicted the "authorities" would conclude pretty much as the NTSB did. 

Being caught out in a storm is one thing. Leaving port to head towards one is "something else".

Too bad they lost the two lives. And many many thanks to the Coast Guard that they didn't lose the rest.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

The entire report is here 
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/MAB1403.pdf
I havent read it yet but will now.

Press release 
Press Release February 10, 2014


----------



## TJC45

Lot of little dominos adding up to disaster. of course, as with most of these types of things, all started by extremely poor judgement.


----------



## weinie

She looks magnificent in that picture on the first page of that report.


----------



## Mechsmith

Sorry, I would blame a lot of it on the builder.

Ships and boats are supposed to utilize wind and water. Short of hitting shallow water or failing to depower the sails there is a limit to what manoevering a ship can do. 

The ship obviously was designed for lakes and rivers regardless of what the builder claimed. Since it was not a racing vessel there is no good reason (except for price points) that a boat could not lie a hull in a hurricane.

If there was not a lot of inadequate design in the world today I'd have to have found another way to support my hobbies.


----------



## capta

Mechsmith said:


> Sorry, I would blame a lot of it on the builder.
> 
> Ships and boats are supposed to utilize wind and water. Short of hitting shallow water or failing to depower the sails there is a limit to what manoevering a ship can do.
> 
> The ship obviously was designed for lakes and rivers regardless of what the builder claimed. Since it was not a racing vessel there is no good reason (except for price points) that a boat could not lie a hull in a hurricane.
> 
> If there was not a lot of inadequate design in the world today I'd have to have found another way to support my hobbies.


Wow, you're going to blame a builder who built a vessel to make a movie and expected her to burn in the last scene of the movie?
That's totally unfathomable to me. She outlived her expected lifespan by 52 years!


----------



## Don L

Mechsmith said:


> Sorry, I would blame a lot of it on the builder.


Really! 

I will just self censure the rest


----------



## HighTyde

flyingwelshman said:


> "The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has ruled the captain's "reckless decision to sail into the well-forecasted path of Hurricane Sandy" was the *probable cause* for the high-profile sinking of the HMS Bounty in 2012." - By CBC News, cbc.ca


This is why we pay so much for government. To come to conclusions that are obvious. But at least they came to the obvious solution. Image if they spent all that time and money and determined it had nothing to do with sailing into a hurricane.


----------



## PCP

HighTyde said:


> This is why we pay so much for government. To come to conclusions that are obvious. But at least they came to the obvious solution. Image if they spent all that time and money and determined it had nothing to do with sailing into a hurricane.


Well, if you go back to the thread were the issue was discussed you are going to see that to come to that general consensus it took a long time here too.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Mechsmith

If it was a movie prop why was it off shore? Was the captain or company informed that it was just a movie prop and never was intended to be sailed. 

Yes a lot of poor judgement was shown but basically somebody built and sold an un-seaworthy boat. 

We certainly can't blame the holding companies. OOP's Heading for PWRG


----------



## gamayun

What I never realized until seeing that map on pg 6 of the report is how much the captain turned the ship to move directly toward the hurricane and between the lee shore. Given the amount of weather information that would have been available, it seems unlikely he didn't know how massive that storm was before making that decision.


----------



## capta

Mechsmith said:


> If it was a movie prop why was it off shore? Was the captain or company informed that it was just a movie prop and never was intended to be sailed.
> 
> Yes a lot of poor judgement was shown but basically somebody built and sold an un-seaworthy boat.
> 
> We certainly can't blame the holding companies. OOP's Heading for PWRG


There has possibly been more written about this vessel than any other vessel in history. Why don't you do a little reading about her history and perhaps you will find the answers to these rather simple questions for yourself. I'm afraid I can't be more help without being rude.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

gamayun said:


> Given the amount of weather information that would have been available, it seems unlikely he didn't know how massive that storm was before making that decision.


Yeah. He turned deliberately as he said in the tv interview to chase hurricanes and get the wind behind him. He had no intention, by the looks, of staying to the east of it. If he had he would have had head winds and be in the dangerous quadrant.

Btw there was a post saying he should have layed ahull (a concept i hate, but lets say hove to)... He couldnt do that as the hurricane would have gone right over his head. But punching down with all speed destroyed his boat.

Once he left harbour he was committed.

When looked at it like that his decision making was more than just stupid or negligent....


----------



## PCP

Mechsmith said:


> Sorry, I would blame a lot of it on the builder.
> 
> .....
> 
> The ship obviously was designed for lakes and rivers regardless of what the builder claimed. Since it was not a racing vessel there is no good reason (except for price points) that a boat could not lie a hull in a hurricane.
> 
> ....


No, the ship was not designed for lakes and rivers but it was basically a XIX century design, made of wood, that has not the same seaworthiness of a modern design of the same size, made of steel.

I don't get what you mean racing boats but in fact the techniques to ride these historical ships in bad weather are not the same than on modern sailboats with modern rigs and much less windage. A modern sailboat can heel to 90º and recover. One of these has a much smaller AVS and in bad weather on of the main concerns is diminish roll.

Even if it was a modern sailing ship of the same size it would be very risky to take it to an hurricane even if the chances of survival would be bigger.

regards

Paulo


----------



## capttb

> In its final hours, the Bounty took on about three metres of sea water in a 3½-day voyage the NTSB says "should never have been attempted."
> Before setting sail in October 2012 the Bounty had undergone maintenance and repairs, most of which were performed by an inexperienced crew with little understanding of the specialized work, according to the NTSB report.
> "One of their tasks was to caulk and reseam a wooden hull, which had known areas of rot, with compounds supplied by the captain, including a silicone sealant marketed for household use," said an NTSB news release


It was reckless to leave the harbor under any conditions, it was taking on too much water sitting at the dock. It was certified as a "dockside attraction" and was no more sea worthy than the merry-go-round at the other end.
Bathroom caulk for goodness sakes.


----------



## christian.hess

I crewed on the "californian" a very very well maintained tall ship that was used in the movie AMISTAD bout 110 feet long or so.

this boat was impeccably maintained and had a very knowleadgeable captain and crew...they cruised the pacific and atlantic routes frequently.

so its not that all tall ships or replicas are sitting dock museums its again captain and crew responsabilty to maintain, upkeep modify and know the boats limitations.

for example If I as crew knowingly made a blind eye to using bathroom caulk on rotten wood(not seems) I would of simply quit my job before leaving that day.

simple

blame can be thrown all ways here..the point was in the end the captain made a wrong decision and the crew didnt either.

notice the article made mention of non experienced crew many times..?

this is key..as a captain on an old wooden replica can be quite endearing...bravado is common.

peace


----------



## TJC45

Absolutely one bad decision after another. All based upon poor judgement. 

Using non marine calking was an inexcusable cut corner. Shows the willinness of the captain and the company to take unneeded risk.

As for the crew all agreeing to set sail with the captain? That i get. Though the report states the captain clearly gave them a choice, the peer pressure, loyalty and faith in the captain were all in play. it would have been very difficult for any of the crew, especially the less experienced members to opt out. 

Interestingly other accidents point out the pressure to go. Among them a report of a Pan Am 727 that crashed will taking off from the airport at New Orleans. Though there was a severe thunderstorm at the airport planes continued to take off and land. Rather than delay the flight a few minutes to let the storm pass the Captain of this airliner hit the throttles and went for it. The plane crashed less than a minute later about a mile from the airport. Put on the ground by a micro burst. One of the side notes of that investigation was the pressure on the crew to go. other planes were going. Other pilots from their own airline were going. There was no way these pilots, using there better judgement, could tell their dispatchers they were gonna sit there until this thing passes. Pressure to go leads to bad judgement and a lot of lives lost or needlessly put in danger.


----------



## nolesailor

Mechsmith said:


> Sorry, I would blame a lot of it on the builder.
> 
> Ships and boats are supposed to utilize wind and water. Short of hitting shallow water or failing to depower the sails there is a limit to what manoevering a ship can do.
> 
> The ship obviously was designed for lakes and rivers regardless of what the builder claimed. Since it was not a racing vessel there is no good reason (except for price points) that a boat could not lie a hull in a hurricane.
> 
> If there was not a lot of inadequate design in the world today I'd have to have found another way to support my hobbies.


This ship was a movie prop...I find it hard to believe that someone would find fault with the builder...


----------



## Sal Paradise

Sorry, I would blame a lot of it on the builder. - mechsmith




You find me one ship builder in the world who will build and certify a wooden square rigger for use in a major atlantic hurricane off Hatteras with 30 foot waves and 100 mph wind. Doesn't exist. Might as well take the boat over Niagra Falls.


----------



## KIVALO

christian.hess said:


> I crewed on the "californian" a very very well maintained tall ship that was used in the movie AMISTAD bout 110 feet long or so.
> 
> this boat was impeccably maintained and had a very knowleadgeable captain and crew...they cruised the pacific and atlantic routes frequently.
> 
> so its not that all tall ships or replicas are sitting dock museums its again captain and crew responsabilty to maintain, upkeep modify and know the boats limitations.
> 
> for example If I as crew knowingly made a blind eye to using bathroom caulk on rotten wood(not seems) I would of simply quit my job before leaving that day.
> 
> simple
> 
> blame can be thrown all ways here..the point was in the end the captain made a wrong decision and the crew didnt either.
> 
> notice the article made mention of non experienced crew many times..?
> 
> this is key..as a captain on an old wooden replica can be quite endearing...bravado is common.
> 
> peace


Is this the same vessel that was at Mystic Sea Port for a while?


----------



## mstern

nolesailor said:


> This ship was a movie prop...I find it hard to believe that someone would find fault with the builder...


This whole "movie prop" thing is rearing its ugly head again. Although she was built for the "Mutiny on the Bounty" remake, she was built and designed to sail on her own bottom from Nova Scotia (site of construction) to Tahiti (the site of filming), which she did, apparently without incident. Even though the original plan was to burn her for the film as the real Bounty crew did to the original, that doesn't change the fact that she had to be constructed to withstand a major ocean voyage. This wasn't some slapdash, false front, movie facade POS, but a real tall ship. That she wasn't properly maintained over the years or was never certified to carry paying passengers are completely different issues.


----------



## algee

The main engines, generators, pumps, and other gear, all apparently suffered from lack of repair and maintainance. This, along with lack of spare parts,and knowledge of systems, probably contributed to the final sinking. For lack of a nail...........!


----------



## Sal Paradise

The NTSB disagrees -

_The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the sinking of tall ship Bounty was the captain's reckless decision to sail the vesel into the path of Hurricane Sandy. _

That is the official cause. They could have included the construction or condition of the ship in that - but they chose not to.


----------



## weinie

Sal Paradise said:


> The NTSB disagrees -
> 
> _The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the sinking of tall ship Bounty was the captain's reckless decision to sail the vesel into the path of Hurricane Sandy. _
> 
> That is the official cause. They could have included the construction or condition of the ship in that - but they chose not to.


Not that I'm doubting the conclusion, but that doesn't mean their results aren't up for debate.


----------



## Maine Sail

capttb said:


> It was reckless to leave the harbor under any conditions, it was taking on too much water sitting at the dock. It was certified as a "dockside attraction" and was no more sea worthy than the merry-go-round at the other end.
> Bathroom caulk for goodness sakes.


As I have said many times previously I walked around that boat on multiple occasions while she was on the rails in Boothbay. IMHO it should have been deemed unfit....

Unfortunately nearly EVERY image of her grotesquely rotted frames and shoddy Band-Aid like re-fit have 100% vanished from the net. I had hot-linked many and they are now gone.... Go figure...

I would not have sailed around Boothbay Harbor on that boat for a "Three Hour Tour" let alone ventured into the Atlantic. Walbridge chose to head beyond Boothbay, in a vessel barely fit for Lake Winnipesaukee, and on top of that he nheaded directly into a hurricane.

I think the term "reckless" fits nicely....


----------



## Minnewaska

"...did nothing to dissuade....." is pretty interesting. They must have dug and found nothing, or why note them at all.

I wonder what the taxpayer paid to learn this was the Captains fault, even some of the shoddy repair work.


----------



## SloopJonB

Mechsmith said:


> If it was a movie prop why was it off shore? Was the captain or company informed that it was just a movie prop and never was intended to be sailed.
> 
> Yes a lot of poor judgement was shown but basically somebody built and sold an un-seaworthy boat.
> 
> We certainly can't blame the holding companies. OOP's Heading for PWRG


Perhaps you missed the part about it being built as a movie prop.

You also appear to have missed the historical fact that old time square riggers SELDOM survived encounters with hurricanes.

Your conclusions are nonsense. It was solely the captains stupidity and hubris that caused it.


----------



## fryewe

TJC45 said:


> _*As for the crew all agreeing to set sail with the captain? That i get.*_ Though the report states the captain clearly gave them a choice, the peer pressure, loyalty and faith in the captain were all in play. it would have been very difficult for any of the crew, especially the less experienced members to opt out.


Well this is the part I DON'T get.

I wasn't there. And maybe I'm not as intrepid as the average fella. But I am sure my reaction to the Captain's decision to sail would have been...

*"Are you f**king NUTS?!!!!??*

Maybe I'm too old for peer pressure. After all I am a guy who fails to understand why half the country watches the TV show _Survivors_ or why anyone gives a rip about what any Kardashian or Bieber is up to today or any other day.

And the sea doesn't care about "loyalty and faith"...for the Skipper or anyone else.

I woulda grabbed my sea bag and saluted the quarterdeck watch and taken my leave...in a heartbeat.


----------



## fryewe

Columbus Foundation's _Nina _ and _Pinta_ are in port at Perdido Key today and tomorrow inviting tours by the general public. May have to go down there and take a look.

Hmmm....wonder why the foundation chose February rather than August or September to be sailing those vessels along the Gulf Coast? Let me think...must be a reason...


----------



## Sailormon6

fryewe said:


> Well this is the part I DON'T get.
> 
> I wasn't there. And maybe I'm not as intrepid as the average fella. But I am sure my reaction to the Captain's decision to sail would have been...
> 
> *"Are you f**king NUTS?!!!!??*


I think the explanation lies in the fact that they loved the ship and everything she represented to them, and they trusted their skipper, and they were, after all, young, and, like all youngsters, thought they were going to live forever. Regardless of their youth and inexperience, the investigators' report reveals that, at the height of the storm, a big sail was ripped, and the crew climbed the rigging to furl the sail in 25-30 foot seas with winds gusting to 90 kts. Despite their youth and inexperience, that was a remarkable crew.


----------



## miatapaul

SloopJonB said:


> Perhaps you missed the part about it being built as a movie prop.
> 
> You also appear to have missed the historical fact that old time square riggers SELDOM survived encounters with hurricanes.
> 
> Your conclusions are nonsense. It was solely the captains stupidity and hubris that caused it.


Yes, it was the poor decision of the captain to leave that killed them, but the final nail was the poor condition of the boat. They might have had a fighting chance if the boat had been in good condition. I do find it interesting that the photos of the poor condition have since disappeared from the internet. Given the condition of the ship and the huricane it was a death sentence leaving the dock, the real miracle is that only two lives were lost. We can thank the Coast Gard for that, as they took great risk to there own lives to save the crew.


----------



## Frogwatch

Whatever happened to "Not speaking ill of the dead" for which I was lambasted?

However, in this case, I agree, he musta been nuts. Yet we had ppl here trying to ride out Sandy aboard their boats and when I criticized them I was criticized for doing so. Foolishness is foolishness whether people here like it or not.

So, was this simply a case of bad judgement or was he suicidal? Surely he knew of the poor condition of the vessel.


----------



## billyruffn

I believe the official report missed a key element of the bad seamanship -- they come very close to omitting the role of the Gulf Stream in any of the many bad decisions the skipper made.

In my post to the thread here shortly after the sinking I made the point that once the Bounty crossed into the Gulf Stream the "die was cast" and the choices open to the captain were limited to the actions he took.

Look at the charts in the report. They crossed the Stream in fair weather with a N'ly component wind. As the storm approached the winds clocked to NE, then E'ly. At this point Bounty is across the Stream , which in this area is 100 or so miles wide, and he can't go back to the New England coast because he has a building wind against current.

And he can't continue SE because his ship won't sail to weather. His choices are taking a S'ly course head on into the storm, or heading SW, which he did.



> Also, turning the slow-moving Bounty to the west ahead of the storm would risk pinning the vessel between the hurricane and land......


While technically correct, this statement from the report would have been more accurate from a navigational perspective it it said "pinning the vessel between the hurricane and the strong NE Current of the Gulf Stream." In this circumstance the land is more or less irrelevant.

By Saturday the Bounty was flirting with the eastern wall of the Stream. If they went any further west (away from the storm) they would have been in an even worse situation with 60 or more knots blowing right down the axis of the oncoming current.

The report does mention the GS....



> .....As the Bounty continued toward the southwest, the vessel began to feel the effects of the Gulf Stream, a powerful ocean current with a strong northeast trajectory. Because of that, the Bounty may have encountered eddies, counter currents, and slower currents traveling with, but outside of, the main axis of the Gulf Stream. Any of these may have provided additional stress on the hull.


....but it misses the real point of Bounty's brush with the Stream. A boat moving through a current isn't stressed by the current per se. It is stressed be large steep waves created by wind vs. current.

None of the above in any way changes the very correct conclusions of the report. But it does tell us something about the reporters and their comprehension of the situational dynamics of sailing at sea.


----------



## gamayun

How many captains still find it superstitious to set sail on a Friday...? It's hard to believe people make serious decisions based on delusion.


----------



## miatapaul

Frogwatch said:


> Whatever happened to "Not speaking ill of the dead" for which I was lambasted?
> 
> However, in this case, I agree, he musta been nuts. Yet we had ppl here trying to ride out Sandy aboard their boats and when I criticized them I was criticized for doing so. Foolishness is foolishness whether people here like it or not.
> 
> So, was this simply a case of bad judgement or was he suicidal? Surely he knew of the poor condition of the vessel.


Well certainly a year is enough time. I is not like you never speak ill of the dead. there can be a lot to be learned from the dead. I do feel bad for his wife, as this report is very unkind to her husband.


----------



## capta

billyruffn said:


> I believe the official report missed a key element of the bad seamanship -- they come very close to omitting the role of the Gulf Stream in any of the many bad decisions the skipper made.
> 
> In my post to the thread here shortly after the sinking I made the point that once the Bounty crossed into the Gulf Stream the "die was cast" and the choices open to the captain were limited to the actions he took.
> 
> Look at the charts in the report. They crossed the Stream in fair weather with a N'ly component wind. As the storm approached the winds clocked to NE, then E'ly. At this point Bounty is across the Stream , which in this area is 100 or so miles wide, and he can't go back to the New England coast because he has a building wind against current.
> 
> And he can't continue SE because his ship won't sail to weather. His choices are taking a S'ly course head on into the storm, or heading SW, which he did.
> 
> While technically correct, this statement from the report would have been more accurate from a navigational perspective it it said "pinning the vessel between the hurricane and the strong NE Current of the Gulf Stream." In this circumstance the land is more or less irrelevant.
> 
> By Saturday the Bounty was flirting with the eastern wall of the Stream. If they went any further west (away from the storm) they would have been in an even worse situation with 60 or more knots blowing right down the axis of the oncoming current.
> 
> The report does mention the GS....
> 
> ....but it misses the real point of Bounty's brush with the Stream. A boat moving through a current isn't stressed by the current per se. It is stressed be large steep waves created by wind vs. current.
> 
> None of the above in any way changes the very correct conclusions of the report. But it does tell us something about the reporters and their comprehension of the situational dynamics of sailing at sea.


Unfortunately, there are very few at the USCG who know anything at all about sailing, sailing vessels and especially square rigged vessels.
I have gone through numerous COI's on tall ships, from a schooner built in 1906, to one built expressly to coast guard standards for charter in the 80's, and their lack of knowledge, as our licensing agency, was astounding.
I haven't read the report but, because of their general lack of knowledge of sailing, I would expect the focus of the investigation was seamanship related and sailing had little impact. Which may make sense, as the vessel was under power when things became catastrophic.


----------



## Sal Paradise

fryewe said:


> Well this is the part I DON'T get.
> 
> I wasn't there. And maybe I'm not as intrepid as the average fella. But I am sure my reaction to the Captain's decision to sail would have been...
> 
> *"Are you f**king NUTS?!!!!??*


From the report -

_Moreover, they knew that *the vessel already had limited crew*―the usual complement was between 20 and 25―so *if any of the current 15 left, the remaining crew would have an increased workload.* The crew members testified that they admired and respected the captain, and that the camaraderie among the crew was substantial. Therefore, none of the crew members chose to leave. About an hour later, at 1800, the Bounty departed New London. 
_
This is what gets me - I probably would have felt pressure to go too * and cursed the captain. They went because they felt that by not going, they would have made it harder on those who went. Loyalty to each other. I have more that I would like to say about the manner in which the "captain" put them in that position, but out of respect, I will leave it at that -they went out of loyalty to each other.

* I am pretty weather aware and I was anticipating the hurricane. I would have jumped off that ship in New London.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

There was a fantastic series of articles by a former marine safety inspector written during the hearings. Whatever money was spent was worth it, for the lessons that those articles point out. In aviation we talk about the "accident chain" or series of events that had any one been changed the outcome may have been different. This one unfolds like an aviation accident in slow motion.

Those articles revealed though Cpt. Walbridge was an "experienced" tall ship Captain, that was a far as the experience on the boat went. A cult of "Experience" was built up around the man. It was almost a Jim Jones sort of situation on that boat. The rest of the crew relied far too heavily on Walbridge's experience. Only the First Mate spoke up at the pre departure meeting to say he objected to leaving port. It was the First Mate that finally convinced Walbridge to Issue the Mayday, but only moments before the boat foundered. At that point the boat had, by any standard definition been, sinking for over a day, but business as usual for Cpt Walbridge's vessel. 

There was a long history of "normalization of risk", to the point that water coming in the boat faster than it could be pumped out did not alarm the crew according to testimony from these hearings. Emergency equipment was not tested or trained on because it was expensive and would get worn out. Dewatering pumps were equipped with cheap hose that collapsed when suction was applied. Home Depot products we knowingly used in lieu of marine grade products and the unknowing crew gladly accepted Walbridge's assertion it was "just as good". 

Can you imagine you are below deck on a flooding boat, canibalizing parts from one stalled generator (that was required to run the pumps keeping you afloat) to get the other one started when they both quit and plunge you into pitch darkness? Oh BTW, you are being slammed by the leading edge of a Hurricane at the time? Yet, the situation was so "normal" the engineer (who had practically no engineering experience on a ocean going vessel) said he was not concerned? Amazingly, according to testimony at these hearings no one other than the 1st Mate had any concern about what was unfolding, because they knew Walbridge was an "Experienced" Captain.

The articles were reminiscent of the ones by Mark Bowen that formed the basis of his book and the movie Blackhawk Down.


----------



## SloopJonB

miatapaul said:


> I do feel bad for his wife, as this report is very unkind to her husband.


It is harshly critical of him and justifiably so - not the same thing as being unkind.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

PalmettoSailor said:


> There was a long history of "normalization of risk", to the point that water coming in the boat faster than it could be pumped out did not alarm the crew according to testimony from these hearings. Emergency equipment was not tested or trained on because it was expensive and would get worn out. Dewatering pumps were equipped with cheap hose that collapsed when suction was applied. Home Depot products we knowingly used in lieu of marine grade products and the unknowing crew gladly accepted Walbridge's assertion it was "just as good".
> .


And the Captain asking, just before it sank... ""What went wrong? At what point did we lose control?" He still didnt know.

Just unbelievable.


----------



## Multihullgirl

PalmettoSailor said:


> There was a fantastic series of articles by a former marine safety inspector written during the hearings


Do you refer to Mario Vittone, who publishes at gCaptain.com? Vittone recently posted at Facebook stating that he would be presently writing another article in regards the NTSB report. I'm waiting with interest - Vittone is sharp


----------



## weinie

These pics were posted on another forum I read:


----------



## Minnewaska

Look at the picture on page 11 of the NTSB report. What a fool. While it's admittedly easy to Monday-morning quarterback, I lived this storm developing real time. That situation was 100% predictable. A terrible shame based entirely, as another poster said, on hubris.


----------



## E Be

fryewe said:


> Columbus Foundation's _Nina _ and _Pinta_ are in port at Perdido Key today and tomorrow inviting tours by the general public. May have to go down there and take a look.
> 
> Hmmm....wonder why the foundation chose February rather than August or September to be sailing those vessels along the Gulf Coast? Let me think...must be a reason...


I used to crew on the Nina. Try and make it out to see them they are pretty impressive. Especially since most of the time when people tour or think tall ships they are from the 19th century, ships and life were certainly different in the 15th century.

When Sandy hit I believe they where in Charleston, WV. They do their best to avoid foul weather, and the ships are very well built and maintained. This is actually the first port after being in the shipyard for about six weeks for yearly maintenance.


----------



## miatapaul

E Be said:


> I used to crew on the Nina. Try and make it out to see them they are pretty impressive. Especially since most of the time when people tour or think tall ships they are from the 19th century, ships and life were certainly different in the 15th century.
> 
> When Sandy hit I believe they where in Charleston, WV. They do their best to avoid foul weather, and the ships are very well built and maintained. This is actually the first port after being in the shipyard for about six weeks for yearly maintenance.


I saw them when they came up to New York, and enjoyed seeing them. There was a great stoner looking guy that was very informative, except he kept interrupting his speech every time girls went by on jet skies and he had to stop, jump up and wave to them. Very enthusiastic guy, that I think had been on the boat a bit long! As I suppose the original crew was as well.

My only real complaint was you did not really get to see much of the boat other than the deck.


----------



## manatee

Not one of the board members trained on Eagle?

USCG Barque Eagle


----------



## lancelot9898

I haven't read the report, but I hope there is some mention of the owner's responsibilty for hiring a competent captain and overseeing that the ship is properly operated and maintained. Was there any oversight what so ever?


----------



## BentSailor

Frogwatch said:


> Whatever happened to "Not speaking ill of the dead" for which I was lambasted?


FWIW, you were lambasted for bringing up politics. Lambasting the dead may be in poor taste but it happens. The issue you are referring to was that you brought politics into a thread about the death of a sailor when it was created (& being commented on) in the sailing discussion forum.

If you wish to discuss it further, there is the thread you created for that purpose in which we can continue the conversation. Let's leave this one to discussing the Bounty's demise and reasons for that.


----------



## Minnewaska

lancelot9898 said:


> I haven't read the report, but I hope there is some mention of the owner's responsibilty for hiring a competent captain and overseeing that the ship is properly operated and maintained. Was there any oversight what so ever?


The investigation reveals that the Captain had full operational control over the ship, which I don't think is unusual. That is why you hire a professional Captain. More damning, there seemed to be no pressure put on him to make the trip that day. I think many were expecting he was pressured to leave, by the owner. Not the case.



> "........No evidence suggests that the captain was under any pressure to risk both vessel and crew to make the November 10 date in St. Petersburg, and the event could easily be postponed. Still, even if the Bounty had remained in New London until after the storm had come ashore, and departed on Wednesday, October 31, with an average speed of 6 knots (a routinely achievable speed for this vessel), the trip to St. Petersburg would have taken about 10 days. There was thus enough time in the schedule for the Bounty to have made it to the November 10 event, even with a delayed departure from New London."


----------



## lancelot9898

I'm not sure how it was determined that the owner did not put the Captain under pressure to leave considering if memory serves me correct the owner pleaded the 5th. Plus aleaveating the owner of any oversight responsibility by appointing a "professional" Captain seems like a way to scapegoat any issues.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

lancelot9898 said:


> I'm not sure how it was determined that the owner did not put the Captain under pressure to leave considering if memory serves me correct the owner pleaded the 5th. Plus aleaveating the owner of any oversight responsibility by appointing a "professional" Captain seems like a way to scapegoat any issues.


You should read this if you want to talk about avoiding responsibility for maritime misadventures.

The Outlaw Sea: A World of Freedom, Chaos, and Crime: William Langewiesche: 9780865477223: Amazon.com: [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@51g8Qn6LZZL


----------



## E Be

miatapaul said:


> I saw them when they came up to New York, and enjoyed seeing them. There was a great stoner looking guy that was very informative, except he kept interrupting his speech every time girls went by on jet skies and he had to stop, jump up and wave to them. Very enthusiastic guy, that I think had been on the boat a bit long! As I suppose the original crew was as well.
> 
> My only real complaint was you did not really get to see much of the boat other than the deck.


Haha, I know who you are taking about. He is a real character. Last I heard he is giving tours of a volcano in South America. Was that Newburgh or Rochester? They are coming back this year at the end of the summer to both I believe.

Yeah a lot of people are bummed we don't let any one down below, but it is super small and can fill up quickly. It is cramped with just the crew down there. Also in the day, there would be no quarters down below since it would have just been for cargo.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Does it seem odd that the report has these two sentences together? 
_"Potential buyers also visited the Bounty while in New London. Later that same evening, the Bounty was to begin a transit along the US east coast to St.Petersburg, Florida, for the November10 event. "_

I wonder if buyers really did visit the Bounty the same evening they departed? Perhaps it gives some insight into the thoughts going through Walbridge's mind around that time. Or maybe its careless editing in the report and the buyers visited at some time earlier.


----------



## TJC45

fryewe said:


> Well this is the part I DON'T get.
> 
> I wasn't there. And maybe I'm not as intrepid as the average fella. But I am sure my reaction to the Captain's decision to sail would have been...
> 
> *"Are you f**king NUTS?!!!!??*
> 
> Maybe I'm too old for peer pressure. After all I am a guy who fails to understand why half the country watches the TV show _Survivors_ or why anyone gives a rip about what any Kardashian or Bieber is up to today or any other day.
> 
> And the sea doesn't care about "loyalty and faith"...for the Skipper or anyone else.
> 
> I woulda grabbed my sea bag and saluted the quarterdeck watch and taken my leave...in a heartbeat.


Really, ever tell a boss to stick it? maybe you have, but most people haven't. They suck it up and go along.

People do things everyday that are against their better judgement. Case in point: Right now we are experiencing one of our worst winters in decades in the U.S. With that a lot of snow and ice is bringing poor driving conditions. How many of the tens of thousands of people going to work, who drive in those conditions, putting themselves in danger, are doing so out of better judgement? That number would be close to zero. Some do it out of obligation, but most are doing because of pressure. The boss said get there, so there they will get, even it could kill them. The much smarter decision would be to tell the boss to stick it!

It was no different than the Pan Am pilots. Though they had been taught from their first day of flying to stay away from thunderstorms, they willingly flew right into one. Why? They knew better! Pressure to go!


----------



## TJC45

MarkofSeaLife said:


> And the Captain asking, just before it sank... ""What went wrong? At what point did we lose control?" He still didnt know.
> 
> Just unbelievable.


As always in these situations there is a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacking going on.

But with this one the judgement was so poor, that even the novices on this board are left thinking, if this is so obvious to us, why wasn't it so obvious to him? That we will never know.

One other thought, that he purposely put the ship into the path of the hurricane. he stated for the press that we chase hurricanes. Maybe, misguidedly, he was looking for that adventure, or maybe for just a good story once he reached Florida.

Whether he was a man passed his prime still needing to prove something to himself, someone who believed his own BS, or simply a guy who made a bad mistake, all missing with him.


----------



## alctel

Like another poster in this thread, I come from an aviation background where these reports are commonplace after an accident - I don't see it as a waste of money at all.

'Pressure to go' is a huge problem in aviation, in all levels, and it's really, really hard to resist - to a point that a large part of my commercial ground school training revolved around decision making and 'how to say no'.

It's easy to say 'oh I would have walked away!', it's another to actually be in the situation. Especially since a lot of the crew were very young (one of the good things about getting older is I'm a lot better at saying no! )


----------



## Minnewaska

lancelot9898 said:


> I'm not sure how it was determined that the owner did not put the Captain under pressure to leave considering if memory serves me correct the owner pleaded the 5th. Plus aleaveating the owner of any oversight responsibility by appointing a "professional" Captain seems like a way to scapegoat any issues.


First we were asked to wait for the official investigation to settle that point, now you remain unsatisfied. Is that because you're not happy with the conclusion? Despite the right of the owner being exercised, would the USCG have no other means to make this determination? I believe, if there was pressure, it would not have been a secret between just two people and would have been uncovered. Nevertheless, the report rightfully identifies that the schedule was not in jeapordy, so it stands to reason there was no need to apply pressure.

The only remaining possibility was wanting to get the boat offshore, to avoid dockside damage. If that was the sole motivation, they should have head east.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> If that was the sole motivation, they should have head east.


Or if the motivation was to emulate his own tv interview chasing hurricanes he did exactly like he said he does. Exactly.

Mark


----------



## TJC45

I don't know that the captain was pressured. he certainly didn't want to waste any time getting out of Dodge. And the decision to sail southeast, That could be argued as not a bad thing ( had the boat been seaworthy) 

My point is that crew would have felt pressure to stay with the boat and go. No doubt most of them had no idea what they were signing up for. 

To the posts that portray the ship as a movie prop with no business being on any ocean at any time: Nothing could be further from the truth. The ship was built to be sailed in the ocean. At the time of it's sinking the Bounty was 50 years old. Most of that time was spent sailing the ocean. Being 50 years old, the bounty had survived the ocean for about double the service life of a modern ship. So, her strength was beyond question. 

Had she been properly maintained or even had all the pumps on board been in operation she'd probably still be with us.

Lastly, a bit of trivia - Marlin Brando saved the ship from it's intended movie fate of being burned. he made saving the ship a condition of his contract. or so the legend goes!


----------



## miatapaul

E Be said:


> Haha, I know who you are taking about. He is a real character. Last I heard he is giving tours of a volcano in South America. Was that Newburgh or Rochester? They are coming back this year at the end of the summer to both I believe.
> 
> Yeah a lot of people are bummed we don't let any one down below, but it is super small and can fill up quickly. It is cramped with just the crew down there. Also in the day, there would be no quarters down below since it would have just been for cargo.


Newburgh. I can see that, he sure seemed to be quite the free spirit. My boys (like 12 and 15 at the time) just looked at me and laughed.


----------



## kjango

shocking verdict


----------



## welshwind

Not really material to this conversation, but this is the same captain in command of the Bounty when its masts clipped the Lake Shore Drive draw bridge in Chicago. Many tall ships had come to Chicago and were being moved up the Chicago River to dock along the river walk. I was one of the crowd watching them come in and said the person I was with, "he is going to hit the bridge!" and indeed he did. I think two of the masts were snapped off at the top. Fortunately, whatever feel landed in the water. It could have been a real mess if they had landed on the deck.


----------



## nolatom

capta said:


> Unfortunately, there are very few at the USCG who know anything at all about sailing, sailing vessels and especially square rigged vessels.
> I have gone through numerous COI's on tall ships, from a schooner built in 1906, to one built expressly to coast guard standards for charter in the 80's, and their lack of knowledge, as our licensing agency, was astounding.
> I haven't read the report but, because of their general lack of knowledge of sailing, I would expect the focus of the investigation was seamanship related and sailing had little impact. Which may make sense, as the vessel was under power when things became catastrophic.


Huh?? The first thing they get on entering the Academy is the "swab summer" on EAGLE. And some go on to be officers there. Many join the sailing team and race offshore and in the New England and Mid-Atlantic collegiate races which are always tough competition. And some (yours truly) come in later as reservists on active duty who happen to have grown up sailing.

I get that you're experienced and salty. And that you haven't read the report. If you get around to it, bear in mind that this is the NTSB report, not the Coast Guard's, which latter hasn't come out yet. you might consider waiting for it before "expecting" what's in it relating to sailing as opposed to seamanship, or whatever else?


----------



## PalmettoSailor

TJC45 said:


> As always in these situations there is a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacking going on.
> 
> But with this one the judgement was so poor, that even the novices on this board are left thinking, if this is so obvious to us, why wasn't it so obvious to him? That we will never know.
> 
> One other thought, that he purposely put the ship into the path of the hurricane. he stated for the press that we chase hurricanes. Maybe, misguidedly, he was looking for that adventure, or maybe for just a good story once he reached Florida.
> 
> Whether he was a man passed his prime still needing to prove something to himself, someone who believed his own BS, or simply a guy who made a bad mistake, all missing with him.


Regarding how the boat was navigated the articles I mentioned indicated his intent was to go well east of the hurricane, and while underway believing the storm would take a westerly turn and make landfall, he decided to alter course westerly and placed himself between the storm and the coast.

The articles also included interviews with other Tall Ship Captains and their comments after learning some of the conditions on Bounty.


----------



## fryewe

TJC45 said:


> People do things everyday that are against their better judgement.


A brilliantly simple program to improve operational judgement in the military in the 90s (I think it is still in effect) was called "Operational Risk Management".

"ORM" was a systematic approach to working through a pending operational requirement using common sense...identifying and weighing risks and rewards. Operations for which risks outweigh rewards are identified and the risks mitigated or the operation modified as needed.

Doesn't always work but it increases the likelihood of being able to ward off a strong case of the dumbazz.

No requirement to be a rocket surgeon or have great strength of character to do ORM. If Bounty's crew...experienced or newbies...had been familiar with it the ship likely would not have sailed.


----------



## SloopJonB

Applied in this case - "Hurricane coming, we don't go out".

Rocket surgery indeed.


----------



## Minnewaska

SloopJonB said:


> Applied in this case - "Hurricane coming, we don't go out".
> 
> Rocket surgery indeed.


At least go the other way!


----------



## TJC45

fryewe said:


> A brilliantly simple program to improve operational judgement in the military in the 90s (I think it is still in effect) was called "Operational Risk Management".
> 
> "ORM" was a systematic approach to working through a pending operational requirement using common sense...identifying and weighing risks and rewards. Operations for which risks outweigh rewards are identified and the risks mitigated or the operation modified as needed.
> 
> Doesn't always work but it increases the likelihood of being able to ward off a strong case of the dumbazz.
> 
> No requirement to be a rocket surgeon or have great strength of character to do ORM. If Bounty's crew...experienced or newbies...had been familiar with it the ship likely would not have sailed.


There was no way for the crew to be able to properly access and weigh the risk. They knew only what the captain told them. Wouldn't such a system require a proper weighing of the risk?

The captain's actions make Robert Redford's character in the much maligned "All is Lost" look like Sailor of the Year!


----------



## capta

Minnewaska said:


> At least go the other way!


One of the most important things to remember if you encounter a hurricane at sea is not to run down wind. If you run down wind you will be going deeper into the hurricane. Beating would be best, but usually impractical, so close reaching away from the eye would be best, or whatever you can do best safely. If you can stay in winds 45 knots or less (the outer fringes) you should be just fine and soon the storm will pass you by. Just don't run.


----------



## tweitz

Two points about Sandy. First, as many of us remember the weather forecasts were unbelievably accurate in predicting a highly unusual 90 degree turn to the West, into New Jersey. Second, the expanse of the storm was enormous. I have to wonder if the captain, who was trying to go East of the storm, didn't operate on the assumption that it would behave and track like the usual hurricane, and also if he did not spend his time following the predicted path of the eye, without realizing that there were high winds covering a record expanse of ocean. If the hurricane was the usual size, I am not sure if the result might have been different. 

Neither of these are excuses for the appalling lack of judgment by the captain. The information was there for him to see, he was, or should have been, the most familiar with the ship's condition, and there was a known hurricane out there. I disagree with those who are shifting some of the fault to the crew, who did not know better and were undoubtedly influenced by peer pressure, as we all are. As to the owner, we have no idea if he (or it) was knowledgeable about tall ships or wooden sailing vessels. They hired what they thought was an expert captain and presumably relied on his expertise. Not something so unusual. As to the owner taking the fifth, when criminal charges are threatened, his lawyer undoubtedly told hi to take the fifth, because answering some questions may waive his rights. It does not prove guilt.


----------



## fryewe

TJC45 said:


> There was no way for the crew to be able to properly access and weigh the risk. *They knew only what the captain told them.*


If this is true...and I doubt that so many reasonably intelligent people would be oblivious to Sandy's size/energy/track...then Darwin almost got a win. Only the USCG foiled him.

Hell...I was over a thousand miles away from her landfall and a half thousand away from her track and I watched the reports on her intensely. Don't most sailors watch angry weather...close and far...in order to try to understand it and learn the lessons without living through it? I can't imagine that many sailors in one place being ignorant of the risk.


----------



## gamayun

fryewe said:


> Hell...I was over a thousand miles away from her landfall and a half thousand away from her track and I watched the reports on her intensely. Don't most sailors watch angry weather...close and far...in order to try to understand it and learn the lessons without living through it? I can't imagine that many sailors in one place being ignorant of the risk.


Exactly. This is why this story has been so fascinating from the very first reports that the Bounty might be in trouble. We'll never know why the captain made the decisions he did, and we can throw in all sorts of other scenarios all we want, but there's no question that he simply screwed up at multiple, critical decision points. And for whatever reason, no one seemed confident enough to challenge him.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

fryewe said:


> ?..then Darwin almost got a win.
> 
> Hell...I was over a thousand miles away from her landfall and a half thousand away from her track and I watched the reports on her intensely. Don't most sailors watch angry weather...close and far...


This rather interesting point came up before and during the hearings. The Crew had a basic understanding there was some weather brewing down south but they were in the dock fully occupied by whatever tall ship sailors do... Splicing bowlines, or tarring their hair and pubes.
The personality cult of the captain meant two things: he didnt tell them anything as holding information is power, and they didnt ask as they trusted him. The only one who could have intervened or disseminated information was the First Mate and he was on leave till just before the meeting.

The Darwin bit is an insult to the crew for a number of reasons, employment situations always have a higher respect given to the boss, the crew's training was low but their zest and energy high in that 'alternate' sort of way, and the points above. Its quite unfair to say its anything to do with the genetics of the luckless, deluded, crew people.

In the meeting I doubt the Captain showed the crew satellite photos of Sandy, or the wind speed projections from the NHC, or anything from the NHC. He certainly did not say his intention was to head south then west to cross the path, get close to the eye and run fast down south. He despicably lied and said they would go well east, indicating the mid atlantic, and miss the storm completely.

You cant blame to crew because they were lied to. You can['t] blame young people for putting their noses to the work given them. And you certainly dont want, as a Captain, the crew skivving off work to look up the weather all the time to second guess your decisions and, in this case, the grandure of the Captains fantasies.

No the crew were not Grim Reaper materiel due to their genetics. They were lied to, deceived and shoved unmercilessly into harms way.

The whole thing makes me sick. And every further piece of information makes me more sick.

uke

Mark

Edited can to can't in the [] "you can't blame the crew for putting their noses into the work given them."


----------



## fryewe

MarkofSeaLife said:


> *The personality cult *...*Darwin bit is an insult to the crew*...
> 
> The whole thing makes me sick. And every further piece of information makes me more sick.


I agree that it's sickening...

...but how does being a member of a personality cult give one a pass on failures to be naturally curious and skeptical and responsible for one's decisions? The crew got themselves into a bad situation and I'm glad they had the courage and physical skill for most to make it back. But as has been said in other threads...relying on the Coast Guard to rescue you from your bad decisions is not a good plan of action.


----------



## Sal Paradise

That is what bothers me too - the way Walbridge did the briefing an hour before they suddenly left. Deceitful, predatory -and insane. I believe if he hadn't changed his schedule to leave at that moment, the crew would have heard the reports of Sandy and he would have had a mutiny on his hands the next morning. The crew seemed naive but not stupid. 

Had Walbridge lived, no doubt he would have been charged with manslaughter. The only conceivable defense he could muster in that case would be mental incompetence.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

fryewe said:


> I agree that it's sickening...
> 
> ...but how does being a member of a personality cult give one a pass on failures to be naturally curious and skeptical and responsible for one's decisions? The crew got themselves into a bad situation and I'm glad they had the courage and physical skill for most to make it back. But as has been said in other threads...relying on the Coast Guard to rescue you from your bad decisions is not a good plan of action.


I think we underestimate the ability of personality to indoctrinate young people. And young people over estimate their ability to remain independent.

Any army officer or sergeant in the infantry, marines etc will tell you his men will willingly storm a machine gun nest for him. The young men of that platoon damn well do too! But wiser older buggers like us will not. After carefully considering all information, sat photos, and asked on an internet forum or two, we will go for a political, diplomatic solution, or retreat and call in an airstrike.

Even us older people are deluded too.... Go back a few posts in this thread and someone regurgitates the hory old cliche that a Captains "word" is law. What utter ballderdash, and I hope this tragedy illustrates that to crews and to Captains.

Mark


----------



## Don L

MarkofSeaLife said:


> But wiser older buggers like us will not.


that's how we get to become wiser old buggers!


----------



## capta

I think we are all under estimating the roll the "silent" owners played in this thing. Many a time I have been given orders to have a vessel at a particular place at a particular time, often, my job depended on it.
We shall never know the captain's "sailing orders" and personally, I believe this could very well be why the owners have taken the 5th.
Given the end result, the captain may have very well been justified in refusing to leave, but the tall ship industry is a very small, close knit business, and had he done so and Sandy failed to live up to the forecasts, as many storms do, he could have lost his job and been "black balled", ending his career.
As so many of the captain's decisions are unfathomable to us, perhaps he was under pressures we are unaware of, by the "silent" owners.


----------



## benesailor

My 2 cents;

1. It's a given that the Capt made a bad choice to sail into a hurricane. I think he definitely overestimated the capabilities of the ship and crew. Maybe a little delusional as well. I believe the Capt was worried about a deadline to make. Hood winked the crew.

2. The crew wasn't well trained enough to leave the dock. While they had basic seamanship skills to handle the sails; they lacked the knowledge of the rest of the systems on the ship. Enthusism is not a substitute for maturity and knowledge, as pointed out before.

3. I believe that with a good, well rounded crew WITH mechanical abilities they _may_ have had been able to keep the boat dewatered. Thus, saving the ship.

Conclusion:
While we all agree that the reason the boat sank was a hurricane and a bad judgement call by the Capt. I believe the real reason it ultimately sank was a crew that lacked any type of training whatsoever. Essentially the crew were tourists. The Captain should never have put to sea given the weather and the ineptitude of his crew. Ultimately, it's his fault for not able to use Operational Risk Management accurately. So....the Captain lacked the neccesary skills to be a Captain.


----------



## Lake Superior Sailor

Now all that needs to be done is write a song about it and score a hit!....Dale


----------



## PCP

capta said:


> I think we are all under estimating the roll the "silent" owners played in this thing. Many a time I have been given orders to have a vessel at a particular place at a particular time, often, my job depended on it.
> We shall never know the captain's "sailing orders" and personally, I believe this could very well be why the owners have taken the 5th.
> Given the end result, the captain may have very well been justified in refusing to leave, but the tall ship industry is a very small, close knit business, and had he done so and Sandy failed to live up to the forecasts, as many storms do, he could have lost his job and been "black balled", ending his career.
> As so many of the captain's decisions are unfathomable to us, perhaps he was under pressures we are unaware of, by the "silent" owners.


 I was hoping that some light was shed over that issue even if that does not excuse the captain to put lives in risk.

But it seems that nothing comes out regarding that.



benesailor said:


> the Captain lacked the neccesary skills to be a Captain.


And I agree with that too. I have no doubt the Captain was a great sailor but for being a Captain is needed more than that. A Captain is someone that is responsible for the safety of his ship and make always the crew his primary responsibility. It Is someone that takes decisions with those concerns in first place. If that was the case he would have taken several different decisions than the ones he took regarding sailing out, not taken shelter or even the course he sailed.

Let me say that I am not saying negative things about Wallbridge as a person. It seems he was a very nice guy and his crew (mostly inexperienced sailors) kind of worshiped him. Maybe some responsibility should fall on ones that considered him with the qualities to be a Captain and mostly on the ones with responsibilities on the sector that had heard the man saying (and the crew confirm) that he loved to chase Hurricanes on a XIX century designed boat and did nothing.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SloopJonB

Don0190 said:


> that's how we get to become wiser old buggers!


There are old sailors and bold sailors but no old, bold sailors.


----------



## Sal Paradise

I would love to hear from a professional captain. I think the captain has the decision to go, not the owner and no one would be black balled for refusing to sail into Hurricane Sandy. 

Some of the comments about the crew ,( particularly by benesailor) are unfair, insensitive and inaccurate. I have read pretty much everything that has been written about this, and watched the hearings. The crew stuck together, stuck to their jobs and generally performed bravely. Most people would have been in their bunks crying - but this crew were knee deep in a hurricane fixing generators and pumps, furling sails, and generally doing everything that a top notch paid crew would do. They never panicked.


----------



## miatapaul

Sal Paradise said:


> That is what bothers me too - the way Walbridge did the briefing an hour before they suddenly left. Deceitful, predatory -and insane. I believe if he hadn't changed his schedule to leave at that moment, the crew would have heard the reports of Sandy and he would have had a mutiny on his hands the next morning. The crew seemed naive but not stupid.


Well it would not have been the first mutiny on the ship! :laugher


----------



## benesailor

> The crew stuck together, stuck to their jobs and generally performed bravely.


My comments may have been insensitive. (Sometimes i am blunt) The report bares out the lack of skill of the crew. I have no doubt the crew performed as best they could; BUT, i find it hard to believe from what i have read that this was a well trained, knowledgable crew. I am sure they were a enthusiastic, tight knit group. Sometimes this doesn't cut it. 
If the military operated under this premise there would be dead buddies everywhere. It's everymans job to learn the others. You train for the worst and hope for the best. 
What it really boils down to is the Ship was operating on a shoe string budget. How unfortunate that a beautiful ship has been lost.

If the crew had been a hardened, seasoned and well trained Naval Mariners, THEN they may have made it thru.

The Captain failed to practice ORM (if he knew what this is) and he actually questioned the abilities of the ship and crew when he gave the option for them not to go. This tells me he should have parked in place. The risks outweighed the positives. He wasn't going into battle. He didn't have to go.

I'm thankful that most of the crew were saved. Kudos for the hardwork of the USCG and services involved.


----------



## Sailormon6

The investigation report established the cause of the sinking. The ship sank for one reason - it took on water faster than it could pump it out. If the ship had not taken on water so fast, or if the pumps had been able to get rid of it quickly enough, there is every reason to believe that the ship would have survived the hurricane. We don't know for a certainty why it took on water so fast. The report makes note of claims that it was not properly caulked. That's a possible, and perhaps even a likely reason, but it certainly doesn't eliminate the possiblity that a thru hull fitting or device failed. We can really only speculate as to where all the water came from. 

Thus, the skipper's decision to sail into the hurricane, though reckless, was not, strictly speaking, the cause of the loss. The loss was apparently caused primarily by inadequate maintenance of the ship, which allowed it to take on too much water.

There was absolutely no evidence of a structural failure, so blaming the loss of the ship on poor construction of the ship is not founded on any facts whatsoever. Moreover, out of all the online allegations I have read about the supposedly poor construction of the ship, I have yet to see a single reference to a report by any person who personally observed its construction, and who was, therefore, in a position to know anything about the quality of its construction.

But, the loss of life is a different question. I think it's fair to say that, if the skipper had not decided to sail it into the storm, or if enough of the crew had declined to sail with it so that the skipper didn't have enough crew to work the ship, then life would not have been lost. They would all have been ashore in a Motel 6, instead of on the ship. The skipper made a bad choice to sail, and the crew made a bad choice to sail with him. Although the skipper is the master while aboard ship, I know of no law or tradition that requires crew members to leave shore with him, knowing that he will be sailing into a hurricane. They made the choice to do so, and regardless of their youth and loyalties, they are responsible for the consequences of their own decisions.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sailormon6 said:


> There was absolutely no evidence of a structural failure, so blaming the loss of the ship on poor construction of the ship is not founded on any facts whatsoever. Moreover, out of all the online allegations I have read about the supposedly poor construction of the ship, I have yet to see a single reference to a report by any person who personally observed its construction, and who was, therefore, in a position to know anything about the quality of its construction.


Well, there may not actually be many people _still alive_ who "personally observed the constuction" of the BOUNTY... Far more relevant was the ship's _CONDITION_ at the time of her leaving New London, and a great deal of the testimony in the CG hearings in Portsmouth was focused on most recent refit done in Boothbay, and her overall mechanical condition...

There seems to be little doubt among experts on wooden ships, that the BOUNTY was certainly not in a condition that sailing her into a hurricane could be remotely construed to have been prudent, or advisable...


----------



## capta

Sal Paradise said:


> I would love to hear from a professional captain. I think the captain has the decision to go, not the owner and no one would be black balled for refusing to sail into Hurricane Sandy.


I never meant to imply that the captain didn't have the final say in the decision, nor excuse his errors. But as a former tall ship captain and a professional mariner, I was only pointing out that there may have been a lot of pressure for him to be somewhere. Operating a vessel of that size and complexity requires a great deal of money and perhaps the owners had made a commitment to have the boat somewhere and not making a deadline could have been a very costly thing.
Several of my friends, professional tall ship captains, knew the captain quite well and he was well respected by his peers. No matter what he said in that interview about "chasing hurricanes" he was by reputation, not a reckless man. As for "chasing hurricanes", if one is sailing a 200' square rigged vessel, it would indeed be a practical move to set one's ship on the back side of a hurricane and take advantage of the 25 to 40 knots of wind (diminishing), that would speed a slow, cumbersome vessel on her way. The fact that it did not, and could not, have been accomplished in this case does not change the fact that in the past, it may have worked out quite well and safely, for him.
I, personally would not have set sail on that fateful voyage, had I been the master of the Bounty. I have experienced an overabundance of hurricanes in my career, and frankly, I am quite terrified by the thought of ever sailing through another. Even on a 600' vessel, it was by no means a certainty that we would survive.
Blaming the crew in any way, or thinking that a more experienced crew would have made any difference to the final outcome, is just not realistic. I believe anyone who loves sailing, given an opportunity to sail on a vessel like the Bounty, would have jumped aboard without a second thought. It is almost incomprehensible, standing on the deck of a 200' sailing vessel, that anything (especially something you have never experienced, like a hurricane at sea) could sink a vessel of that size and bulk.
The blame for this tragedy has been put squarely where it belongs, on the man who took the position of responsibility as captain. That there may have been other factors that influenced his decisions we may never know, but he ultimately paid with his life for those decisions.


----------



## Minnewaska

For those that just can't let go of the possibility that the owners made the Captain sail, despite the investigation explicitly saying there was no evidence to the effect, what motivation would the owner have had to do so? The investigation identified there was no time pressure and the deadline to arrive in St Pete was not critical. Although, they still could have made it, if they waited for the storm to pass. 

It's unfathomable to me that the owner could have applied pressure and, despite their right not to testify, the USCG could not have learned that during the course of the investigation. Pressure to leave would have leaked, especially after it ostensibly killed someone. In fact, if they even suspected it, why would they write there was "no evidence". I say they would have gone silent or written that in a more suspicious form, such as "we were unable to determine". They said "no evidence" because there is no evidence. We waited for the official investigation and its in. Done. Capt solely responsible.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Sailormon6 said:


> T
> 
> The loss was apparently caused primarily by inadequate maintenance of the ship, which allowed it to take on too much water.
> 
> There was absolutely no evidence of a structural failure,


If there is any hole or series of holes that sink a ship they must be a structural failure.

And a person how has sailed a structurally bad ship into a hurricane is liable gor the criminal damage.


----------



## Sailormon6

MarkofSeaLife said:


> If there is any hole or series of holes that sink a ship they must be a structural failure.
> 
> And a person how has sailed a structurally bad ship into a hurricane is liable gor the criminal damage.


Mark, if the boat sank because of a design flaw, then the designer can be blamed (as well as the skipper). If it sank because of poor construction, then the builder can be blamed (as well as the skipper). If it sank because of poor maintenance, then the person responsible for maintenance can be blamed (as well as the skipper).

Nobody produced any proof to the investigators, or to this forum, to show that there was anything wrong with either the design or construction of the ship. Thus, the primary blame lies with the poor maintenance of the vessel, and the poor judgment of the skipper, even though, as I suggested, the crew could have prevented it as well, if they had refused to help the skipper sail the ship into the hurricane.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sailormon6 said:


> .......If it sank because of poor maintenance, then the person responsible for maintenance can be blamed (as well as the skipper).
> 
> Thus, the primary blame lies with the poor maintenance of the vessel, and the poor judgment of the skipper .......


The Capt was also responsible for maintenance, did you read the report? The Capt himself was also cited for providing inferior, non-marine grade materials.



> _from pg 3 of NTSB report......Shipyard workers, the Bounty crew, and the director of shoreside operations all testified at the Coast Guard's formal hearing of the sinking that the vessel's captain―who had worked on board the Bounty for 17 years―supervised all of the work_





> .....the crew could have prevented it as well, if they had refused to help the skipper sail the ship into the hurricane


This was a rag tag crew and they were told they could leave their friends to handle the boat alone, shorthanded in bad weather, and pay their own way to Florida. These folks relied on Bounty for their food and shelter. They were pressed into service, even if unintentionally.



> _from pg 5......The crewmembers would, however, have to pay for their own transportation to Florida if they did not travel on board the vessel._


----------



## Sal Paradise

There exists NO SCENARIO where sailing this ship from a safe dock into Hurricane Sandy is logical or sane. None. The condition of the caulk, or operation of pumps, or quality of the shipyard build or the years of experience of the crew - all of those things are secondary to the absolute insanity of that decision. To think otherwise is to delve into and agree with Walbridge's madness.

If he had gone over Niagara Falls in the Bounty would you blame the shipyard?


----------



## lancelot9898

Evans over on sailinganarchy.com wrote the following which expresses my thoughts better than I can. Here is what was written.


"christ . . . .they did a year's study and came up with that!



Their conclusion is true in the narrowest sense . . .that if the captain had not made the decision to leave they would not have had this specific accident.



But that was not 'the cause' of the accident. The boat was an accident waiting to happen. If he had left later they almost certainly would have had some other serious trouble. Any serious weather would have wrecked the boat. "The cause(s)" of the accident were complacency and arrogance, unsupervised structural reballasting (the keel shoe primarily but also other work) which tore the boat apart, and poor shipyard rebuilding and poor maintenance procedures.



The question(s) the NTSB should have asked are (1) how common are such complacency & arrogrance, unsupervised structural work and poor rebuilding and maintenance, and so (2) how many other 'accidents waiting to happen' are there, and (3) what can be/should be done to minimize those causes."

I might add....follow the money or lack thereof.


----------



## Minnewaska

lancelot9898 said:


> ......The question(s) the NTSB should have asked are (1) how common are such complacency & arrogrance, unsupervised structural work and poor rebuilding and maintenance, and so (2) how many other 'accidents waiting to happen' are there, and (3) what can be/should be done to minimize those causes."


I suspect the entire Tall Ship Community is worried about just this right now. While Bounty seems to have been a real POS, the idea of operating as a dockside attraction that can move between ports under recreational rules should be put to an end. For discussion, I would offer that "recreational" should end at a certain tonnage.

However, it can get ridiculous how many rules are written in blood. A few totally irresponsible actors end up ruining it for the rest, whose good judgement would never have allowed that ship to cast off. Ever. How finite do the rules need to be to suggest you don't take a ship to sea that makes a couple of feet of water per day and has bathtub caulking in the seams.

There was no pressure for the ship to go anywhere, except possibly to get out of the way of a devastating storm. But the Capt went toward it. The rest is fairly moot.


----------



## Sailormon6

Minnewaska said:


> The Capt was also responsible for maintenance, did you read the report? The Capt himself was also cited for providing inferior, non-marine grade materials.


Yes, I read the report. The captain wasn't the only person responsible for the ship's maintenance. Among others, the ship's owners were also responsible. It was their obligation to pay for the maintenance. Why do you suppose the captain used inferior materials? Could it be that the owners didn't allocate enough money for him to use proper materials and methods? In my post, I intentionally cast blame on "the person responsible for maintenance", rather than blaming the captain alone, because he was not an entirely free agent. It wasn't his boat. It belonged to someone else. It was the owners' responsibility to allocate the funds to maintain it. If you really want to understand the report, you need to understand not only what it says, but also what it doesn't say. As is often the case, this disaster is not the fault of only one person. Many people had a hand in it, and it could have been averted if any of them had stepped up to prevent it at a crucial moment.



> This was a rag tag crew and they were told they could leave their friends to handle the boat alone, shorthanded in bad weather, and pay their own way to Florida. These folks relied on Bounty for their food and shelter. They were pressed into service, even if unintentionally.


 The crew members had choices. Each one of them could choose to sail an old ship into a hurricane, or they could refuse. If enough of them had refused to sail the ship, the ship would be on display somewhere in Florida right now, instead of resting at the bottom of the Atlantic, and two more people would be alive. The captain was responsible for the choices that he made, and the crew were responsible for the choices that they made, and the owners were responsible for the choices that they made.

I don't know anything about the personal circumstances of the crew members. Do you? Were they orphans or mere street urchins, or were they the children of parents of means, who could be relied upon to send money for a bus ticket to Florida? The crew had options. They could have asked for help from family. They could have hitchiked to Florida. They could have checked into a homeless shelter. They could have gotten a job somewhere and moved on to the next stage in their lives. They weren't stuck with only one option - to board an old ship and sail it into a hurricane. If all their friends decided to jump off a cliff together, or take dope together, or engage in some other self destructive action together, they were under no obligation to follow suit. I understand the group dynamics. It's the same mechanism that causes gang members to kill a person, because they feel an obligation to go along with their "brothers." I understand the mechanism, but it doesn't excuse them for their poor choice.


----------



## Sailormon6

Minnewaska said:


> I suspect the entire Tall Ship Community is worried about just this right now. While Bounty seems to have been a real POS, the idea of operating as a dockside attraction that can move between ports under recreational rules should be put to an end.


How would you suggest that a 200' tall ship be moved from one port to another - load it on a flatbed truck and pull it over the highways? Airlift it?


----------



## Sal Paradise

People will exhibit strong loyalty to their group, especially if they experience stress and danger together and live together. You see this with police, soldiers, firefighters, sailors. If a crew member refused to go, in light of events, they very likely would right now be suffering from extreme guilt and stress. 

It's not so easy to judge this crew so harshly for going.


----------



## Group9

Sal Paradise said:


> People will exhibit strong loyalty to their group, especially if they experience stress and danger together and live together. You see this with police, soldiers, firefighters, sailors. If a crew member refused to go, in light of events, they very likely would right now be suffering from extreme guilt and stress.
> 
> It's not so easy to judge this crew so harshly for going.


I understand how it happened. I have several friends, who went on a disastrous search warrant execution, that has been well documented in movies and books, where four ATF agents, including one of my best friends, and numerous civilians, were killed.

Several of the survivors, immediately afterwards, told me that they knew a disaster was unfolding before their eyes, before the first shot was fired, but nobody wanted to be the guy to stand up and say so. They all kept thinking, 'Well, nobody else is saying anything'.

In that case, and in the Bounty situation, probably one person standing up and saying what they really thought, would have headed off either disaster.

Groupthink is real. And, it's usually not that great in the thinking department.


----------



## Sailormon6

Sal Paradise said:


> People will exhibit strong loyalty to their group, especially if they experience stress and danger together and live together. You see this with police, soldiers, firefighters, sailors. If a crew member refused to go, in light of events, they very likely would right now be suffering from extreme guilt and stress.
> 
> It's not so easy to judge this crew so harshly for going.


I'm not judging anyone harshly. I'm being realistic.

If my son had been a crew member, and he called me and explained the situation, and asked me if he should help his misguided captain and crewmembers sail that ship into the teeth of a hurricane, do you think for one minute that I would have said, "Oh yes, son! If you don't go along with them to their doom, you might suffer extreme guilt and stress!" I'm finding it hard to believe that you would have told your son to board that ship and sail it into that hurricane, because he owed his life to his fellow crew members, or to his captain, and because he didn't want to feel extreme guilt or stress. I think you would have told him the same thing as I. "You stay the hell off that ship son, and I'll send you money for a motel and a bus ticket to Florida!"

Group loyalty is important to soldiers, police and firefighters, but it is not a legitimate excuse for a gang member to commit murder, or for a volunteer or low-paid crew member of a tall ship to risk his life. Those young people didn't owe their lives and safety to the ship's owners, or to their captain, or to their fellow crew members. If grownups and experienced sailors don't understand that, then it's no wonder a group of young people made such a patently bad choice. In a real sense, the members of the crew were the captain's "enablers." If they had refused to sail with him, he couldn't have sailed that ship singlehandedly into the storm. I'm not making a "harsh judgment." I'm stating a hard fact.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Absolutely sailormon and Group 9. I would say the same thing. But you and I are not influenced by the group loyalty in this case. I would like to imagine that I would get off the boat. I am a weather watcher. This point bothers me greatly, from every aspect. But humanity has survived for so long because this instinct was bred into us.


----------



## Group9

Sal Paradise said:


> Absolutely sailormon and Group 9. I would say the same thing. But you and I are not influenced by the group loyalty in this case. I would like to imagine that I would get off the boat. I am a weather watcher. This point bothers me greatly, from every aspect. But humanity has survived for so long because this instinct was bred into us.


Think about the Nazi death camps. It has been pointed out over and over again, that these camps were undermanned with guards, and that at any point if the prisoners had decided to attack the guards in a unified and concerted act, they would have easily overwhelmed them. But, that's not how human beings are built, mentally.

It serves a good purpose some of the time, and less so at other times.


----------



## Sal Paradise

You just violated Godwin's Law, bro. Ouch !

Thank you.


----------



## miatapaul

Sailormon6 said:


> I'm not judging anyone harshly. I'm being realistic.
> 
> If my son had been a crew member, and he called me and explained the situation, and asked me if he should help his misguided captain and crewmembers sail that ship into the teeth of a hurricane, do you think for one minute that I would have said, "Oh yes, son! If you don't go along with them to their doom, you might suffer extreme guilt and stress!" I'm finding it hard to believe that you would have told your son to board that ship and sail it into that hurricane, because he owed his life to his fellow crew members, or to his captain, and because he didn't want to feel extreme guilt or stress. I think you would have told him the same thing as I. "You stay the hell off that ship son, and I'll send you money for a motel and a bus ticket to Florida!"
> 
> Group loyalty is important to soldiers, police and firefighters, but it is not a legitimate excuse for a gang member to commit murder, or for a volunteer or low-paid crew member of a tall ship to risk his life. Those young people didn't owe their lives and safety to the ship's owners, or to their captain, or to their fellow crew members. If grownups and experienced sailors don't understand that, then it's no wonder a group of young people made such a patently bad choice. In a real sense, the members of the crew were the captain's "enablers." If they had refused to sail with him, he couldn't have sailed that ship singlehandedly into the storm. I'm not making a "harsh judgment." I'm stating a hard fact.


Well I don't think the crew was given the facts to make an informed decision. They had been convinced the boat was in excellent condition and that it was somewhat indestructible as he had likely told them stories of past hurricanes. I don't think they had enough experience to understand what they were in for.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## Sailormon6

miatapaul said:


> Well I don't think the crew was given the facts to make an informed decision. They had been convinced the boat was in excellent condition and that it was somewhat indestructible as he had likely told them stories of past hurricanes. I don't think they had enough experience to understand what they were in for.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk


If he did that, shame on him. If they didn't think for themselves, and bail out when he clearly gave them an opportunity to do so, shame on them. By the time they reach their teens, youngsters ought to be able to recognize and avoid danger, and to think for themselves. I preferred to teach my son that he is the master of his own fate, and not that he is the helpless victim of someone else's mistakes.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Sailormon6 said:


> If he did that, shame on him. If they didn't think for themselves, and bail out when he clearly gave them an opportunity to do so, shame on them.


And if you can't figure out which was the case was from reading the report, shame on you

Here's a hint; Walbridge came back into the dock, got rid of the submarine crew - heard something he didn't like and left abruptly with less than an hour notice. He even explicitly noted that they might be getting messages from their family. Bounty departed almost immediately.

We now know that many families did try and reach out to crew. It was too late. By the time you would have called your son and offered him a motel room, he would have been halfway across Long Island Sound.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Sailormon6 said:


> I preferred to teach my son that he is the master of his own fate, and not that he is the helpless victim of someone else's mistakes.


I bet your son goes gets drunk till he vomits, chases wild women just for their skirts and does a million things you told him never to do. Bet he never tells you.

I bet he is like all those other young people on Bounty who did what they were deluded into doing no matter how sane and sensible their fathers are.

I bet you, when younger, got drunk till you vomited too.

And I can bet, if you are any sort of man, you would never have let your mates down. Sometimes 'mates' come before fathers.

Mark


----------



## Sailormon6

MarkofSeaLife said:


> "I bet your son goes gets drunk till he vomits, chases wild women just for their skirts and does a million things you told him never to do. Bet he never tells you"...etc, ad nauseum


 I'm not a puppeteer, who makes his son dance by simply tugging on the appropriate strings. I taught my son to use his own good judgment and make his own decisions, and to not let his buddies talk him into doing something foolish that he will long regret. I can only give him the basis for making good choices. I can't live his life for him. But, if he makes a bad choice, I'm not about to make excuses for him.



> And I can bet, if you are any sort of man, you would never have let your mates down. Sometimes 'mates' come before fathers.
> 
> Mark


If my shipmates ever expect me to do something really stupid or suicidal, like leaving the safety of a port and knowingly sailing an old wooden ship into a hurricane, then I'm afraid I'm going to let them down. I suppose you would have sailed with them, because it's the "manly" thing to do, and it would demonstrate your support of your mates. I would have preferred to demonstrate my support for my mates by trying my best to persuade them and the captain to not leave port. If successful, they might all still be alive, and the Bounty might still be on display.


----------



## Group9

Sal Paradise said:


> You just violated Godwin's Law, bro. Ouch !
> 
> Thank you.


I was thinking about that when I posted it, but I figured it was a loophole since I wasn't comparing anyone to the Nazis, but rather to the people in the concentration camps.


----------



## Uricanejack

Sailormon6 said:


> How would you suggest that a 200' tall ship be moved from one port to another - load it on a flatbed truck and pull it over the highways? Airlift it?


On a barge towed by a tug.
Or just leave it where is unless properly certified and crewed.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sailormon6 said:


> Yes, I read the report. The captain wasn't the only person responsible for the ship's maintenance. Among others, the ship's owners were also responsible. It was their obligation to pay for the maintenance. Why do you suppose the captain used inferior materials? Could it be that the owners didn't allocate enough money for him to use proper materials and methods?


Then, why do you suppose, the report doesn't make such a damnation on the owner? You are willing to read into what is not in the report, only when convenient to your own conclusion.

Also, the next time you hire a professional that comes up short, I assume you will not assess blame, because you simply didn't pay them enough to do it right. That's going to seriously reduce medical malpractice suits. Awesome! 



> The crew members had choices. Each one of them could choose to sail an old ship into a hurricane, or they could refuse. ......


This was explicitly addressed in the report. The crew was very inexperienced and, therefore, incapable of fully knowing the risks. They relied on the Captain's judgement.

If you watched the testimony itself, it was clear they adored the man. From many, including some posters here, he was reported to be a very kind man. I'm sure he was. He would have been easily trusted. Therefore, quite in control of his crew's decision making, whether intentional or not.

The bottom line is, the reason a human being is put in charge, is to correct and avoid all these other failures. Otherwise, computers alone would sail ships.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Uricanejack said:


> Or just leave it where is unless properly certified and crewed.


In the thread after the sinking we investigated a number of things that were strange. One was the change in TONNAGE done not long before the sinking. It was quite weird as the tonnage change was quite a lot. We couldn't, for a while, work out how a tonnage could change... But then we realised is wasn't a HOW it was a WHY.

The USCG appears to have reasonable certificates available... But this ship needed to change tonnage to slip into a better rating so it didnt have to pass USCG inspections. It ended up in the 6 pax category designed for small offshore game fishing boats. That category means the USCG has NO right to de-certify a boat after an inspection! It can only 'recommend' upgrades. 
It came out in the USCG hearings, but didnt rate a mention in this report, but may in the USCG report.

And basically as there were no 6 guests on board, and the boat was under "300 tons" it was a private vessel for pleasure between being a dockside attraction.

I think it was an excellent piece of investigative forumism on part of Sailnet in that thread. No one else had stumbled on it, on the net anyway, and it was interesting then....

And as interesting now.... Because it means the captain was devious in what way the boat was dealt with by authorities... And if he could be devious with the USCG he sure as hell could be devious to keep as many crew on board at a time he needed them DESPERATELY! When he was heading into a storm short handed!

So that young, inexperienced crew, without the knowledge of the weather, were meant to outthink a person trying to pull the wool over their eyes? And we still blame them? We still blame kids who went into the rigging in 90 knots when the forcorse ripped? We blame the lawn mower mechanic on his first trip to sea when he was terribly seasick but still went below into the engine room every hour, albeit only for a few minutes before he chundered again, to tend these old, massive engines spitting sparks and flooding with debris filled bilge water?
People with the guts like those people are the people who would say YES when a captain stands on the deck and says "the passage will be tough but I can do it with your help"....

I honor those people!

Mark


----------



## Sailormon6

Minnewaska said:


> Then, why do you suppose, the report doesn't make such a damnation on the owner? You are willing to read into what is not in the report, only when convenient to your own conclusion.


 I'm not reading anything into the report. That's just basic property law. The owner of property is responsible for it's maintenance.



> Also, the next time you hire a professional that comes up short, I assume you will not assess blame, because you simply didn't pay them enough to do it right. That's going to seriously reduce medical malpractice suits. Awesome!


 If I agree to pay a certain price for a first class job, and, if a worker agrees to give me a first class job for that amount of money, then I'm entitled to receive what I bargained for. If I chisel the price down, and he can only meet that price by using used and rebuilt parts, then I have no right to expect a first class job. You get what you pay for.



> This was explicitly addressed in the report. The crew was very inexperienced and, therefore, incapable of fully knowing the risks.


 Oh really? I must have missed the place where the report opined that the crew were incapable of fully knowing the risks. Were these young people suffering under a severe mental disability? How intelligent do you have to be to recognize the risks inherent in sailing an old wooden ship into a hurricane? Virtually everyone here and elsewhere agrees that it was almost incomprehensibly foolish for the captain to sail the ship into a hurricane, but a few of you are bending over backwards to excuse the very same decision by the crew. If it was foolish for the captain to do it, it was foolish for the crew to do it.

This isn't the first time a tall ship was lost after the captain and crew sailed out of a safe harbor into a hurricane. In 1998, the 282' four-masted Fantome, which was reportedly considered a solid vessel, was lost with 32 crew members. The ship had been carrying passengers on a Caribbean cruise. When they learned that a hurricane was coming, they put in to Belize and off-loaded their passengers, and then the captain and crew sailed back into the Carib and all were lost.

In their zeal to protect their ships, sometimes captains seem willing to risk the lives of their crew. Crew members need to understand, clearly and unequivocally, that they don't have to yield to a captain's folly. No matter how seaworthy a vessel might be, sailing a vessel into a hurricane is enormously risky, and they have a right to say "No." Reason and common sense dictate that, when a skipper announces to his crew that he intends to sail his tall ship into an oncoming hurricane, crew members should consider their own safety as paramount. The risk of damage to the Fantome if she stayed in port didn't justify the loss of 31 lives.

The only thing that saved the lives of the crew of the Bounty was the Coast Guard and plain luck.



> If you watched the testimony itself, it was clear they adored the man. From many, including some posters here, he was reported to be a very kind man. I'm sure he was. He would have been easily trusted. Therefore, quite in control of his crew's decision making, whether intentional or not.
> 
> The bottom line is, the reason a human being is put in charge, is to correct and avoid all these other failures. Otherwise, computers alone would sail ships.


That was also true of the Fantome. In fact, I would imagine that it is common in the industry. But that's all the more reason for crew members to understand that they don't have to sacrifice their lives for their captain or for the ship. In fact, the damage that the ship might suffer if it was in port couldn't be any worse than if it was sunk while at sea, with all hands aboard.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sailormon6 said:


> ...... Oh really? I must have missed the place where the report opined that the crew were incapable of fully knowing the risks. Were these young people suffering under a severe mental disability?


I will have to bolt this together for you later. I highlighted the report on another computer. The report references the crews inexperience, as well as their respect for the Captain. It also acknowledges the bond between the crew members and the peer pressure that each would feel over leaving their friends short handed in rough weather. They were given one hour to make a decision, not leaving proper time to research and contemplate the situation. They would be immediately able to comprehend that leaving the ship meant they needed their own money to travel to FL and provide food and shelter in the meantime. The Captain boxed them in a corner. I stand by the point that they were incapable of fully knowing the risks.



> How intelligent do you have to be to recognize the risks inherent in sailing an old wooden ship into a hurricane?....


Demonstrably more intelligent than the crew actually was, no? Evidenced by their actions. Still the Captain's responsibility for putting them in the situation they didn't have the competence and/or capacity to get out of.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Sailormon6 said:


> Oh really? I must have missed the place where the report opined that the crew were incapable of fully knowing the risks.
> 
> .


Its United States law that they are incapable of fully knowing the risks.



> Whether a person who voluntarily proceeds into an obviously unsafe situation has merely assumed the risk, or has been guilty of contributory negligence in so proceeding, is often a close question. It is held in safe-place law cases that conduct constitutes contributory negligence, rather than assumption of risk, "if the risk of harm involved is of such magnitude as to outweigh what the law regards as the utility of the act or the manner in which it is done. [63] In other words, if assuming the risk was reasonable under all the circumstances, it is no defense under the safe-place law; if unreasonable, it is contributory negligence. [64] What is "reasonable" is measured by what ordinary and prudent men do under similar circumstances. [65] It appears that submitting to a dangerous situation "while getting about the premises in the ordinary manner provided," [66] *and performing duties of employment under conditions created by the employer *[67] would be merely assumption of risk; that is, would be examples of utility outweighing dangers. The fact that the hazardous condition was encountered in the course of work is significant. [68] And where defendant landlord had the duty of keeping a stairway lighted, plaintiff tenant was not negligent in proceeding onto the unlighted stairway, [69] and an employee was not negligent in using an obvious unsafe ladder provided by his employer, [70] and an acrobat was not negligent in using the unsafe stage of his sponsors. [71]


Meyer v. Val-Lo-Will Farms, 14 Wis. 2d 616, 622 (1961). McCrossen v. Nekoosa Edwards Paper Co., 59 Wis. 2d 245, 255 (1973): "Since the time of McConville, supra and Gilson, supra, assumption of risk as a separate defense for a tort-feasor has been treated as contributory negligence." "... in the employee situation, the type of contributory negligence once subsumed under the heading of assumption of risk, carries with it, by virtue of an employer's duty to furnish a safe place of employment and the duty of an owner of premises to furnish a safe place for frequenters when they are there in the course of employment, a different obligation upon an employee than upon another who may be on allegedly unsafe premises only for his own purposes. An employee, when at work in a place of employment is there because of the directions of his employer."

Mark


----------



## fryewe

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...if you are any sort of man, you would never have let your mates down...


Does one let his mate down by refusing to sail into the maelstrom with him when there are other options...

...or by failing to convince his mate of the lunacy of sailing into the maelstrom?

I think you got it backwards here. Each of them let their mates down by not being strong-willed enough to say "hell no...I'm not going...and I'm not letting you go either".


----------



## Sal Paradise

The point is not to Monday morning quarteback the crew. It should be obvious to everyone by now that it was a bad idea to go. The point is to understand how it happened and understand the crew psychology instead of just saying " They were all stupid"


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

fryewe said:


> I think you got it backwards here. Each of them let their mates down by not being strong-willed enough to say "hell no...I'm not going...and I'm not letting you go either".


If only I had got it backwards. The battlefields of the world are full of dead young men who Go when there is no chance of survival.

Mark


----------



## Sailormon6

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Its United States law that they are incapable of fully knowing the risks.


 That isn't what the case says.



> Meyer v. Val-Lo-Will Farms, 14 Wis. 2d 616, 622 (1961). McCrossen v. Nekoosa Edwards Paper Co., 59 Wis. 2d 245, 255 (1973): "Since the time of McConville, supra and Gilson, supra, assumption of risk as a separate defense for a tort-feasor has been treated as contributory negligence." "... in the employee situation, the type of contributory negligence once subsumed under the heading of assumption of risk, carries with it, by virtue of an employer's duty to furnish a safe place of employment and the duty of an owner of premises to furnish a safe place for frequenters when they are there in the course of employment, a different obligation upon an employee than upon another who may be on allegedly unsafe premises only for his own purposes. An employee, when at work in a place of employment is there because of the directions of his employer."


That case might be relevant if the young crew members are employees. But, I don't know whether they were employees or mere volunteers.

In any event, I don't really care who wins the lawsuit. If a lawsuit is filed, then that means someone was hurt or killed, and my concern is in preventing anyone from being hurt or killed needlessly. You guys argue that one hour isn't enough time to think about whether to sail a ship out of a safe harbor and into the teeth of a killer hurricane. I say two seconds is enough time to make that decision. You say you "honor" people who foolishly sail out of a safe harbor into a killer hurricane, and then lose their ship, and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard. I say it's foolish, and that there's nothing honorable about it. Loyalty to your shipmates, your captain and your ship is honorable when you are onboard ship, but when you are ashore and your shipmates, captain and ship are all safe, your first loyalty should be to your own safety and to your family, who are concerned for your safety. You can dress a pig in an Armani gown, but you're still not going to fool me into thinking it's Christie Brinkley. It's foolish for a captain to take his vessel out of a safe harbor into a hurricane, and it's just as foolish for crew members to help him do it.


----------



## Sailormon6

MarkofSeaLife said:


> If only I had got it backwards. The battlefields of the world are full of dead young men who Go when there is no chance of survival.
> Mark


There's absolutely no comparison between this and soldiers on a battlefield, Mark. Unit cohesiveness is crucial to the success of a military unit, and it's crucial to the success of a ship's crew while onboard their ship. But, if a fellow soldier suckerpunches some innocent person in a bar, that's a crime, and it's not during a military action, and you don't have any duty to hold the victim while your buddy hits him. Likewise, unit cohesiveness contributes to the efficient sailing of the ship, but, when ashore, shipmates have no duty to act in complicity with their crewmate's misconduct or foolish behavior. Unit cohesiveness has nothing to do with decisions that crew members are free to make while ashore, during a time when the ship and one's shipmates are not in jeopardy.


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Its United States law that they are incapable of fully knowing the risks.


Common sense would suggest otherwise...



> *The 2012 crew, Bredeson says, was one of the most experienced the Bounty had ever seen.* The well-respected first mate, John Svendsen, a soft-spoken 41-year-old Minnesotan with long blond hair and a perennially serious expression, had joined up in 2010. *Two others were licensed captains:* 37-year-old second mate Matt Sanders, another Floridian, and Jess Hewitt, a 25-year-old recent graduate of the prestigious Maine Maritime Academy. *Four crew members were Merchant Marine-certified able-bodied seamen:* third mate Dan Cleveland, 25, Laura Groves, 28, Drew Salapatek, 29, and the ship's electrician, 66-year-old Doug Faunt, who served as a volunteer.
> 
> The remaining hands were a mix of new employees and volunteers. Four paid deckhands in their twenties-Adam Prokosh, John Jones, Josh Scornavacchi, and the youngest crew member, 20-year-old Anna Sprague-had sailed with the ship since the start of its 2012 season. Mark Warner, 33, joined as a deckhand later in the year. The ship's cook, 34-year-old Jessica Black, and its engineer, Chris Barksdale, 56, had only just come aboard while the ship was in dry dock that September. Finally, there was Claudene Christian, who'd volunteered in May. At 42, she was one of the older crew members and the least experienced.
> 
> Sunk: The Incredible Truth About the 'Bounty,' a Ship That Never Should Have Sailed | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Group9

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Its United States law that they are incapable of fully knowing the risks.
> 
> Meyer v. Val-Lo-Will Farms, 14 Wis. 2d 616, 622 (1961). McCrossen v. Nekoosa Edwards Paper Co., 59 Wis. 2d 245, 255 (1973): "Since the time of McConville, supra and Gilson, supra, assumption of risk as a separate defense for a tort-feasor has been treated as contributory negligence." "... in the employee situation, the type of contributory negligence once subsumed under the heading of assumption of risk, carries with it, by virtue of an employer's duty to furnish a safe place of employment and the duty of an owner of premises to furnish a safe place for frequenters when they are there in the course of employment, a different obligation upon an employee than upon another who may be on allegedly unsafe premises only for his own purposes. An employee, when at work in a place of employment is there because of the directions of his employer."
> 
> Mark


That's a Wisconsin Supreme Court Case. It would have no application in an Admiralty case, which is federal. There is no contributory negligence defense available to the ship owners. Google "The Jones Act".


----------



## Minnewaska

Maybe some of us are arguing different points without realizing it.

If there is a crack in the sidewalk in front of your store, you are going to be legally liable to someone who trips on it. That is because society wants these store owners to keep the sidewalks repaired.

However, I do not think the store owner is actually responsible for you tripping any more so than if you tripped over a log in the woods. They can't watch where you are going for you. We just decided those were the tort rules and they will pay a penalty, if they don't keep them repaired.

So, if we're asking about whether the owners are going to end up legally liable for the condition of the boat, then most likely they are. This may be subject to oddities in admiralty law, which is not intuitive when compared to our tort laws.

However, the NTSB investigation was not engaged in determining legal liability, only causal. They found the Captain decision making to be the culprit, not the shipyard, not the crew, not the owner.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Minnewaska said:


> So, if we're asking about whether the owners are going to end up legally liable for the condition of the boat, then most likely they are. This may be subject to oddities in admiralty law, which is not intuitive when compared to our tort laws.
> 
> However, the NTSB investigation was not engaged in determining legal liability, only causal. They found the Captain decision making to be the culprit, not the shipyard, not the crew, not the owner.


I agree. It seemed to me reading the report that it sort of lets the owners off easy. It does mention maintenance and management but goes on to point the finger solely at Walbridge.


----------



## Sailormon6

I think the sinking of the Bounty and of the Fantome challenge the "conventional wisdom" that apparently guides some tall ship captains, that says a ship is safer at sea during a severe storm than in port. That might be true for bigger commercial carriers with more powerful engines that don't carry tall rigs aloft and that aren't being maintained and operated on a shoestring, from the contributions of lovers of tall ships, and it might be true if they leave soon enough and choose their course well enough to avoid a direct hit, but tall ships are not developing a great track record of surviving when they sail directly into the storm. Moreover, it challenges the priorities of the captains, who put the safety of their ships above the safety of their crews. The lame excuse that they offer is that these young, low paid and volunteer crew members, for some inexplicable reason, owe a duty of honor to their captain, the ship and their mates, to sail out of a safe harbor and battle the elements to the death. I don't imagine the captains and owners of those ships will change their thinking voluntarily, but, when they lose enough lawsuits with sufficiently large money judgments, then their thinking will change. As a parent, all I can say is, Not my son!


----------



## Sailormon6

Sal Paradise said:


> The point is not to Monday morning quarteback the crew. It should be obvious to everyone by now that it was a bad idea to go. The point is to understand how it happened and understand the crew psychology instead of just saying " They were all stupid"


The way that we avoid making the same mistakes over and over again is by analyzing what went wrong, and what misjudgments were made. Nothing can be gained by that process if we put on rose colored glasses and refuse to consider the possibility that the crew members made a misjudgment in re-boarding the ship and helping the captain sail it out of a safe harbor into a killer hurricane.

I haven't called the crew stupid. You guys did that when you suggested that they weren't smart enough to figure out, in less than one hour, that it was a bad idea.

All I have said is that it was as much of a mistake for the crew to do it as it was for the captain to do it.

If you want to prevent a recurrence of this disaster, you have to keep an open mind to ideas that make you uncomfortable and that you really don't want to contemplate.


----------



## Sal Paradise

And yet here you and I are going round and round. 

I haven't heard anyone, either from the tall ships or on this forum saying that young sailors owe captains a duty to battle to the death. Maybe you are misunderstanding something. 

Myself and couple of other posters, looking at the circumstances of Bounty's sudden departure and the way Walbridge presented the situation, felt that the crew were not being treated fairly and we wrote about how they might have felt at that moment. What was it that prevented them from questioning the plan and standing up to Walbridge? Loyalty? Fear? In fact the report mentions the loyalty and camaraderie of the crew . The psychology of those questions are just as much about " what went wrong" as is the talk of pumps and caulk. Perhaps more so.


----------



## Sailormon6

Sal Paradise said:


> And yet here you and I are going round and round.
> 
> I haven't heard anyone, either from the tall ships or on this forum saying that young sailors owe captains a duty to battle to the death. Maybe you are misunderstanding something.


 I'm not misunderstanding anything. In effect, that's exactly what the captain of the Bounty asked his crew to do, and some participants in this discussion can't bring themselves to admit that it was a mistake for the crew members to go along with it.



> Myself and couple of other posters, looking at the circumstances of Bounty's sudden departure and the way Walbridge presented the situation, felt that the crew were not being treated fairly and we wrote about how they might have felt at that moment. What was it that prevented them from questioning the plan and standing up to Walbridge? Loyalty? Fear? In fact the report mentions the loyalty and camaraderie of the crew . The psychology of those questions are just as much about " what went wrong" as is the talk of pumps and caulk. Perhaps more so.


Fuzzy thinking is what caused this disaster and nearly cost all the members of the crew their lives. It was the captain's fuzzy thinking to leave a safe harbor and sail into a hurricane, and it was the crew's fuzzy thinking when they decided to go along with him.

My purpose in this thread isn't to persuade you that the crew made a mistake in going to sea with the captain in this situation. I don't care whether you agree with me or not. I have expressed my opinions in the hope that, if any young people are following this thread who are considering crewing on a tall ship, or, if their parents or siblings are following this thread, that I can convince them that it would be a mistake to sail a tall ship out of a safe harbor into a hurricane, and to risk the lives of all the crew. Any misguided notion of loyalty to the ship, or to the captain, or to their mates, is neither a virtue, nor honorable, and can only get them killed. This kind of misjudgment on the part of tall ship captains and their crews has happened before and will probably happen again. If their captain makes such a proposal to them, crew members needn't spend a great deal of time wringing their hands while pondering the question. It isn't that complicated. The clear, correct, honorable response to such a suggestion is "No."


----------



## Uricanejack

Its easy to sit here at my computer keyboard and say I would have never agreed to leave port on the Bounty into the known path of any Hurricane let alone the one of the most severe ever predicted.

The crew had complete trust and faith in a well liked captain. An hour before departure pepe talk with a nobody will think less of you if you don’t come is hardly a complete crew briefing.

Reality is many accidents have occurred in both marine and aviation with professionally trained crews failing to go against the cultural norm and question a Captains decision or actions. Even with modern training, these accidents continue to occur.

The report focuses primarily on the Captains decision to sail. Makes some mention of crew inexperience, poor maintenance, rot and the use of non marine products.

Also mentioned is the owners lack of involvement or oversight in any of this. With the owners complete abdication of responsibility for the vessel everything was left to the Captain. The Coast Guard only had authority as a stationary attraction. Removed from the equation by the vessel changing it s status to a pleasure vessel to move.
The only question of the Captains judgment was by the Mate. Unfortunately it was insufficient to make a difference until it was to late.

In the end it was very fortunate the loss of life was not higher. Captain Walbridge lost his own life along with Miss Christian. Some of the others were injured.

The unfortunate thing about this tall ship. It was operated on enthusiasm and a shoe string. Skirting the rules intended to protect those without the required knowledge who put their trust in the ship its Captain and its owners to provide a safe sailing experience. 

Those who sailed on this voyage put their trust and faith in the captain without realising and he let them down long before the ship ever left.. 

It’s a bit disappointing the report does not recommend a change in the regulations to close the loophole exploited by this vessel.


----------



## Classic30

Is it only me that finds the similarities between this and the reaction to the loss of the elegant four-poster '_Pamir_' in 1957 (also in a hurricane, but with the loss of all but 4 crew and 2 cadets instead) concerning??

Pamir (ship) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do wonder, would there have been the same level of continuous navel-gazing had the internet been invented back then?... Probably.


----------



## cappy208

lancelot9898 said:


> Evans over on sailinganarchy.com wrote the following which expresses my thoughts better than I can. Here is what was written.
> 
> "christ . . . .they did a year's study and came up with that!
> 
> Their conclusion is true in the narrowest sense . . .that if the captain had not made the decision to leave they would not have had this specific accident.
> 
> But that was not 'the cause' of the accident. The boat was an accident waiting to happen. If he had left later they almost certainly would have had some other serious trouble. Any serious weather would have wrecked the boat. "The cause(s)" of the accident were complacency and arrogance, unsupervised structural reballasting (the keel shoe primarily but also other work) which tore the boat apart, and poor shipyard rebuilding and poor maintenance procedures.
> 
> The question(s) the NTSB should have asked are (1) how common are such complacency & arrogrance, unsupervised structural work and poor rebuilding and maintenance, and so (2) how many other 'accidents waiting to happen' are there, and (3) what can be/should be done to minimize those causes."
> 
> I might add....follow the money or lack thereof.


You bring up valid points. None of these questions apply to the HMS Bounty because she was 'classed' as a 'Dockside Attraction'. This meant she has NEVER had any Official oversight regarding: Design, Build, Maintenance, and Crewing. NONE. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

This is the reason, cause, and effects of the accident.

Of course NTSB and Uncle Sams Confused Group are helpless to bring any of this to light. None of them are sailors. Nope, not one. They are the same armchair quarterbacks that inhabit this forum.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Sailormon6 said:


> I'm not misunderstanding anything.
> 
> My purpose in this thread isn't to persuade you that the crew made a mistake in going to sea with the captain in this situation. I don't care whether you agree with me or not. I have expressed my opinions in the hope that, if any young people are following this thread


In that case it is customary to stop quoting me in your posts. Otherwise you and everyone else here is going to get my straight unvarnished opinion.


----------



## cappy208

Sailormon6 said:


> in is by analyzing what went wrong, and what misjudgments were made. Nothing can be gained by that process if we put on rose colored glasses and refuse to consider the possibility that the crew members made a misjudgment in re-boarding the ship and helping the captain sail it out of a safe harbor into a killer hurricane.
> All I have said is that it was as much of a mistake for the crew to do it as it was for the captain to do it.
> If you want to prevent a recurrence of this disaster, you have to keep an open mind to ideas that make you uncomfortable and that you really don't want to contemplate.


Sailormon6: It is apparent to me that you are possibly a Captain of a Desk. Maybe a Captain of your small yacht.

You are NOT a Master of any Commercial Vessel. Nope. Certainly not.

You're misguided (although certainly Hollywood in expectation) with views are not what is employed in the Merchant Marine.

Captain Walbridge was an anomaly. The 'tall ship industry is an anomaly. The concept of forced labor only exists in this industry. And the lack of regulatory oversight is only because the EXTREMELY wealthy that support and benefice this 'industry' have constantly had 'someones' ear to keep the loopholes open.

The Masters word IS Law at sea. If a crewmember does not comply with My lawfull commands they are fired at the next dock. Pretty simple. Of course I take counsel with my Officers. I even take counsel with my crew. But when the chips are down (Luckily this does not happen often at all) I can depend upon my crew to undertake whatever I need to have done to solve the issue in the fore. The disobedience you seem to look for is unable to be tolerated in a commercial crew. The lives of the whole outweigh the griping of the few who 'don't wanna'. These scenarios may seem like a throwback to 'the olden days' to someone like you. But the seafaring traditions are kept alive for a reason.

Unfortunately along comes someone Like Capt Walbridge. He stopped being a functioning Captain many years ago. He stopped being an independent arbitrageur of a vessel safety when money became more important than good judgement. This cost Ms Christiansen and His life. Unfortunate. It was HIS shoulders this rests on.

The company got away with 'accessory to manslaughter' somehow. I don't know how they pulled it off. But any other commercial company that has a vessel that has paying passengers (some of the crew paid for their passage) operates as a 'passenger carrying vessel'. The fact that they were told they could pay for their own way to Florida to rejoin the trip is further proof. The whole industry depends upon this 'labor for sailing' method of crewing. The Bounty did not have a 'professional' crew. Dedicated? Hard Working? Sure. But not professional. I think there were 4 of the crew who had done this for years. The rest were all summertime help. The crew has to work for free, doing upkeep, maintenance, and then the good ones were chosen to go along for the sail. It is thinly disguised payment for the right to sail aboard. Many. MANY other sailing vessels use this same form of income to pay for the trips they make.

The whole reason? The age of sail expired many years ago. To make it cost effective now (in the modern era) it takes either a wealthy benefactor or paying crew. NOT one word of this was uttered in any report I have seen. Disgusting. That the industry even exists, that the people operate this way, and the 'Masters' who shelter under a USCG license and are part of this are disgusting.

One thing that you keep saying is true: There exists a 'culture' amongst the tall ships that keeps this same loyalty, comraderie and operations continuing. Until the blase attitude and unprofessional actions are realized (and stopped) this will happen again.

Regarding mechmans comments that this vessel was built 'just fine' and had survived the ocean voyage (50 some years prior) This was a movie prop. It was built NOT to the original specifications (or even to professional hull specifications). It was built to movie industry specs to be able to be filmed on, in and around. It was constructed with (If I Recall Correctly) NO water tight subdivisions, NO interior waterproof bulkheads, and NO 'tween deck subdivisions. It was simply a movie prop. Built to be burned. The upper area in the hull (when I saw it around 1970) was WIDE open. side to side, stem to stern. The later owners had (apparently) used house construction (2x4s and interior house doors) to make quarters and rooms in this area. I do not know how the Bounty ended her life. But from all accounts she was a disaster waiting to happen. And she did perform just about how many predicted she would, once the word went out that she sailed. This was NOT a fully found, seagoing design. She was not a reproduction of the original design. She was MOVIE PROP made to 'look' like what Hollywood wanted the movie goers to see. It worked. In the end she sunk just like in real life!


----------



## Group9

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1910


----------



## fryewe

cappy208 said:


> x...Uncle Sams Confused Group are helpless to bring any of this to light. None of them are sailors. Nope, not one. They are the same armchair quarterbacks that inhabit this forum.


Attaboy!!! Burnish your credentials with baseless and untrue digs and destroy your credibility in the first few posts so "armchair quarterbacks" with demonstrated thoughtfulness and experience can disregard your posts to avoid wasting time reading them.

Is this you talking or the rum? Most of us will understand if it's the rum...we've likely been there...


----------



## christian.hess

Group9 said:


> "It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
> Theodore Roosevelt, 1910


one of my favourite quotes of all time...and like all men both a great and VERY flawed man at the same time

peace

oh and PS

not all tall ships are created equal...as has been proven now many times in this thread...there are many travelling the world...big and "small" by very good crew and captains...


----------



## Sailormon6

cappy208 said:


> Sailormon6: ...*The Masters word IS Law at sea*. If a crewmember does not lawfully comply with My commands they are fired at the next dock. Pretty simple. Of course I take counsel with my Officers. I even take counsel with my crew. But when the chips are down (Luckily this does not happen often at all) I can depend upon my crew to undertake whatever I need to have done to solve the issue in the fore. The disobedience you seem to look for is unable to be tolerated in a commercial crew. The lives of the whole outweigh the griping of the few who 'don't wanna'. These scenarios may seem like a throwback to 'the olden days' to someone like you. But the seafaring traditions are kept alive for a reason.


Indeed, cappy, the master's word is law *at sea*. The flaw in your intemperate diatribe is twofold. First, at least some of the crew were mere unpaid volunteers. There doesn't appear to be any sort of contractual or employer-employee relationship. Therefore, either the captain or each crew member had an absolute right to terminate the relationship at will. That means, the captain was free to dismiss them as crew, without cause, and likewise, the crew members were free to quit the ship at will. Secondly, when the captain held the meeting with the crew to tell them of his plan to sail into the hurricane, the ship was not *at sea*. Thus, the captain's god-like powers were nominal, and everyone (including the captain) was subject to the laws of the State, and not the law of the sea. Each volunteer crew member had an absolute, indisputable legal right to tell the captain to go pound salt. Those volunteers, who served the ship only as long as they chose to do so, and who were not at sea at the time, were completely free agents, and could choose to sail with him, or not. And, if that isn't clear enough for you, let me add that the captain invited the crew to leave the ship if they wished. He made it clear that he was not commanding them to sail with the ship, and that, on the contrary, he was releasing them from any obligation to do so as crew.

I didn't suggest that they mutiny or disregard his commands. I suggested that they gratefully accept his generous invitation to leave the ship, for their own safety. I have no argument with seafaring traditions or maritime laws. These discussions always go better if you get the facts straight.


----------



## cappy208

*?? Navel Gazing?*



Classic30 said:


> I do wonder, would there have been the same level of continuous navel-gazing had the internet been invented back then?... Probably.


Not to wander off topic.... but I do believe there is MUCH more "navel gazing" with the internet in more than one aspect.......:laugher


----------



## cappy208

Sailormon6 said:


> Indeed, cappy, the master's word is law *at sea*. The flaw in your intemperate diatribe is twofold. First, at least some of the crew were mere unpaid volunteers. There doesn't appear to be any sort of contractual or employer-employee relationship. Therefore, either the captain or each crew member had an absolute right to terminate the relationship at will. That means, the captain was free to dismiss them as crew, without cause, and likewise, the crew members were free to quit the ship at will. Secondly, when the captain held the meeting with the crew to tell them of his plan to sail into the hurricane, the ship was not *at sea*. Thus, the captain's god-like powers were nominal, and everyone (including the captain) was subject to the laws of the State, and not the law of the sea. Each volunteer crew member had an absolute, indisputable legal right to tell the captain to go pound salt. Those volunteers, who served the ship only as long as they chose to do so, and who were not at sea at the time, were completely free agents, and could choose to sail with him, or not. And, if that isn't clear enough for you, let me add that the captain invited the crew to leave the ship if they wished. He made it clear that he was not commanding them to sail with the ship, and that, on the contrary, he was releasing them from any obligation to do so as crew.
> 
> I didn't suggest that they mutiny or disregard his commands. I suggested that they gratefully accept his generous invitation to leave the ship, for their own safety. I have no argument with seafaring traditions or maritime laws. These discussions always go better if you get the facts straight.


And the flaw with your comment is there were in fact NO unpaid volunteers aboard. There were (IIRC) 4 paid crew. and the rest were volunteers who (in order to volunteer) had to WORK at the shipyard and on the vessel preparations for MONTHS for the 'right' to volunteer. This makes the distinction that they PAID (not in money, but in sweat equity) thus they were actually paying passengers. This changes the WHOLE consideration of the crew, the manning, and in fact that the vessel should have been an INSPECTED passenger carrying vessel, with class certification, and safety oversight. The Jones Act specifically states that persons who pay (not just in money for passage) in any way for consideration for boarding a vessel are in fact passengers. Whether they perform work once aboard is irrelevant. It is how they GOT onboard.

That is rich. You expect people who have grown accustomed to the 'mystique' of the almighty captain to just leave? After they had paid with their sweat and labor for months to prepare for this trip? They had NO knowledge that Walbridge was lost. They had no inkling what was in store for them. Walbridge let them down. Let them down in the most miserable way. Even the NTSB report confirms that. What is left unsaid and uninvestigated is HOW the vessel, the captain, and the owners were left to their own devices.

The FIRST expectation any crew or passengers expect is a competent professional captain to lead the way, and to decipher the voyage planning correctly. Walbridge goofed. (not that it matters, but even modern masters goof.... Shettino ring any bells?) There were two classes of people on the vessel Paid crew and paid passengers (who had to work for passage) Until that little distinction is made, all the other issues of vessel upkeep, safety equipment and the like are non starters. That Walbridge took a single person WITH him is criminal. The people who were on the boat were subject to some of the same retribution that Walbridge would have been subject to if he didn't sail that day. They would have been blacklisted just as Walbridge would have if he didn't go and meet the imaginary schedule. The 'tall ship' community is VERY small. They all know each other by name. Most have worked with the others. Once you get kicked (or leave) you won't get another chance.

He didn't have to balls to say NO. He didn't have the balls to stand up for what was best for the ship. He didn't have to balls to stand up for what was best for his crew and passengers. The crew shouldn't have to walk off or take matters into their own hands. The Master should be competent to make these decisions. Period.

As far as a contractual relationship there absolutely was one. You work your azz off for months for a shot at being a 'volunteer' crew. They don't take everyone who works when in shipyard. It is a choice/personality thing. When you provide services you are indeed entering into a contract. It may be verbal, unsaid, or otherwise. But there certainly was a contract. Especially in light of the Jones Act case law which makes it easy to see. But difficult to know about. It is archaic, specialized law that not many people know about or understand.

Intemperate? Maybe. But you keep coming back at others with intemperate comments. Two wrongs and all may not make a right. But enough with the making excuses for Walbridge. The crew has a reasonable expectation of competence. He screwed the pooch on this one. But others are getting off scot free. That irks me to no end.

Did you look at some of the pictures of the inside of the hull in the bunk area? That pile of dryrot and putty should have been torched a couple of years ago.


----------



## cappy208

fryewe said:


> Attaboy!!! Burnish your credentials with baseless and untrue digs and destroy your credibility in the first few posts so "armchair quarterbacks" with demonstrated thoughtfulness and experience can disregard your posts to avoid wasting time reading them.
> 
> Is this you talking or the rum? Most of us will understand if it's the rum...we've likely been there...


Ummm. So where is the USCG report? Where are the changes to the Uninspected tall ships that slug around the coasts? Where are the changes to 'sail training vessels' Their inspections? Their use? Their safety?

Is there some other agency that is inspecting them that fell short (as in the Bounty?) Burnish my credentials? Not likely. I don't need to. I left the talk ships. OOPs, I meant Tall Ships when I was 18. I SAW what was going on. I still see what is going on. Through the eyes of 34 years on commercial vessels I see how the CG operates. They work on 'arrears' They don't do ANYTHING until the spit hits the fan and people die. Look up Marine Electric, The Morro Bay, The Cutter Blackthorn. Then come back and call me wrong.

Regarding the CG's expertise in wooden hulled SVs. I won't name names. But I know from working in yacht yards the ways that 'olde sailboats' are 'fixed' to look in shape. Some of (actually most all) of these old sailing vessels are SO badly hogged that they routinely remove the caplog and saw down the sheerstrake/bulwark to make it 'appear' not hogged. I am amazed the cutwaters even stay in the stems they droop so much. But by darned they keep passing inspection. I would NEVER set foot on one. (unless it were to jump to the dock over the deck)

There is another 'class' of vessels that is unregulated also. These operate as 'educational training vessels' They have greatly reduced inspections (if any) and operate under the premise that the people (usually groups of students and handicapped youth) are 'given' a day of bongo netting, fish exploration and other interesting things to do, all with a 'donation' to the vessel. There are some questionable vessels skirting around in this theater also. Where is the oversight?


----------



## davidpm

Capt Wallbridge was captain of his ship for 17 years. 
He was by all accounts a quiet, humble, teacher captain with a commanding presence.

Each of his crew were much less experienced. 
The tendency in this kind of situation is to assume that the Capt knows something you don't know and that the trip is going to be a once in a life-time amazing experience.

I would like to think I'm strong willed enough and experienced enough that at 63 if I was presented with the choice these young people had I would have stepped off the boat.

But truthfully I'm not certain. I' sure that attitude was that the Capt had done this before the boat was tough and it was going to be an unforgettable ride that if you wanted to miss it and chicken out was your choice. The crew was according to all accounts much younger and/or less experienced than me.

The real puzzle was why Capt Wallbridge left when he did. One thing no one has mentioned yet is the possibility that he was suffering from un-diagnosed dementia. 

Is it possible that someone with that much experience had never developed a healthy respect for sever weather. He had been in storms before so that seems highly unlikely. The simple fact is that he made a choice that 99.9999% of experienced captains would not have made. Unless maybe their was some financial issue where if he was late to FL the whole enterprise had to be shut down.

The way I see it his choice was so inexplicable that the most likely reason is either some form of dementia or some external force that in his mind made the weather gamble worthwhile.

I get a really strong feeling that their is a significant piece of this puzzle we don't know. 
Did he get some really bad medical news so he figured he only had one last sail in him?
Was a warrant for his arrest going to be issued the next day?
Was their some tax lien or other legal issue related to the state he was in?
Did he owe a gambling debt?
Was their an inspection scheduled that he knew the boat would fail.

In short what would cause an experienced man to take that kind of risk?
Also his was the only body not found.
I have no idea what that could mean.

Someone knows something more that would make this story make sense.


----------



## cappy208

davidpm said:


> The real puzzle was why Capt Wallbridge left when he did. One thing no one has mentioned yet is the possibility that he was suffering from un-diagnosed dementia.
> 
> Someone knows something more that would make this story make sense.


That is probably the most applicable comment yet. I know it is tough for a guy/gal (in any position) to relinquish command when the stress of the job encroaches on performance.

There have been several old timers who I have observed that 'should' have stepped down when eyesight got poor, or judgement wavered. But it is a hard thing to do to accept getting older.

Even I am starting to feel the time is nigh to step back down to a Mates job and let the young whippersnappers take the stress of leadership on. 30 years of being the boss, making all the decisions takes a toll.

But to even admit that (and act on it) is a tough thing to do to ones psyche.


----------



## Sailormon6

cappy208 said:


> And the flaw with your comment is there were in fact NO unpaid volunteers aboard. There were (IIRC) 4 paid crew. and the rest were volunteers who (in order to volunteer) had to WORK at the shipyard and on the vessel preparations for MONTHS for the 'right' to volunteer. This makes the distinction that they PAID (not in money, but in sweat equity) thus they were actually paying passengers. This changes the WHOLE consideration of the crew, the manning, and in fact that the vessel should have been an INSPECTED passenger carrying vessel, with class certification, and safety oversight. The Jones Act specifically states that persons who pay (not just in money for passage) in any way for consideration for boarding a vessel are in fact passengers. Whether they perform work once aboard is irrelevant. It is how they GOT onboard.


 As "paying passengers," they were free to leave the ship at will when in port.



> That is rich. You expect people who have grown accustomed to the 'mystique' of the almighty captain to just leave? After they had paid with their sweat and labor for months to prepare for this trip?


 My only expectation is that different people will act differently, some reasonably and some unreasonably, when confronted with the same set of circumstances. My hope, however, is that reasonable people will make reasonable choices when their personal safety is at risk. When the ship was in a safe harbor, and a hurricane was coming, it was not a reasonable choice for volunteers or passengers to sail into the hurricane. Surely you don't disdagree with that, do you?



> They had no inkling what was in store for them.


 Well now, they knew a hurricane was coming.



> Walbridge let them down. Let them down in the most miserable way. Even the NTSB report confirms that. What is left unsaid and uninvestigated is HOW the vessel, the captain, and the owners were left to their own devices.
> 
> The FIRST expectation any crew or passengers expect is a competent professional captain to lead the way, and to decipher the voyage planning correctly. Walbridge goofed. (not that it matters, but even modern masters goof.... Shettino ring any bells?) There were two classes of people on the vessel Paid crew and paid passengers (who had to work for passage) Until that little distinction is made, all the other issues of vessel upkeep, safety equipment and the like are non starters. That Walbridge took a single person WITH him is criminal.


 I haven't defended or excused Captain Walbridge, or his decisions, although, to his credit, I have heard that he was well-liked.



> The people who were on the boat were subject to some of the same retribution that Walbridge would have been subject to if he didn't sail that day. They would have been blacklisted just as Walbridge would have if he didn't go and meet the imaginary schedule.


 The official finding was that he had enough time to wait out the storm, and then leave, and still arrive at his next destination on schedule.



> He didn't have to balls to say NO. He didn't have the balls to stand up for what was best for the ship. He didn't have to balls to stand up for what was best for his crew and passengers. The crew shouldn't have to walk off or take matters into their own hands. The Master should be competent to make these decisions. Period.


 I don't know anything about his balls, and will defer to you on that subject. But, I agree with you that "the crew shouldn't have to walk off or take matters into their own hands." Moreover, if they did walk off, the ship wouldn't have been lost and two people wouldn't have been lost at sea.



> As far as a contractual relationship there absolutely was one. You work your azz off for months for a shot at being a 'volunteer' crew. They don't take everyone who works when in shipyard. It is a choice/personality thing. When you provide services you are indeed entering into a contract. It may be verbal, unsaid, or otherwise. But there certainly was a contract. Especially in light of the Jones Act case law which makes it easy to see. But difficult to know about. It is archaic, specialized law that not many people know about or understand.


 I know a little bit about contract law, and am pretty sure the Jones Act doesn't allow a ship's captain to impress passengers into service against their will as seamen, especially when the vessel is in port. As I recall, we fought a war with Great Britain over that very same thing. There was no contract that obligated the volunteers to leave the safe harbor and sail into that hurricane.



> Intemperate? Maybe. But you keep coming back at others with intemperate comments.


 Don't mistake my passion about the subject for intemperance. You should have seen some of the really intemperate things that I had the good sense to delete before I posted them!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

davidpm said:


> . The simple fact is that he made a choice that 99.9999% of experienced captains would not have made.


Fame.

He had a taste of it in interviews. Now he could become the best tall ship captain by being the star who chases hurricanes.

One doesnt have to be 16 to be lured by Big Brother or American/Australian Idol. He was in Tall Ship Idol and he had his little crew of fans "Wow Captain! You're the captain who chases Hurricanes and HERE is a hurricane! Are we gunna chase it? PLEASE?

You guys may have had jobs on boats for 30 years or in business for 30 years, but I have been in media for 30 years and I know what the shadow of a TV camera can do.

Now I have to go and put some makeup on...


----------



## cappy208

Sailormon6 said:


> As "paying passengers," they were free to leave the ship at will when in port.


 NO, not when they had bought a 'non refundable' ticket by putting months of time and energy making the vessel ready(?) for sea.



Sailormon6 said:


> When the ship was in a safe harbor, and a hurricane was coming, it was not a reasonable choice for volunteers or passengers to sail into the hurricane. Surely you don't disdagree with that, do you?


 Walbridge told everyone he was sailing east, on the east side of the hurricane. He lied. Did you see the track that was on the Bounty website as he left New London? He sailed sse for a day and a half. then inexplicably he turned almost due west. He did not do what he had told the sheeple he was going to do. After thinking about his TV interview I do think he was seriously in denial about the condition of his vessel, the ability of a 50 some odd year old vessel with minimal upkeep (at least to the standards I expect) and that he had lost touch with reality. However knowing some of the tall ship Captains and Mates this is NOT an unusual phenomenon.



Sailormon6 said:


> Well now, they knew a hurricane was coming.


 Did they? They were assured by god almighty that they were going to miss the hurricane.



Sailormon6 said:


> I haven't defended or excused Captain Walbridge, or his decisions, although, to his credit, I have heard that he was well-liked.


 So was John Wayne Gacy.



Sailormon6 said:


> The official finding was that he had enough time to wait out the storm, and then leave, and still arrive at his next destination on schedule.


 found by a tribunal who DIDN'T get to hear 50% of the responsible parties testimony. Not very compelling. The guy who died takes all the blame. How neat. On a voyage of that length how many laydays do you think he had built into the schedule?



Sailormon6 said:


> I know a little bit about contract law, and am pretty sure the Jones Act doesn't allow a ship's captain to impress passengers into service against their will as seamen, especially when the vessel is in port. As I recall, we fought a war with Great Britain over that very same thing. There was no contract that obligated the volunteers to leave the safe harbor and sail into that hurricane.


 And you miss the compelling part. These people worked for MONTHS for free, all to 'make the cut' to be invited to be 'crew'. They are all blinded by the mystic, the (as you put it) warm fuzzy feeling of rapture of being 'tall ship crew' and all that blather, Yo Ho, Yo Ho hardee hardee hardee hee. Yup, there is an inescapable attraction to this type of life, usually by people who are mesmerized by the thought of something old and magical about the seafaring life.



Sailormon6 said:


> Don't mistake my passion about the subject for intemperance. You should have seen some of the really intemperate things that I had the good sense to delete before I posted them!


The upshot of the whole Bounty fiasco was, I was weatherbound on my 500' OceanGoing Tug and Barge unit, WAY WAY up a river with 16 lines, holding me fast to a dock. I was there not because I had nothing better to do, but I was there because of Sandy. I was there 3 days prior to the arrival of Sandy. I was in AWE when (as a sailor I do these things) I was watching the HMS Bounty DEPART New London on Friday when I was already weatherbound! I was in awe when I watched their track (not east as had been proposed) but SSE. Then I was in dumbfound unbelievement when I saw the track turn West! No crew that I know of could anticipate such unintelligible, poorly executed voyage planning as Walbridge executed.

Some could say I shouldn't talk, because I wasn't there. But I do know exactly WHERE I was. Safe, tied to a dock, and secure. I don't think Walbridge would have stayed if a couple people bowed out. I think he would have hurrah'd his crew into going no matter what. IIRC they had documented a trip with only 12 crew before. He wasn't worried about the ship. He just needed enough crew to get to the next port.

You mention that the crew should just have up and left. This is part of the whole concept of comradeship, building character, and teamwork. (You have not been in the Military either) The whole concept is null and void when the leader is an idiot! In any case the Master must be above reproach for this to work. You mention you don't want your child to ship on one of these type vessels. That's probably a good thing. Until and unless you become higher up in rank and experience you are not needed to 'put your two cents in'.

Here's a story I got from the instructor of a Bridge Resource Management course I attended:
The guy was operating a 36' launch in remote Boston Harbor. One (small) portion was filled with 4 to 6' seas and chop. (They had to run across an inlet, with gale wind against tide.) The Captain instructed the passengers to don lifejackets, and that EVERYONE must remain seated throughout the short (15 minute) trip across the inlet. (sounds sort of like the requirements of a typical small passenger vessel stability letter to me)

One of the managers of the facility he was transporting spoke up and declared that as a group they needed to have a 'circle meeting' to speak about this 'order' by a non group member (the Captain) And that they had to come to agreement about whether there needed to be such an order in the first place. The Captain Yelled at the passengers to obey his commands NOW. They did! But, when they reached the dock the manager contacted the ceo of the company and got the Captain fired for not 'embracing the circle meeting philosophy' of the company.

There is a time and place for touchy feely circle meetings, crew agreement, and kumbayah time. Then there is a time for obeying the Captains orders. The problem is.... when the Captain is out of touch who is to know? Usually he is the most experienced person aboard! And when you are in command do you really need some out of touch 'circle meeting' type person chiming in, with 'it's time to have a circle meeting now'?

Typically we don't run a vessel by consensus. We run it based upon our experience and acumen.


----------



## Sal Paradise

I live within sight of the Hudson River. I have never seen such a parade of ships, tugs barges, ferries , commercial fishing trawlers and yachts heading North as came up that Thursday and Friday. It was staggering. The NYC Circle Line was just a couple of miles away and the anchorages had a tug with oil barge anchored every quarter mile. 

I took off from work that Friday to get my sailboat hauled out. In the yard the crane was working so fast and with such desperation that it was like the end of the world was approaching. What we were most afraid of was high water. On the other side of the creek, a couple hundred yards from us, were yachts such as I have never seen from NYC and Connecticut with professional crews tying them up. Everyone sane was running for cover


----------



## joethecobbler

I ran for cover from Sandy.
we anchored in Chesapeake city basin and waited out the storm for 5 days. glad I didn't stay in NYC,sandy hook, or cape may.
I don't think it would have ended well.


----------



## fryewe

cappy208 said:


> And you miss the compelling part. These people worked for MONTHS for free, all to 'make the cut' to be invited to be 'crew'. They are all *blinded by the mystic*, the (as you put it) warm fuzzy feeling of rapture of being 'tall ship crew' and all that blather, Yo Ho, Yo Ho hardee hardee hardee hee. Yup, there is an *inescapable* attraction to this type of life, usually by *people who are mesmerized* by the thought of something old and magical about the seafaring life.


So...what you're saying is that my "Darwin" comment was spot-on...even though offered tongue-in-cheek...



> Here's a story I got from the instructor of a *Bridge Resource Management* course I attended:
> The guy was operating a 36' launch in remote Boston Harbor. One (small) portion was filled with 4 to 6' seas and chop. (They had to run across an inlet, with gale wind against tide.) The Captain instructed the passengers to don lifejackets, and that EVERYONE must remain seated throughout the short (15 minute) trip across the inlet. (sounds sort of like the requirements of a typical small passenger vessel stability letter to me)
> 
> One of the managers of the facility he was transporting spoke up and declared that as a group they needed to have a 'circle meeting' to speak about this 'order' by a non group member (the Captain) And that they had to come to agreement about whether there needed to be such an order in the first place. The Captain Yelled at the passengers to obey his commands NOW. They did! But, when they reached the dock the manager contacted the ceo of the company and got the Captain fired for not 'embracing the circle meeting philosophy' of the company.


Isn't it amusing that this command course has been given a "circle meeting" title - Bridge Resource Management?

Did the fired boat captain read "Who Moved My Cheese?" to help him deal with the change in his life?

Sorry about the topic drift.

Break/break...

I wouldn't go so far as davidpm in suggesting that CAPT Walbridge was incapacitated in some fashion but it puzzles me that a captain with his reputation would go to sea with such an inexperienced crew and unseaworthy ship...hurricane or not. "Command" is not simply seamanship and navigation and piloting skills but management of the resources needed.

Many things on this ship were substandard...examples abound from cleanliness and stowage (debris fouled bilge pumps) to training (in the use of backup pumps) to equipment maintenance (said backup pumps) to crew knowledge and experience (what were the standards for "qualification" for a crew position?) to navigational planning (was there an assigned navigator who assisted the captain in voyage planning and execution or was it all in the skipper's head?). Who embarks on a long and arduous passage without a sea trial or shakedown cruise?

Based on the poor management of the ship some of his reputation may have been based on serendipity rather than skill.

It appears the Captain may have been a "one man show". One man shows often result in catastrophe when the one man is stretched too thin or makes an error in judgement or is forced to operate outside his experience base.


----------



## Sailormon6

Tall ships are an anachronism in the modern world. There's no significant economically viable use for them. They're expensive to maintain and not many people know how to rig and sail them anymore. Nobody will ever get rich by putting them on display and charging a small admission fee for a tour of the ship. The people who own and sail tall ships see it as a labor of love. 

If they are held to strict standards and required to pass strict inspections, they won't be able to survive economically, and they will soon disappear, except for the very few that are historically important and that are government subsidized. The need to strictly regulate commercial vessels that regularly carry the travelling public for hire, or that carry valuable freight for hire, is obvious. The need to strictly regulate tall ships can be rationalized, on the theory that the people who sail on them are few, and are generally aware of their hazards. It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong answer to the question of how rigorously they should be regulated. It's a value judgment. 

The government doesn't rigorously inspect my sailboat every few years, or hold it to rigorous standards. If my boat deteriorates, the general travelling public isn't put in danger. Only I am in danger. I suspect, without having actual knowledge, that the government regulators view tall ships as similar in that respect to private recreational vessels, only bigger. The people who sail them understand and accept the risks associated with them. Accordingly, they are able to rationalize away the need for rigorous enforcement. I understand that rationale, and will leave it to others to criticize or concur with it, as they see fit.

If disaster strikes, the courts won't be as understanding as regulators might be. They will look for negligence, and, if they find it, they will make an appropriate award of damages. Thus, at least a legal remedy will be available to anyone injured through negligence.

In the modern world, it is a rare privilege to have an opportunity to serve as master of a tall ship, and maybe a tall ship captain harbors a private need to serve in the historical traditions of the sea, sailing with determination through fair weather and foul. Rationally, we know he should never allow those inner needs to cloud his judgment, but truthfully, we all know that they do sometimes cloud our judgment. I crewed for a person who, with his eyes wide open, intentionally sailed into the worst storm I've ever seen, even though he could have avoided it, and I was urging him to not do it. Why? Probably because he wanted to see what it would be like. He found out, and it was really bad. We can never know what private thoughts or fantasies motivate people to do irrational things, but all of us are susceptible to them.

Captain Walbridge made mistakes, but he was neither a fool, nor a villain, nor a god. I regret his loss.


----------



## Sal Paradise

fryewe said:


> I wouldn't go so far as davidpm in suggesting that CAPT Walbridge was incapacitated in some fashion but it puzzles me that a captain with his reputation would go to sea with such an inexperienced crew and unseaworthy ship...hurricane or not. "Command" is not simply seamanship and navigation and piloting skills but management of the resources needed.
> 
> It appears the Captain may have been a "one man show". One man shows often result in catastrophe when the one man is stretched too thin or makes an error in judgement or is forced to operate outside his experience base.


On the first point - it appears that crew and ship behaved as a reasonable person would expect them to. Better in fact. Crew performed as ordered. Yes?

The ship also performed as a reasonable person would expect. It went slowly where directed, made water as a wooden ship in rough weather does and - provided basically no surprises really , just a gradual systematic failure. Agree?

So, by Occam's Razor - Walbridge simply misjudged the Hurricane severity and course. He then, because of his bravado and ego, and out of an irrational desire to preserve the ship over the lives of the crew - refused to change his mind and put into a port.


----------



## Sailormon6

cappy208 said:


> NO, not when they had bought a 'non refundable' ticket by putting months of time and energy making the vessel ready(?) for sea.


 They didn't have to sail with the ship into the hurricane. They had a choice. When the ship left the dock with them aboard, that was their free choice. They didn't have to give up their months of hard work. They were told they could rejoin the ship in Florida. By leaving the ship at that time, all they would have been doing is putting their personal safety above their desire to sail on a tall ship. That's a choice, and a value judgment.



> Walbridge told everyone he was sailing east, on the east side of the hurricane. He lied. Did you see the track that was on the Bounty website as he left New London? He sailed sse for a day and a half. then inexplicably he turned almost due west. He did not do what he had told the sheeple he was going to do.


 The only way you could know if Captain Walbridge was lying when he said he intended to sail east was if you knew what he was really thinking, in the private recesses of his mind. If he intended to sail east when he made the statement, but then changed his mind later, then it wasn't a lie.



> Did they [know a hurricane was coming]? They were assured by god almighty that they were going to miss the hurricane.


 I don't know exactly what he told his crew at the meeting, and I doubt that you do either, unless you were there. I don't doubt that he gave them some sort of assurances, and that his assurances were probably made in good faith. There's no hint that he was suicidal, so I'm reasonably sure he meant to survive the hurricane in some manner. I've never heard anyone other than you suggest that he harbored a god complex.



> The upshot of the whole Bounty fiasco was, I was weatherbound on my 500' OceanGoing Tug and Barge unit, WAY WAY up a river with 16 lines, holding me fast to a dock. I was there not because I had nothing better to do, but I was there because of Sandy. I was there 3 days prior to the arrival of Sandy. I was in AWE when (as a sailor I do these things) I was watching the HMS Bounty DEPART New London on Friday when I was already weatherbound! I was in awe when I watched their track (not east as had been proposed) but SSE. Then I was in dumbfound unbelievement when I saw the track turn West! No crew that I know of could anticipate such unintelligible, poorly executed voyage planning as Walbridge executed.
> 
> Some could say I shouldn't talk, because I wasn't there. But I do know exactly WHERE I was. Safe, tied to a dock, and secure. I don't think Walbridge would have stayed if a couple people bowed out. I think he would have hurrah'd his crew into going no matter what. IIRC they had documented a trip with only 12 crew before. He wasn't worried about the ship. He just needed enough crew to get to the next port.


 When you put aside your apparent hostility toward Captain Walbridge, you're capable of making alot of good sense. I agree.

I'm not a tall ship sailor, but from my understanding of them, it might be that as he sailed to the east, the circular motion of the hurricane was forcing him to sail in a direction that he didn't believe he could go safely. He might have thought it safer to change course and head for the so-called safe side of the storm. The report indicates that, when the ship sank, the eye of the storm had already passed north of the ship, so, he had passed through the worst of it, and the conditions would have abated thereafter, but by that time, the ship had apparently suffered so much damage and taken on so much water that it was too late. Once he was committed to sailing through the storm, the course that he chose might have made sense to the captain of a tall ship. I'd love to hear the opinion of a tall ship captain, if any are following this thread.


----------



## Don L

I'm amazed,...................that you guys can keep this "debate" going.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sailormon6 said:


> I'm not a tall ship sailor, but from my understanding of them, it might be that as he sailed to the east, the circular motion of the hurricane was forcing him to sail in a direction that he didn't believe he could go safely.


Well, except for the fact that he _NEVER_ sailed east...


----------



## Sailormon6

JonEisberg said:


> Well, except for the fact that he _NEVER_ sailed east...


You're right, but before he left, he said that he intended to sail east, so, taking him at his word, he probably steered the boat as much to the east as he could. When he found that he could barely hold a heading slightly east of south, he must have seen that that heading was taking him directly towards the most dangerous side of the hurricane, so he had to abandon his original plan, and try something else. I think it's a logical guess that he decided to steer for the "safer" side of the hurricane. At that time, he didn't know with any certainty whether the storm was going to go straight, or turn towards the coast. All he knew for sure is that it was coming straight at him. He didn't have many options, none good, so he took the one that looked the least bad.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Sailormon6 said:


> taking him at his word,
> 
> .


Lololololololololuke


----------



## rgscpat

It seems more likely to me that the captain was both a good enough man, and a romantic optimist, to more likely to have deluded himself and his crew with a distorted vision of the capabilities of himself, his ship, and his crew, rather than outright lied. 

I do also believe that the idea of "normalization of risk" applies here; what he and the ship got away with before, obviously they could get away with again.


----------



## cappy208

Sailormon6 said:


> I don't know exactly what he told his crew at the meeting, and I doubt that you do either, unless you were there. I don't doubt that he gave them some sort of assurances, and that his assurances were probably made in good faith. There's no hint that he was suicidal, so I'm reasonably sure he meant to survive the hurricane in some manner. I've never heard anyone other than you suggest that he harbored a god complex.


It has been deleted off the internet (I thought according to modern anecdotal assertions this wasn't possible!) But the second mate was on the internet, showing a video of Walbridge, the Ch Mate, the Senior DH (the 2nd Mate was videographing) with the whole discussion published on the HMS Bounty's website. I SAW and heard what he said.

The entire eastern seaboard was warned. The 72, 48,36,24,18,12 hours prognosis were AMAZINGLY clear and ASTOUNDINGLY accurate.

Don't forget, the Bounty had internet the whole time. How else could they have been posting the progress of the voyage? So if little olde Moi had this info, they did too. The last communication with them was not by sat phone, but was by internet messaging! It seems the satellite was the last thing to go!

Yes, the 72 hour prognosis (anticipated 'cone' of impact) was spot on. NONE of the following prognosis' varied much (maybe 10 to 20 miles north or south of the predicted path) The Hurricane did EXACTLY like the professional predictions said it would do. It would appear Walbridge thought the Hurricane would recurve and head NE like they traditionally do.

Even with that said, the boat was a wreck, just waiting for disaster.

I have no feelings for Walbridge good or bad. I have intense dislike for the 'industry' of 'spoiled rich idiots' who foot the bills on these lunatic missions, who have no oversight, and then get away scot free with overseeing the deaths of two individuals who should have never died. If this loony money wasn't supporting this old relic, she would have never left whichever port she would be 'sanded in' at a shoreside attraction, and you could WALK around her, in a parking lot until she got in such a condition she had to be bulldozed into a pile and burned.


----------



## Sal Paradise

So much is being made of the decision to leave but it was the decisions to wait until the last few hours to call the coast gaurd and the decision to wait to abandon ship that cost Claudene Christian her life, that almost cost them all their lives. I look at those decisions by Walbridge as two additional chances that he had to be the hero, two chances he ignored and threw away.

From gcaptain Mario Vittone

http://gcaptain.com/cost-bounty-hearings/

_"*On Saturday *the weather started to turn and the bilges needed constant pumping. On any other ship in the world, that's called flooding. The code of federal regulations calls that a reportable marine casualty; According to 46 CFR 4.05-1, "An occurrence materially and adversely affecting the vessel's seaworthiness or fitness for service or route, including but not limited to fire, flooding, or failure of or damage to fixed fire-extinguishing systems, lifesaving equipment, auxiliary power-generating equipment, or bilge-pumping systems" shall be reported to the Coast Guard. Not calling in as soon as Bounty experienced trouble denied the Coast Guard the advantage of giving the master critical advice. Advice like, "You're about to be in a situation where helicopter rescue is going to be difficult," and, "If you wait you will be making our crews fly into hurricane-force winds.....*In the early morning on Sunday* the 28th, the third mate reported to his captain that they were "not keeping up with the water." That's called progressive flooding, otherwise known as sinking. Notifying the Coast Guard then would have given the crew what they didn't have by the time Bounty was half full of water and unstable: options. It would have given them time for an orderly abandon ship, one done on purpose - during daylight hours - and not at the mercy of ten miles of flailing line and tons of mast and debris."_

he also talks about the hours Walbridge waited before actually abandoning

"_According to Svendsen's testimony on day one of the hearings, *Walbridge told him that he planned to wait until the water reached the vessel's tween deck to abandon* the boat.....The last to testify yesterday (and break my heart) was twenty-five-year-old Jessica Hewitt. Talking through tears she told the panel about her ordeal with the rigging and about the slamming rig dragging her underwater ....So far, no one remembers seeing either of them(Christian and Walbridge) in the water; the cost of waiting, I guess. They all left the boat in such chaos, thrown from her decks as she suddenly rolled to starboard. Listening to Hewitt cry as she relived the ordeal, all I could think was that they all should have been long gone by then."_

These descisions are as damning or probably more damning than the decision to leave New London.


----------



## Classic30

Way too much emoitional spin on that, SP.. let's stick to facts as they are known shall we??



Sal Paradise said:


> From gcaptain Mario Vittone
> 
> gCaptain Maritime & Offshore News | The Cost of Waiting ? Bounty Hearings ? Day 6
> 
> _"*On Saturday *the weather started to turn and the bilges needed constant pumping. On any other ship in the world, that's called flooding. The code of federal regulations calls that a reportable marine casualty; According to 46 CFR 4.05-1, "An occurrence materially and adversely affecting the vessel's seaworthiness or fitness for service or route, including but not limited to fire, flooding, or failure of or damage to fixed fire-extinguishing systems, lifesaving equipment, auxiliary power-generating equipment, or bilge-pumping systems" shall be reported to the Coast Guard. Not calling in as soon as Bounty experienced trouble denied the Coast Guard the advantage of giving the master critical advice. Advice like, "You're about to be in a situation where helicopter rescue is going to be difficult," and, "If you wait you will be making our crews fly into hurricane-force winds.....*In the early morning on Sunday* the 28th, the third mate reported to his captain that they were "not keeping up with the water." That's called progressive flooding, otherwise known as sinking. Notifying the Coast Guard then would have given the crew what they didn't have *by the time Bounty was half full of water and unstable*: options. It would have given them time for an orderly abandon ship, one done on purpose - during daylight hours - and not at the mercy of ten miles of flailing line and tons of mast and debris."_


Ok, I know the guy isn't here to defend himself, but (I assume through lack of experience in Tall Ships) at least some of that is more personal opinion ...as if there isn't enough of that already. What proof does he have that, half-full of water, Bounty was unstable?

Sure, they should have reported "flooding" as soon as it happened to put the authorities on alert... but IIRC it was common practice, certainly in the grain clippers and Cape Horners, to *deliberately* flood the holds if the cargo shifted because this made the ship *more stable*, not less. Indeed, that dramatic pic of Bounty awash shows her to be fully upright even at that point:










Shows you really can't believe all you read on the Internet...


----------



## Sal Paradise

Well, the fact is that flooding is what made the ship sink. 

The other fact is the ship "heeled over" , throwing the crew into the ocean and was "lying on it's side" beating them with the rig. 

Had those two things not happened - you might have had a point.


----------



## Minnewaska

That pic is fully upright? 

And we do know that she pitched enough to toss the crew overboard. That was first hand testimony.


----------



## cappy208

Classic30 said:


> What proof does he have that, half-full of water, Bounty was unstable?
> 
> Sure, they should have reported "flooding" as soon as it happened to put the authorities on alert... but IIRC it was common practice, certainly in the grain clippers and Cape Horners, to *deliberately* flood the holds if the cargo shifted because this made the ship *more stable*, not less. Indeed, that dramatic pic of Bounty awash shows her to be fully upright even at that point:
> 
> Shows you really can't believe all you read on the Internet...


Exactly. The internet is full on misdirection and inane comments.

You NEVER 'flood' a ship with water in this fashion to 'gain stability' Water in a large open area has free surface. Simply put, this makes the sloshing water exacerbate the movements (the snapping and rolling mentioned by the survivors) as the water flows from one side to another uncontrollably, often making the vessels movements exaggerated, and hard to predict.

I hardly call that picture 'upright and erect'. Awash and battered, yeah, I would buy that description. But not upright and erect. Lolling and shuddering also.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Not so upright....

And just because a photo taken hours later looks upright at the moment the photo was taken you need to remember the evidence of the crew being pushed under from the rigging continually rolling down on them.


----------



## rgscpat

Plus, the instability caused by flooding was perhaps at its worst when the ship was halfway flooded, rather than when it was 90% plus flooded when the picture was taken. It's simple enough to compare what happens when you shake a half-full bottle of water compared to a full one.


----------



## YukonJack

cappy208 said:


> It has been deleted off the internet (I thought according to modern anecdotal assertions this wasn't possible!) But the second mate was on the internet, showing a video of Walbridge, the Ch Mate, the Senior DH (the 2nd Mate was videographing) with the whole discussion published on the HMS Bounty's website. I SAW and heard what he said.
> 
> The entire eastern seaboard was warned. The 72, 48,36,24,18,12 hours prognosis were AMAZINGLY clear and ASTOUNDINGLY accurate.
> 
> Don't forget, the Bounty had internet the whole time. How else could they have been posting the progress of the voyage? So if little olde Moi had this info, they did too. The last communication with them was not by sat phone, but was by internet messaging! It seems the satellite was the last thing to go!
> 
> Yes, the 72 hour prognosis (anticipated 'cone' of impact) was spot on. NONE of the following prognosis' varied much (maybe 10 to 20 miles north or south of the predicted path) The Hurricane did EXACTLY like the professional predictions said it would do. It would appear Walbridge thought the Hurricane would recurve and head NE like they traditionally do.
> 
> Even with that said, the boat was a wreck, just waiting for disaster.
> 
> I have no feelings for Walbridge good or bad. I have intense dislike for the 'industry' of 'spoiled rich idiots' who foot the bills on these lunatic missions, who have no oversight, and then get away scot free with overseeing the deaths of two individuals who should have never died. If this loony money wasn't supporting this old relic, she would have never left whichever port she would be 'sanded in' at a shoreside attraction, and you could WALK around her, in a parking lot until she got in such a condition she had to be bulldozed into a pile and burned.


Rich spoiled idiot here**** Not so rich. I work for a living, along with most of her crew.

I am a volunteer with a Ship Preservation Guild. We maintain and sail a traditionally rigged wooden " tall ship ". actually she was a fishing vessel and part of the Portuguese Cod fishing fleet when she sailed the Grand Banks for her catch. She was sailed to the United States in 1972 after she retired and was purchased from the Portuguse Government.

The mission statement of the Guild is to teach, sail and maintain for future generations a traditionally rigged wooden sailing ship.

Our Coast Guard certificate of inspection is as a dock side attraction, but we have had regular PROFESSIONAL SURVEYS DONE.

She is very well built, like a brick s*** house and also very well maintained . Not all organizations are the same.The guild has set sailing guidelines now that she is aging and we certainly never chased hurricanes.

There is a saying that when she was a Portuguese Cod fishing vessel that she always got what she needed and as a resident here in the United States she still gets what she needs. She is a luckey girl who is loved by all that have stepped on her gangplank. She gives more back to you then you can ever give to her.


----------



## nolatom

Here (with Privacy Act redaction of names) is the Coast Guard report:

https://homeport.uscg.mil/cgi-bin/s...f?id=13bf65d04ca7b04981587ca68e994c3bc3d7f7c8

I still think (from comfortable "armchair" eg desk and keyboard) that the "we chase hurricanes" mindset previously expressed by Capt. Walbridge and the consequent and unwise decision to leave New London was the cause of this tragic end, reading (quickly) this long report and grapics of storm/ship positions, indicates to me that the rate of leakage from below and ingress from above was the real death knell for BOUNTY. She had made it to the "safe" quadrant (belatedly) and if normally buoyant may have gotten away with it. But the inability to dewater and stay ahead of the leakage that was excessive even in good weather, was fatal.

Buoyant Bounty may have survived. Waterlogged and slowly sinking Bounty couldn't. Stability before being flooded seems to have been okay.

Anyway, read it if you are so inclined. I did in part because I (retired Coast Guard Reserve and a former investigating officer) wanted to see what they found.

And again, thanks to the rescuers. This could have easily have been 16 deaths rather than two.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

I am outside the USA and on that link I get a "UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS DETECTED"

Can someone host the file on another site as i would very much like to read it.


----------



## fryewe

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I am outside the USA and on that link I get a "UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS DETECTED"
> 
> Can someone host the file on another site as i would very much like to read it.


Regrettably it's a "dot mil" website so you need to access it from a "dot mil" address...I hit the link also prior to checking the nature of it...and get the same short message...

It'll have to be posted on a site outside .mil channels before we can access it.


----------



## Multihullgirl

try this, the gCaptain article on the recently released report. Has a link, it says:

USCG Releases Investigation Report Into Tall Ship Bounty Sinking - gCaptain Maritime & Offshore News


----------



## miatapaul

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I am outside the USA and on that link I get a "UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS DETECTED"
> 
> Can someone host the file on another site as i would very much like to read it.


I will leave it up for a while.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7e3zO_C_QYPNWRldjBGaGN4bGs/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## davidpm

Sal Paradise said:


> So much is being made of the decision to leave but it was the decisions to wait until the last few hours to call the coast gaurd and the decision to wait to abandon ship that cost Claudene Christian her life, that almost cost them all their lives. I look at those decisions by Walbridge as two additional chances that he had to be the hero, two chances he ignored and threw away.


It is certainly possible it may have gone better if they abandoned ship earlier.

It is also possible maybe probable it may have gone worse.

The Bounty crew was in contact by radio with a GC plane directly overhead for several hours before they were thrown into the sea. The plan was for them to hang on till first light so they could have better viability.

Evacuating the boat in the dark would have been very risky, that is why they decided to stay with the Bounty till the last minute.

They were actually just about ready, with CG advice, to evacuate in a controlled manner and probably needed only a few more minutes, but the boat lurched and tossed them off.

If the CG had been notified earlier it is unlikely to have made a difference. They were unable to get pumps down due to the seas wind and darkness.

By daylight the ship was too far gone. It was a big ship and the pumps the GC has on the plane were probably not big enough to have done the job.

Heading towards a hurricane in any boat especially a leaky, rotted one with an inexperienced short crew was the number one reason for the loss of the ship. Anything else was a detail.

As evidence that this was a bad decision is the fact that with one exception the Bounty was the only ship any where near that location at that time. almost all other captains decided to be somewhere else. There was one tanker but he was heading at 30+ knots as far away as he could get and even he had a rough time.

What apparently happened is that they had just gotten bad news that much of the newer timber was already rotting so a major refit was necessary, they had no money. The owner was tapped out. Walbrige had found an organization in Fl that he thought could save the boat and he felt he had to make it to FL to consummate a deal he figured was essential to the boats survival.

He was the captain of that boat for 17 years it was part of his identity. It appears as if he was desperate to keep it going and rolled the dice and lost, for the boat, Christine and himself.


----------



## sailorbill1

Iv spent my whole life trying to miss them, or for that matter any thing over 40nts,just ask the miss;s


----------

