# Coast Guard rescues 4 "sailors" off Charleston...



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Here we go again - the U.S.C.G. rescues a "delivery captain" and 3 "sailors" off a 35' sailboat off Charleston: Coast Guard rescues four men on sailboat pummeled by Andrea off Charleston - The Post and Courier

The dire emergency: no electrical power and no engines (and no shame)!:laugher

How could anyone possibly survive losing all electrical power and the engine offshore! Heavens, no, it couldn't possibly happen. Plus a tropical storm with gusts to 50 knots and 20 foot swells! Apparently, no one thought to bring a flashlight on a sailboat on an ocean passage...

Wow, this is the second time this year we have seen a "delivery captain" need to be rescued by the U.S.C.G!

These guys are giving delivery captains a bad name...:hothead

Now, calling - all picnic sailors - jump in this thread and support the "delivery captain's" decision to call the U.S.C.G.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Seems like a lot of bad decisions being made, and they apparently started before they ever cast off the docklines. The first of which was taking on a job they evidently couldn't handle.


----------



## marcusc130 (Oct 8, 2011)

*Coast Guard rescues 4 "sailors" off Charleston...*

They contacted the coast guard with a sat phone charged by a wind generator, so doesn't seem like they were really without power?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

It's really puzzling how people get themselves into this kind of trouble. Maybe "delivery captains" need a checklist with no-brainer things like flashlights included. There are sure to be deficiencies in boats to be delivered but one would think anyone taking the responsibility to move a boat would have some minimum requirements. One obvious minimum would be some way to check weather predictions to be able to make the complicated decision to say, "Gee, there's a tropical storm coming...Maybe we shouldn't be out here"...duh They threw the freaking anchor in??? It doesn't sound like it was a sea anchor. Let's see--a couple hundred pounds of chain and anchor, dead weight being jerked up and down..lucky they didn't rip the bow off and rig along with it.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

smurphny said:


> ...They threw the freaking anchor in??? It doesn't sound like it was a sea anchor. Let's see--a couple hundred pounds of chain and anchor, dead weight being jerked up and down..lucky they didn't rip the bow off and rig along with it.


We have no way of knowing if the writer of the article is a boater. They could have said sea anchor and it got lost in translation.

The article also said that the sails were shredded. That along with no engine and no navigation lights would make them a hazard to others as well as themselves since they'd have no way to make way other than to drift where the stream takes them.

Not arguing for or against their judgment, I just don't think this short article tells the entire story and thus I think we shouldn't jump too quickly.

Stories like this are good for discussion rather than disparaging.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

On the other hand, if your boat isn't sinking, you're hardly "shark bait."


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Well we dont know the full story.

Be that as it may... I do not listen to people on internet forums who pontificate just because they are 'delivery captains' (nor do I listen to pontificators who say they are sailing instructors!).

Fatal error here is one made by MANY delivery skippers.. thinking they must do the passage now because thats what a delivery skipper is paid for, rain hail or shine. So they went out in front of a developing TS/H whatever.

Never underestimate natures wrath on idiot decisions.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

Doesn't the saying go "You should not leave a floating vessel unless it is to step up into the helicopter"?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

DRFerron said:


> We have no way of knowing if the writer of the article is a boater. They could have said sea anchor and it got lost in translation.
> 
> The article also said that the sails were shredded. That along with no engine and no navigation lights would make them a hazard to others as well as themselves since they'd have no way to make way other than to drift where the stream takes them.
> 
> ...


It appears from the photo, that the boat had/has an inner forestay with an intact furled jib on it. 
Surely, pressure from schedules and promises have got to be right up there in causes of things like this as evidenced in the Bounty tragedy as well.


----------



## Staredge (Jun 6, 2013)

If the boat is still afloat, did you really need to be rescued???


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

I wonder when the left the BVI...

Andrea kind of developed quickly, and they may not have know that it was a danger before they departed. It's still really early in the hurricane season, and it's not very common to have significant storms in early June.

I'm with DR on this one, the reporter may not have any boating experience and could have been piecing together a narrative from random crew comments.

That said, crew pre-departure prep work may not have been the best. I'd be interested to find out a little more about the experience/quals of the skipper and crew, and the initial condition of the vessel.


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

ever been in a 35' boat with no power and no sails in 20' swells at night? these conditions don't really give you a good feeling that it is going to stay floating. Getting rescued was not the problem, going in front of a storm was. sounds like getting rescued is the only thing they did right.


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

smurphny said:


> It's really puzzling how people get themselves into this kind of trouble. Maybe "delivery captains" need a checklist with no-brainer things like flashlights included. There are sure to be deficiencies in boats to be delivered but one would think anyone taking the responsibility to move a boat would have some minimum requirements. One obvious minimum would be some way to check weather predictions to be able to make the complicated decision to say, "Gee, there's a tropical storm coming...Maybe we shouldn't be out here"...duh They threw the freaking anchor in??? It doesn't sound like it was a sea anchor. Let's see--a couple hundred pounds of chain and anchor, dead weight being jerked up and down..lucky they didn't rip the bow off and rig along with it.


I've a friend the delivers boats from time to time. He pretty much decided he's done and I'll quote his words to me about a week ago. "I'm gonna die out there! The condition of the boats that owners want transported, the demands that they get moved when "they" want them moved. The breakdowns all are taking toll in him. And, he only does river, bay and coastal NJ, with occasional NY VA deliveries. So.. I don't know about this incident, but maybe other delivery captains can chime in with their experiences.


----------



## Staredge (Jun 6, 2013)

overbored said:


> ever been in a 35' boat with no power and no sails in 20' swells at night? these conditions don't really give you a good feeling that it is going to stay floating. Getting rescued was not the problem, going in front of a storm was. sounds like getting rescued is the only thing they did right.


Point. I'm curious about whether they had a foresail as someone above said, though. I'm speaking from no hand-on experience at all, merely book knowledge.........but IIRC you could use that to maintain steerage, correct??

(I may very well be speaking out of my nether regions. I'm not a sailor, but I play one in my tub)


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

There are his side, her side and the truth. Unlike Bounty, the captain is alive. 

But what the hell, let the feeding frenzy begin. :laugher


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Staredge said:


> If the boat is still afloat, did you really need to be rescued???


I think the OP was making the point that people are tending to call for help too soon. This boat was apparently in no danger of sinking but then they had no way of knowing what the storm was doing without electronics. It's pretty scary at night with 20' seas and no idea whether things are going to get worse BUT does that warrant bailing out? I personally do not think so. There are lots of ways of stabilizing a situation: trailing warps, heaving-to, drogues, etc. These are well documented, much used, and effective. Taking any boat into the ocean offshore under any condition requires a bare minimum of stuff to save your a$$ if things don't go right. Anyone purporting to be a professional has the responsibility of being so prepared. It does not seem like they were adequately prepared. On my own boat I have all that equipment and would not take the boat out of sight of land without it. I would certainly not consider risking my life by taking a strange boat with inadequate equipment offshore just to do a delivery for someone. An attitude of nonchalance toward the ocean seems to be a big contributing factor in these incidents.

So what should be the point at which one gets on the horn or inflates the liferaft or activates the EPIRB? It would be interesting to hear what folks think a minimum list of equipment should be before considering venturing into the ocean 50 miles.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

smurphny said:


> I think the OP was making the point that people are tending to call for help too soon.


Yes, with the ease of calling for a rescure via EPIRBs, Satphones and PLBs, it now seems some sailors call the Coast Guard when conditions become uncomfortable and/or scary. When I registered my PLB with SARSAT, that was not the standard for activiation that I recall. If I understand correctly, an abandoned vessel at sea is free to the first individual who salvages it, or at least that individual can claim a hefty salvage fee for the vessel.

What about the consequences of abandoning ship unnecessarily?

1. You risk the lives of everyone on board when you transfer to the helicopter or other ship;

2. You risk the lives of your rescuers, including the Coast Guard;

3. It diverts the Coast Guard from rescuing people who really need to be rescued, i.e., vessel is sinking and/or someone is seriously injured and needs immediate medical attention;

4. You cause the economic waste of losing someone's valuable recreational sailboat and all the costs attendent to your rescue; and

5. Unless you scuttle the vessel, it remains a hazard to navigation, probably an even greater hazard.

Everyone who contemplates an ocean passage should read K. Adlard Coles' "Heavy Weather Sailing." Many have survived far worse than 50 knots and 20 foot waves - there are racers who continue racing in those conditions. In a storm, you should expect to lose your electrical power, your engine and to have water ingress. If you are not emotionally and psychologically prepared for that, you should not head offshore.



smurphny said:


> This boat was apparently in no danger of sinking but then they had no way of knowing what the storm was doing without electronics. It's pretty scary at night with 20' seas and no idea whether things are going to get worse BUT does that warrant bailing out? I personally do not think so. There are lots of ways of stabilizing a situation: trailing warps, heaving-to, drogues, etc. These are well documented, much used, and effective.


Judging by the regular posts on Sailnet, it seems a majority of the sailors today might have skipped the basics, the foundation of sailing, and jumped to the electronic gizmos phase. Without their electricity and engine, they are helpless. They literally cannot sail without the modern conveniences.

With all respect to D. Ferron whose opinion I respect (especially for her work with the Coast Guard Auxiliary), the facile response to every incident nowadays, from sailing to politics, is "well, lets wait for the investigation." That is pure corporate b.s. No, an investigation is not necessary to form a preliminary opinion about any particular event. There are enough facts here to reveal the problem. So what if the newspaper did not understand what a sea anchor is?

Did the investigation change any one's opinion about the Bounty incident? No, it only reinforce the validity of those of us who correctly concluded the captain was reckless. When are we going to hear the results of the investigation of the other delivery captain who lost the Island Packet off Cape Hatteras earlier in the year? Do we still need more facts?



smurphny said:


> Taking any boat into the ocean offshore under any condition requires a bare minimum of stuff to save your a$$ if things don't go right. Anyone purporting to be a professional has the responsibility of being so prepared. It does not seem like they were adequately prepared. On my own boat I have all that equipment and would not take the boat out of sight of land without it. I would certainly not consider risking my life by taking a strange boat with inadequate equipment offshore just to do a delivery for someone. An attitude of nonchalance toward the ocean seems to be a big contributing factor in these incidents..


The ease of calling for help has encouraged this nonchalance and now we are seeing the results.



smurphny said:


> So what should be the point at which one gets on the horn or inflates the liferaft or activates the EPIRB? It would be interesting to hear what folks think a minimum list of equipment should be before considering venturing into the ocean 50 miles.


I would certainly include flashlights on that list. Everytime I go to my own boat, even for a day sail, I take a bag with my GPS, my weather radio, my handheld VHF, flashlights, a camera and a video camera, along with all the gear and equipment already on my boat.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Father said to me when I was 5. Captain of the ship must go down with the ship. Not sure if this applies to the delivery Captain where there is no love between the man and the boat. I am with the old school, I go with my boat or I ride it out in the life raft until the storm is over. 

Who knows what happened in this incidence. Incompetent captain, unfound vessel, overbearing owner or demands, unpaid job, un-collaborating crews, [email protected] hit the fan, weather or bad luck, anything or combination can happen. I was not in there shoes. I am glad no one dies, and our CG has a chance to practice their skills. I am sure their families glad that they called the CG. Who are we to judge others for their action when their life is at risk. 

I doubt Obama will lower my taxes next year if no one calls CG for rescue in 2013. If the money is not used here, it will be wasted somewhere else. What about the life of the rescuer? Don't worry CG has straight protocol and SOP as when, what and where to call quit. Let them make their decision.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

I hear you James. I'm not saying to wait for the investigation. But somewhere between that and a short article where the journalist may or may not have gotten the facts correct is a good starting spot for a discussion. I just wanted to head off the knee-jerk bashing of those involved and turn it into a discussion that all of us can learn from. More of "What would I (or what could they) have done differently?" rather than "The idiots should have rigged a sail by sewing their t-shirts together or gone down with the ship."


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

jephotog said:


> Doesn't the saying go "You should not leave a floating vessel unless it is to step up into the helicopter"?


I think it's " step up into the life raft "


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

overbored said:


> ever been in a 35' boat with no power and no sails in 20' swells at night?


I think it is scarier during the day when you can see how nasty it is, unless you have not been out at night in nasty conditions often.


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

Perhaps continuing on when they lost power two days into the trip wasn't the best move. Ah the wisdom of hindsight.

Four sailors safe and sound after two weeks at sea - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina |

two days into the trip they lost their engine.

"It had to with battery issues," said Clayton Stevens, a crew member and competitive sailor. "Once we lost battery power, we couldn't turn the engine over and then caput with everything."

"We had to had steer this boat after we lost our electronics for over 800 miles," said Joel Kreider, the captain of the vessel. " So, we were working all day, working all night trying to get there."

But then the main sail gave way and all they were left with was a satellite phone and a hand-held GPS.

(end of quote from article)

Now, assuming an old 2002 profile from dateline Pittsburg is for the same Joel, this little nugget is slightly embarrassing in hindsight as well:

Favorite stock/mutual fund: Enron

( http://old.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20020417dateline0417bnp6.asp )

And yes, lots of people make investment decisions that might not look so great in retrospect.


----------



## NautiG (Apr 23, 2007)

I don't know. I was pretty quick to condemn the jackass island packet captain when he headed out on a delivery into a named storm and then made a series of poor decisions. I was also shaking my head when I heard about the Bounty captain and the choices he made which cost him his life and one of his crew members lives. I was preparing to haul out my boat for the hurricane when that jackass decided to head out into the teeth of a superstorm in his POS boat.

These guys happened to get caught out in a named storm and not be as prepared as they should have been. In retrospect, they should have stayed with the boat, seeing as it is still afloat. But I've never been out in the conditions they describe so I don't know how scary it is. However, I don't think their actions were nearly as egregious as the other two jackass captains.

Scott
Gemini Catamaran Split decision


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

So they had a sat phone and therefore had access to the fact that they were not going to be hit with a large storm with insurmountable sea conditions. They had running lights and were not going to be run down by a tanker. There were 4 of them....4 of them to man the helm in shifts (what an inconvenience!). Was there no needle and thread aboard to jury rig something? No try'sl or storm jib? Still wondering why they bailed. The CG was aware of their situation and ready to rescue them if something life-threatening occurred. Just what are the criteria the USCG uses to decide if a rescue attempt is warranted? Is it by request? 

One thing to think about from this incident is that I have often thought about installing a hand crank option for the 3GM30. In a total battery failure by releasing 2/3 cylinders, it could possibly be hand-started. The old Atomic hand crank from the original motor is still in a locker somewhere. Think I'll investigate getting a gear to make it work with the diesel. Also one of those emergency battery packs might be a good idea or even better, a small spare battery kept charged in a locker somewhere. A small gas generator would be handy but useless if all the batteries were hopelessly smoked.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Has nothing to do with Obama. The government has been wasting money led by all presidents from all sides for years. That's what we elect them to do.



rockDAWG said:


> Father said to me when I was 5. Captain of the ship must go down with the ship. Not sure if this applies to the delivery Captain where there is no love between the man and the boat. I am with the old school, I go with my boat or I ride it out in the life raft until the storm is over.
> 
> Who knows what happened in this incidence. Incompetent captain, unfound vessel, overbearing owner or demands, unpaid job, un-collaborating crews, [email protected] hit the fan, weather or bad luck, anything or combination can happen. I was not in there shoes. I am glad no one dies, and our CG has a chance to practice their skills. I am sure their families glad that they called the CG. Who are we to judge others for their action when their life is at risk.
> 
> I doubt Obama will lower my taxes next year if no one calls CG for rescue in 2013. If the money is not used here, it will be wasted somewhere else. What about the life of the rescuer? Don't worry CG has straight protocol and SOP as when, what and where to call quit. Let them make their decision.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I agree with Donna, but the nature here with some here to to play computer screen analysis from their couch and comment on things without the facts. After all it does make it interesting read. When they get it right they brag and bray over their magnificence of their amateur guess. When they are wrong. of course they never admit it. For me what really happened comes out after time. I surle wouldn't want to do anything wrong and have it published on SN to have the sleuths here analyze, because they certainly don't need facts to state opinions.

My real reason for posting is about the term delivery captain. Seems anyone can call themself that. I have friends who actually do that for a living and their level f experience is far greater than some of the threads and articles I have seen where people pay to have boats delivered by people claiming to have experience. There is no real qualification though and anyone can claim to have and have recommendations from successful trips.

I would look carefully into their insurance or lack thereof and also your own should a mishap occur, not only for liability of injury to those on your or other boats, not only to property damage on your or others boats, but also to who will be sued should environmental or salvage be required.

Moving a boat requires more skill than moving furniture in a hose but many people now it seems do less research into the people doing he moving.

I would suggest people use only those recommended by Boat US or one of the professional marine organizations. Any less than that I'd be inspect.

When I see a report like this and the term delivery captain used, it may not be a real delivery captain, just someone who calls themself that. A delivery captain is not someone trying to gain experience, it is someone who has the experience IMHO. In both instances recently none of my friends would have sop phoned the CG or tried running Oregon Inlet.

Dave



DRFerron said:


> I hear you James. I'm not saying to wait for the investigation. But somewhere between that and a short article where the journalist may or may not have gotten the facts correct is a good starting spot for a discussion. I just wanted to head off the knee-jerk bashing of those involved and turn it into a discussion that all of us can learn from. More of "What would I (or what could they) have done differently?" rather than "The idiots should have rigged a sail by sewing their t-shirts together or gone down with the ship."


----------



## Harborless (Nov 10, 2010)

I would sure as hell not go down with my boat unless I was trapped inside it or the only other option is swimming out to bob as shark bait. 
I consider myself a pretty brave guy- but the thought of drowning way out at sea in a fiberglass coffin takes that courage out quick.
Growing up around sailors and dabbing my foot in myself- I do not think I would have called for rescue with the other hands aboard. Solo? Yes- but then again I wouldn't be caught offshore without a freaking flashlight much less a spare sail and extra line to attach buckets, flippers, bags, w.e. you need to make a sea anchor after the first one was lost because I HAVE to assume a delivery captain is not so stupid as to drop a dead anchor in that condition. Hes asking for it to hole his boat or rip the cleat off or at least just throw the damn thing away- If he DID do this then that is incompetence. I believe he deployed a sea anchor though and it was lost. 

So- with the extra hands on board I do not see why they could not have bare poles it until sunlight and assessed the situation. 
If I had been solo in a 35' boat with 20 ft swells at night with no power or engine or sails I would have called for rescue. Thats just me. And I never run from a fight, unless its a fight with mother nature. Cause mother nature will kick my @$$ every time. Believe that.


----------



## kjango (Apr 18, 2008)

I never leave the dock without my magic shoes . All I have to do is click the heels 3 times & say , " There's no place like home " & poof.....emergency over.


----------



## SausageFingers (Jun 9, 2013)

"Need your boat delivered across the blue sea? PITTSBURG and BUFFALO is the ideal place to find a crew!"


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

poopdeckpappy said:


> I think it's " step up into the life raft "


I know the quote, the idea I was trying to get across is the boat should be sinking before you abandon it. Unless they are in danger of sinking or someone is dangerously injured, they should have stayed with the ship. I am guilty of Monday morning quarterbacking here but my guess is they ran out of beer.


----------



## sailvayu (Feb 3, 2013)

I always read these rescue threads with interest. As someone who once was rescued at sea I think I have a slightly different perspective. My rescue happened back in the late 70’s so before EPIRBs and Sat phones. We did have SSB and that is what was used. Like this boat we lost all sails and engine. We were in a storm for 6 days and took a 120 degree knock down (masts underwater) The Capt. Decided for the safety of the crew we should leave the boat when help arrived. I regret that as the boat was salvaged but it was not my decision. Any Capt. has to consider the safety of the crew.
No 2 situations are alike, in this case I am guessing they were not aware of the coming storm nor how fast it was moving as it formed quickly. It would have been hard to turn around after the engine quit after all they were likely 200+ miles at sea by that point. The fact they had only 1 means to charge the batteries was not good. Of course it is unclear about the charging of the phone but let’s assume they had no real power. 
This points out a problem I see too often and that is boats out there that are not properly equipped for such a voyage. Yeah ok back when I started sailing things were different and most boats only had the basics but they were used to the basics. Today there is a ton of stuff to ensure a boat is ready for whatever happens. Wind and solar should be standard for any boat going offshore, at the very least a portable solar panel can charge a battery enough to start the engine. 
I do think the ease at which we can now call for help allows people to do just that. They get scared and do call and once those wheels are turning there is no stopping it. The Coasties will not call it off mid way unless it is unsafe for them. I do not think most understand that leaving the boat can be more dangerous than staying, but seasickness and fatigue often cloud better judgment. 
For a delivery skipper and crew things may not be as they think when they take a job. You talk to the owner and they tell you the boat is ready to go. You fly down and find things may not be what the owner said. Do you quit and suck up the airfare and go home or try to make the best of it? Most of us would try to make the best of it unless things are really bad. Once again the skipper has to consider the crew safety. 
At one time only a few boats ventured far off shore and these boats were often purpose built for the task or at the very least had proper modifications. Today it is common practice to head offshore in your average production boat. With life rafts, EPIRBs and sat phone it is pretty safe. But that said it is not as safe as some think. I spent 6 months of hard work getting my boat ready to go to Bermuda and back. My alternator quit halfway out but I had plenty of solar, my steering dropped a pulley but I had backup and that held me till repairs were made. It is a matter of being well prepared that makes a difference. A delivery skipper has to work with what he finds on the dock and hope for the best. 
The news papers get a lot of facts wrong and in a story like this there is likely more mis information than real information. Unless the capt jumps in on this thread (and I have seen that) then we are just speculating. The only thing these stories really teach us is to prepare the best you can, get the best weather info you can and hope for the best! As Sir Francis once said “Nature is not cruel, she is simply indifferent to mans aspirations”


----------



## Harborless (Nov 10, 2010)

kjango said:


> I never leave the dock without my magic shoes . All I have to do is click the heels 3 times & say , " There's no place like home " & poof.....emergency over.


I just call my State Farm Agent =)


----------



## Staredge (Jun 6, 2013)

Ok, but the article said they'd been out of Tortola for two weeks and the engines quit two days after they left. Seems to me that you'd be trying to get that taken care of.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Mar 23, 2008)

They had to hand steer with four people? Tragedy.


----------



## sailortrash (Sep 1, 2012)

This is whats wrong with getting a cap with little to no experience. News flash if the cap got his cert in a 15 ft whaler he is not a captain. What really rubs me the wrong way is that this is the kind of captain that under cuts my prices every time. No flash light no extra batteries. Stupid enough to not pay attention to the weather. Good god would it have killed him to duck in somewhere and keep the boat and everyone safe??? I hope they yank his ticket. There is a huge difference between a bay sailor and a offshore sailor. More times than I can count I have had a owner say to me well i have been sailing longer than you have been alive. My response is always then why did you hire me if you are going to second guess me. My job first and foremost is to keep everyone safe and second to keep the boat safe and third to get it to the destination. Far to often people let a big ego endanger life and property.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Harborless said:


> I just call my State Farm Agent =)


But did you eat in A Holiday Inn. That evidently qualifies you to judge others without really know the true facts from you couch. Also hiding behind a screen does that.

In real life I bet very few would confront the captain with the boldness they post here face to face and tell him he shouldn't have saved the crew if he felt it was dangerous.

The catch 22 is these same second guessers would have vilified the captain with the same circumstances had he chosen to stay and someone would have died. He would then be deemed incompetent.

Same circumstances, same posters, different decision with death as an outcome. Different conclusions.

He was wrong no matter what he chose IMHO. He voted for save the crew and himself,,,,and then some criticize him. Without being present or knowing all the details....WOW!!!!!


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

chef2sail said:


> The catch 22 is these same second guessers would have vilified the captain with the same circumstances had he chosen to stay and someone would have died. He would then be deemed incompetent.
> 
> Same circumstances, same posters, different decision with death as an outcome. Different conclusions.


You are right!

Ding, ding, ding, you finally got it: do not put yourself in those circumstances in the first place (just like the Bounty!). Once you have put yourself in those circumstances, you lose any way you choose.

Sailing is not all about how you handle the boat when the $hit hits the fan; it is about having the wisdom to avoid being in those circumstances when the $hit hits the fan, so you can sit back here on this forum and make fun of the idiots instead of being one of them.

Use your brain to avoid trouble.

Do not go to sea in an unseaworthy boat; do not go offshore if you do not know how to handle a sailboat in a gale; do not sail unprepared for any possible adverse circumstance - that means loss of electrical power or engine function; carry a weatherfax, shortwave radio, or other device that allows you to learn the weather situation; seek shelter early if a named tropical storm is imminent; and above all - do not go out in the path of a named tropical storm, particulary if a "super-" has been put in front of it.

Plus, please carry a fricking flashlight so you can read the compass at night. Is that really too difficult for four sailors to understand?

My favorite posts are the ones who inform everyone you can't judge someone's stupid mistakes unless you make the same equally stupid mistakes. Only the sailors foolish enough to put themselves out in tropical storms can judge the fools who failed to avoid tropical storms. (Some get caught out through no fault of their own - there is no criticism for that if they and their boats are prepared).

So those of us who are careful, prepare our boats, increase our experience incrementally, gain as much knowledge as we can through reading and study, and are aware of our limitations and the limitations of our boats have no right to comment on the morons who act recklessly and disregard that same wise approach to sailing? (We also try to indoctrinate the novices and some of the more clueless posters here to the wise, gradual approach to gaining experience, as much as they want to avoid it.)

Tropical storm season has just begun! Let the parade of idiots continue! My armchair is ready and warmed up!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> You are right!
> 
> Ding, ding, ding, you finally got it: do not put yourself in those circumstances in the first place (just like the Bounty!). Once you have put yourself in those circumstances, you lose any way you choose.
> 
> ...


Quite a high opinion of yourself to feel you can add yourself to a group what was the word you used " indoctrinate others".

The parade of criticisms has begun lead by the self proclaimed arm chair analysts who would have vilified this last captain had someone died and he acted the opposite way and not left the boat. Interesting that one argument this time that the Captain should have continued to keep the people in danger and wait till the boat sank. He felt he and his crew were in danger...to me that's enough said. But like I have said the talking heads need to have something to criticize here.

No one can learn from this. Its merely a sport for some who believe they have the "right" answer" to criticize others from a far even before there is really any verifiable facts established. Of course anyone can do that after all this is the internet.

The internet is a lawyers dream....spin, distort, embellish, accuse and obviously you relish in it

and oh Yes you may be found right sometimes, but even a broken watch ( sub- spin doctor lawyer) will be right twice a day


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

The biggest advantage of a forum such as this is that it offers a platform on which to exchange ideas. Sometimes criticism of the actions taken by other sailors can raise a valuable debate about the best course of action in a certain situation. To say that that debate should not take place out of some sort of "political correctness" or that the debate should not take place because all the minute details have not been disclosed are not good reasons to stifle the discussion. Those self-appointed "discussion police" who seem too afraid to express an opinion because the opinion might be proven wrong should maybe just stay on the sidelines and avoid long-winded diatribes against those who would like to increase their knowledge and shed light on things that are important to sailors. Hiding one's head in the sand accomplishes nothing. 

This "armchair sailor" sailed offshore through those same waters just over a week ago, singlehanded, but chose a weather window to avoid the kind of fiasco experienced by this group.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Discretion is the better part of valor.

About four weeks ago, in the Delaware River thread started by Ulladh and TakeFive, I mentioned my plans to make a coastal hop to Cape May later this Spring (and was considering going all the way up to Block Island, time permitting, as I have mentioned numerous times).

The predominant weather pattern the last four weeks was disturbing, with cold fronts from the West hitting warm moist air pumped up from the Gulf by the curved position of the jet stream, causing violent tornadoes in the Midwest and with the remnants of the storms rolling across the East Coast into the Atlantic.

I decided this predominant weather pattern was not suitable for taking a coastal hop in a small sailboat, so I decided to delay the trip to a more appropriate time. (In the meantime, I also bought and plan to install hardware to prepare for a possible knockdown/inversion of my boat at sea, so I can secure the floorboards and all locker lids and add a lee cloth for a sea berth - to be shown in a later thread.)

Now, who is the fool: the captain who disregards the predominant weather pattern and heads out unprepared, or the skipper who respects the sea and the weather?

If there is no other lesson apparent from the travesty in this thread, it is this: bring a flashlight when you plan to sail overnight.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Those darned fronts kept me holed up along the coast and in the ICW for a couple of weeks!


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Don't you know real sailors ignore the weather?

In fact, the real sailors will purposefully sail out into the path of a hurricane, just to show how experienced they are, particularly if they have been entrusted with the lives of others who don't know any better, while the rest of us sit back in our armchairs and have the gall to criticize our betters!


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

smurphny said:


> One thing to think about from this incident is that I have often thought about installing a hand crank option for the 3GM30. In a total battery failure by releasing 2/3 cylinders, it could possibly be hand-started. The old Atomic hand crank from the original motor is still in a locker somewhere. Think I'll investigate getting a gear to make it work with the diesel. Also one of those emergency battery packs might be a good idea or even better, a small spare battery kept charged in a locker somewhere. A small gas generator would be handy but useless if all the batteries were hopelessly smoked.


I had a Volvo (forget the model but 23 hp) that had a hand crank. Used it a couple of times to start the engine. Very hard alone since I needed both hands on the crank to keep the engine turning fast enough and a third hand to flip the decompression lever down. Did it once by myself by running a line from the lever through a couple of blocks to a loop around my head that I jerked backward at the correct time - wish I had a video of that.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Am thinking it might be possible to rig up something using a good 1/2" rechargeable drill. I wonder if it would turn the engine over fast enough with the compression levers released to then engage the levers.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Wouldn't a rechargeable 1/2" driver be better?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Probably, but I keep the drill onboard. Just wonder if I can make up some sort of one-way engagement so it disengages as soon as the engine kicks over. Maybe using the alternator belt; a belt sheave right on the drill? Going to have to experiment.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smurphny said:


> The biggest advantage of a forum such as this is that it offers a platform on which to exchange ideas. Sometimes criticism of the actions taken by other sailors can raise a valuable debate about the best course of action in a certain situation. To say that that debate should not take place out of some sort of "political correctness" or that the debate should not take place because all the minute details have not been disclosed are not good reasons to stifle the discussion. Those self-appointed "discussion police" who seem too afraid to express an opinion because the opinion might be proven wrong should maybe just stay on the sidelines and avoid long-winded diatribes against those who would like to increase their knowledge and shed light on things that are important to sailors. Hiding one's head in the sand accomplishes nothing.
> 
> This "armchair sailor" sailed offshore through those same waters just over a week ago, singlehanded, but chose a weather window to avoid the kind of fiasco experienced by this group.


No one is too afraid to express an opinion here. I have expressed mine and it is met by your ridicule. The same intolerance you are accusing me of. I am not saying on the sidelines at all. I am just disagreeing with you and your opinions. No one has their head in the sand at all. If you look at the tone of your thread the purpose is to shut done my opinion which is directly contradictory of yours. No one has ever said not to express an opinion here

What it appears is that you cannot take the same criticism you direct and others. . You are the pot calling the kettle black my friend.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> Don't you know real sailors ignore the weather?
> 
> In fact, the real sailors will purposefully sail out into the path of a hurricane, just to show how experienced they are, particularly if they have been entrusted with the lives of others who don't know any better, while the rest of us sit back in our armchairs and have the gall to criticize our betters!


Funny I thought real sailors were the ones who single hand at night along the coast who fall sleep at the wheel.

Why do you keep bringing up the Bounty are you fixated by it . Personal vendetta?

James....do you consider yourself a real sailor? A better sailor than any of these Captains you make fun of so easily?

You and Murphy have avoided and have yet to address the issue I raised. Would you have criticized the Charleston captain had he stayed on board and people died?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

So let's just agree to disagree but please do not invoke the idea that we who choose to discuss apparent errors made in incidents such as this are somehow couch potatoes or armchair sailors. I can assure you, this is not the case. It is you, not I, who initiated the personal disparagement.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

chef2sail said:


> James....do you consider yourself a real sailor? A better sailor than any of these Captains you make fun of so easily?


I don't know if I am a better sailor, just smarter (...and better looking, to boot!)!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> Discretion is the better part of valor.
> 
> About four weeks ago, in the Delaware River thread started by Ulladh and TakeFive, I mentioned my plans to make a coastal hop to Cape May later this Spring (and was considering going all the way up to Block Island, time permitting, as I have mentioned numerous times).
> 
> ...


Wow James...you mean you have been sailing along with loose floorboards which could have hit someone....I am shocked. Did you realize before you left the dock that they could have come loose and injured someone. Good you are getting better prepared and correcting that mistake before a mishap happened and you became cannon fodder on here.



> The predominant weather pattern the last four weeks was disturbing, with cold fronts from the West hitting warm moist air pumped up from the Gulf by the curved position of the jet stream, causing violent tornadoes in the Midwest and with the remnants of the storms rolling across the East Coast into the Atlantic- James Wilson


I think this is called SPRING. It happens every year followed by summer.

Many people still sail offshore, they are just prudent and watch their weather windows and don't necessarily wait for the summer Bermuda high to kick in.

It good you know your limitations felt you might have not had the ability to deal with this kind of travel and stayed in port to a calmer weather period. I suggest July for you.

BTW don't just bring 1 flashlight, bring a few in case one fails/


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

This conversation has taken a definite turn. At first everyone was safely expressing different opinions. Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to disagreeing with ideas.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

DRFerron said:


> This conversation has taken a definite turn. At first everyone was safely expressing different opinions. Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to disagreeing with ideas.


No problem. If I contributed to that I apologize if someone felt my remarks were of a personal nature.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

From a post a long time ago by the Purdys

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship-articles/29098-can-you-buy-safety.html


----------



## Harborless (Nov 10, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> But did you eat in A Holiday Inn. That evidently qualifies you to judge others without really know the true facts from you couch. Also hiding behind a screen does that.
> 
> In real life I bet very few would confront the captain with the boldness they post here face to face and tell him he shouldn't have saved the crew if he felt it was dangerous.
> 
> ...


I know he did not have a flashlight. I know that they left their sails up to be shredded. I know they did not have line enough to make a new drouge or sea anchor. I know they sailed into the path of a tropical storm after losing engine power. 
From behind my screen I can make a few assumptions based on these facts.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

It is Monday morning.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

Well at least this discussion is more or less absent the pages (so far) of numbskulls complaining about how they "have to foot the bill for all these rescues" and what a "significant tax burden" it is. I view calling the CG for anything with the same disdain I view any calling of the police. It just shouldn't be done. Any time you provide an excuse for law enforcement to interact with you, you are opening the door to all manner of horror at the whim of an individual you can count on being psychologically flawed at best- and a thuggish brute who never got over being picked last for kickball- or playground bullying, in less ideal situations. I go to great lengths to avoid placing the entire outcome of my existence into the hands of LEOs/LEAs, homeland security, customs/border protection, and the CG.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

c. breeze said:


> ... Any time you provide an excuse for law enforcement to interact with you, you are opening the door to all manner of horror at the whim of an individual you can count on being psychologically flawed at best- and a thuggish brute who never got over being picked last for kickball- or playground bullying, in less ideal situations. ...


Wow.

I didn't realize that they made paintbrushes that wide.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

c. breeze said:


> Well at least this discussion is more or less absent the pages (so far) of numbskulls complaining about how they "have to foot the bill for all these rescues" and what a "significant tax burden" it is. I view calling the CG for anything with the same disdain I view any calling of the police. It just shouldn't be done. Any time you provide an excuse for law enforcement to interact with you, you are opening the door to all manner of horror at the whim of an individual you can count on being psychologically flawed at best- and a thuggish brute who never got over being picked last for kickball- or playground bullying, in less ideal situations. I go to great lengths to avoid placing the entire outcome of my existence into the hands of LEOs/LEAs, homeland security, customs/border protection, and the CG.


I have had nothing but positive interaction with the CG and like seeing their presence wherever we go. Compared to the local LEOS there is no comparison. We have always received professional treatment when boarded as well as good timely information from them,

There is great confidence that they will handle any situation should I ever god for bid have to hit that button on my EPIRB.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

DRFerron said:


> This conversation has taken a definite turn. At first everyone was safely expressing different opinions. Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to disagreeing with ideas.


Thanks for that moderation. I too apologize for any offense taken. None intended.

Dave made a point about singlehanded safety, a much discussed topic. Don't want to derail the conversation but the way I handle long offshore stints is by #1 getting plenty of sleep beforehand so it's not necessary for a LONG time. I find I can stay awake and alert for 30+ hours. #2 After that, I turn on the radar alarm function set out to 15 miles and continually rewind a kitchen timer so that dozing off is possible but only for limited duration. Those short sleeps, ON DECK, are quite effective. Often, nodding off for 20 min. or less will keep me going for a long time, at least until light. I would never do any of the above near regular shipping lanes or near shore. Once out 30 miles or so, quite frankly, I mostly don't see another boat until I get closer to land so the likelihood of crashing into anyone or being run down are very, very remote.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smurphny said:


> Thanks for that moderation. I too apologize for any offense taken. None intended.
> 
> Dave made a point about singlehanded safety, a much discussed topic. Don't want to derail the conversation but the way I handle long offshore stints is by #1 getting plenty of sleep beforehand so it's not necessary for a LONG time. I find I can stay awake and alert for 30+ hours. #2 After that, I turn on the radar alarm function set out to 15 miles and continually rewind a kitchen timer so that dozing off is possible but only for limited duration. Those short sleeps, ON DECK, are quite effective. Often, nodding off for 20 min. or less will keep me going for a long time, at least until light. I would never do any of the above near regular shipping lanes or near shore. Once out 30 miles or so, quite frankly, I mostly don't see another boat until I get closer to land so the likelihood of crashing into anyone or being run down are very, very remote.


Food for thought about sleep depravation.

You make think you are ok, alert and cognitive, but studies and common sense would show otherwise. 30 hrs. in car car would make you a poor driver. 30 hours in a gentle rolling sea motion make you sleepy let alone if you were outside and there was any deterioration of the weather and you were alone.
Whether you are in a boat 30 miles off shore or not, and the only way of bringing you to you alert state was a radar. Suppose you started your journey and half way through the radar failed at 15 hours.

Single handing like that is a risk, no mater how remote the danger. So why take the risk? What's the point if you don't have to?

The point I am making here is not not to do it, it is that different people have different assessments about what is risky and should not be taken on. People could form the opinion that this is certain more irresponsible ( single handing up the Delaware or Jersey coast with impaired decision making after 16 hours or so), than than not having a flashlight on board. Just saying ( I am not talking about cross ocean passages). Of course it was stupid not to take a flashlight. IMHO opinion its also stupid to singlehand over 16 hours when not necessary.



> Impairment of ability[edit]
> 
> The dangers of sleep deprivation are apparent on the road; the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) reports that one in every five serious motor vehicle injuries is related to driver fatigue, with 80,000 drivers falling asleep behind the wheel every day and 250,000 accidents every year related to sleep,[27] though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests the figure for traffic accidents may be closer to 100,000.[28] The AASM recommends pulling off the road and taking a 15- or 20-minute nap to alleviate drowsiness.[27]
> 
> ...


----------



## johnnyquest37 (Feb 16, 2012)

smurphny said:


> Am thinking it might be possible to rig up something using a good 1/2" rechargeable drill. I wonder if it would turn the engine over fast enough with the compression levers released to then engage the levers.


Can't remember where I read about it, but there was a fellow who rigged his engine to "hand crank" with his boom. He connected the boom to the engine and allowed and gybed, using the force on the boom to start the engine.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

johnnyquest37 said:


> Can't remember where I read about it, but there was a fellow who rigged his engine to "hand crank" with his boom. He connected the boom to the engine and allowed and gybed, using the force on the boom to start the engine.


I read this article in 2004 I think. It was during a solo round the world race or some other long distance solo event.

I was on a race crossing the Gulf of Mexico (Regatta al Sol) in 2004. On the second day after running the engines we lost all power after the Captain failed to isolate a battery after running the engine. I had just read the article on how to start the engine with the saile and was ready to give it a try but the owner and the guy who works on his boat was not willing to give it a try, I was pretty disappointed. Fortunately we had a GPS, flashlights and batteries to continue for 3 more days.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

chef2sail said:


> Food for thought about sleep depravation.
> 
> You make think you are ok, alert and cognitive, but studies and common sense would show otherwise. 30 hrs. in car car would make you a poor driver. 30 hours in a gentle rolling sea motion make you sleepy let alone if you were outside and there was any deterioration of the weather and you were alone.
> Whether you are in a boat 30 miles off shore or not, and the only way of bringing you to you alert state was a radar. Suppose you started your journey and half way through the radar failed at 15 hours.
> ...


It is certainly not a great situation and not one bit of fun to have to single-hand for a long stretch. I'm not recommending it. Given my druthers, I'd prefer another crew member to take turns at the wheel. So far I have yet to persuade friends to subject themselves to these kinds of trips. They seem to be smarter than that


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

jephotog said:


> I read this article in 2004 I think. It was during a solo round the world race or some other long distance solo event.
> 
> I was on a race crossing the Gulf of Mexico (Regatta al Sol) in 2004. On the second day after running the engines we lost all power after the Captain failed to isolate a battery after running the engine. I had just read the article on how to start the engine with the saile and was ready to give it a try but the owner and the guy who works on his boat was not willing to give it a try, I was pretty disappointed. Fortunately we had a GPS, flashlights and batteries to continue for 3 more days.


Last year I installed a battery isolation system just to avoid this type of problem. Now I don't need to worry about whether the house or start batteries are being discharged. The start battery is always isolated automatically. It is conceivable though that some damage could occur to the battery area: fire, mechanical damage, etc. that would trash all the batteries. Without a backup, you'd be in trouble. I think a small, charged battery, stashed in a safe place, together with a spare starter is probably minimizing the risk of getting into this kind of fix. I have 200w. of solar panel power as well which works quite well when there is light.

The idea of attaching the engine to the boom seems crazily risky. When the line around the engine pulley keeps winding once the engine starts...oops. I guess if there were no other option...but wow.


----------



## katsailor (Jan 6, 2013)

smurphny said:


> Probably, but I keep the drill onboard. Just wonder if I can make up some sort of one-way engagement so it disengages as soon as the engine kicks over. Maybe using the alternator belt; a belt sheave right on the drill? Going to have to experiment.


Try driving the motor with a socket on the nut for the crankshaft if it is accessible.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

smurphny said:


> The idea of attaching the engine to the boom seems crazily risky. When the line around the engine pulley keeps winding once the engine starts..


Now you sound just like the owner of the boat who would not let me try it. I was ready to go for it, but they would not tell me where the engine was.

I do like what you have done with your electrical system though. After my experience and this experience it makes a whole lot of sense. How much did it cost to set up the isolators? The last boat I chartered had a separate battery switch just for the starting. Loosing all power really sucks.


----------



## MattSplatt (Dec 10, 2010)

DRFerron said:


> Wow.
> 
> I didn't realize that they made paintbrushes that wide.


Thank you. You just made my day!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smurphny said:


> Last year I installed a battery isolation system just to avoid this type of problem. Now I don't need to worry about whether the house or start batteries are being discharged. The start battery is always isolated automatically. It is conceivable though that some damage could occur to the battery area: fire, mechanical damage, etc. that would trash all the batteries. Without a backup, you'd be in trouble. I think a small, charged battery, stashed in a safe place, together with a spare starter is probably minimizing the risk of getting into this kind of fix. I have 200w. of solar panel power as well which works quite well when there is light.
> 
> The idea of attaching the engine to the boom seems crazily risky. When the line around the engine pulley keeps winding once the engine starts...oops. I guess if there were no other option...but wow.


We stash one of those portable batteries that have built in jumper cables, and can be recharged easily by plugging in. It also lets us use our high pressure air scoprego pump to reinflate or top off the dinghy when its in the water .

WEST MARINE 600A Jump-Starter with Air Compressor and 12V Power Supply at West Marine


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

chef2sail;1042324[URL=http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=1000309&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&storeId=11151&storeNum=50523&subdeptNum=50543&classNum=50548 said:


> WEST MARINE 600A Jump-Starter with Air Compressor and 12V Power Supply at West Marine[/URL]


Chef, 
Great idea, have you tried to start the engine just using this power pack?

My little boat came with one of these to power a trolling motor. It came in handy before the battery died. If it jump starts a diesel it should be standard issue on sailboats.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*battery*

Yes it starts our 30 GMF Yanmar


----------



## sailortrash (Sep 1, 2012)

True I was not there but i will bet a months pay that inexperience and ego are huge factors in this story. The reason I say that is that I have seen it so many times. Another reason is the lack of a flashlight or at least enough batteries to last the duration of the trip. If you see me on a boat i have a flashlight in my left pocket and a knife in the right one. an extra in my pack and no less than 4 changes of fresh batteries. You will also find a hand held gps and hand held compass in my pack. I have seen bay sailors that believe they are master offshore sailors because they have sailed 5-10 afternoons a year for 30 years. I am far from the best sailor I am far from the worst. That being said I have been through the experiences the broken bones and painful learning curves that come form some of my own stupid decisions and many more by others because i was to inexperienced to know any better. I could be wrong about this captain but i highly doubt it.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

chef2sail said:


> We stash one of those portable batteries that have built in jumper cables, and can be recharged easily by plugging in. It also lets us use our high pressure air scoprego pump to reinflate or top off the dinghy when its in the water .
> 
> WEST MARINE 600A Jump-Starter with Air Compressor and 12V Power Supply at West Marine


Yes, I've seen those. Having a completely separate emergency power source that can be accessed quickly really seems like a no-brainer.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

smurphny said:


> ...they had no way of knowing what the storm was doing without electronics. It's pretty scary at night with 20' seas and no idea whether things are going to get worse BUT does that warrant bailing out...


If they were in contact with the USCG, they had access to all the weather info they'd need. The CG is very, very good about providing anything you need in an emergency to help you make a very informed decision whether to be taken off.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> If they were in contact with the USCG, they had access to all the weather info they'd need. The CG is very, very good about providing anything you need in an emergency to help you make a very informed decision whether to be taken off.


Was trying to give them some benefit of doubt but you're absolutely right, the CG must certainly have given them a weather synopsis. I'm still wondering what the criteria are triggering the CG to start a rescue mission. Is it immediate and actual threat to life such as a sinking vessel or severe bleeding, heart attack, etc. or is it "I'm scared, beam me up Scotty?" Maybe they needed the practice in this case?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

smurphny said:


> Just what are the criteria the USCG uses to decide if a rescue attempt is warranted? Is it by request?


Yes. The USCG won't "decide" if a rescue is warranted. That's your job as a skipper. If you call, they come. God bless 'em for that.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

It could be that with the current budget squeeze, it might not take too many questionable, expensive missions to change that policy.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> No problem. If I contributed to that I apologize if someone felt my remarks were of a personal nature.


They were.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

smurphny said:


> It could be that with the current budget squeeze, it might not take too many questionable, expensive missions to change that policy.


No. They start the process as soon as someone is reported missing or a mayday is received.

They have started, within the last ten years I'd say, really upping the penalties for false maydays. Six-figure fines and jail time isn't unusual.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

DRFerron said:


> No. They start the process as soon as someone is reported missing or a mayday is received.
> 
> They have started, within the last ten years I'd say, really upping the penalties for false maydays. Six-figure fines and jail time isn't unusual.


Donna.. have they successfully prosecuted/collected/convicted on many such incidents? Any idea of how many?

There was an incident in California recently but I don't believe they ever identified the culprit?


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Faster said:


> Donna.. have they successfully prosecuted/collected/convicted on many such incidents? Any idea of how many?
> 
> There was an incident in California recently but I don't believe they ever identified the culprit?


I can't tell you that for certain. I do know that they have sophisticated enough equipment that they can determine where the call originates. More than a few of the cases I heard of where children.

The times I've been involved in conversations down at Sector DE Bay, I don't recall anyone ever asking the follow-up questions. I think we were more interested in how they located them.

Maybe someone else can answer but in the meantime, I will try to find out.


----------



## johnnyquest37 (Feb 16, 2012)

smackdaddy said:


> Yes. The USCG won't "decide" if a rescue is warranted. That's your job as a skipper. If you call, they come. God bless 'em for that.


Although thete are cases when the CG compelled a "rescue" such as S/V _Satori_ in Oct '91.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

I was thinking of that same incident. If I recall correctly from my reading of Junger's "The Perfect Storm", however, his crew wanted off the boat and had been communicating with the USCG, while the captain wanted to stay with the boat (a Westsail 32?). The Coast Guard refused a partial evacuation and ordered him off the boat, too. The boat was doing fine, experiencing the normal scary stuff that happens in a storm (knockdowns, water above the floorboards, no engine, no electrical power), but his crew were pissing in their panties.

The lesson: don't let your crew start talking to the USCG or get anywhere near your EPIRB or PLB, if there is no reason to abandon the vessel. Or prepare your crew for those eventualities: we will lose electrical power, we will get knocked down, there will be water in the boat, the engine won't work anymore, etc. Too many people are psychologically and emotionally unprepared for these events and think the boat will sink next, they panic and endanger themselves, when in the vast majority of cases, the boat is found floating intact several months later, waterlogged with shredded sails. The sailboat is tougher than the people are.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

jameswilson29 said:


> I was thinking of that same incident. If I recall correctly from my reading of Junger's "The Perfect Storm", however, his crew wanted off the boat and had been communicating with the USCG, while the captain wanted to stay with the boat (a Westsail 32?). The Coast Guard refused a partial evacuation and ordered him off the boat, too. The boat was doing fine, experiencing the normal scary stuff that happens in a storm (water above the floorboards, no engine, no electrical power), but his crew were pissing in their panties.
> 
> The lesson: don't let your crew start talking to the USCG or get anywhere near your EPIRB or PLB, if there is no reason to abandon the vessel.


I don't know the legalities involved, but from my conversations with CG personnel, once they have been called and arrive on-scene, and begin rescue, they are in command of the situation...not you. This is for very good reason in my opinion.

In the case of _Satori_, the CG didn't "compel" the Mayday. They just ordered everyone off the boat because in their judgement it was the safest thing to do. They have the right to make the call at that point in time. You've given it to them.

James - do you know of any case law on this kind of thing that clarifies it more?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

The news story does not indicate that they even issued a mayday. It says they "contacted" the CG. The decision by a captain to call a mayday seems like the red line.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Once you get out in international waters, you are beyond my knowledge base...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> They were.


So my apology isn't enough....no need to pile on.


----------



## okawbow (Feb 15, 2007)

I can't comment if the Captain should have called for rescue. I wasn't there. 

I do believe that any captain or crew getting on a strange boat, should have in his sea bag, a GPS, a VHF handheld with weather radio, flashlights, batteries, emergency food and water, first aid kit, and a few tools and even a quart of two of motor oil. Sail needles, and thread would be smart also. I consider that my ditch bag also, and always have it where I can see it.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> I was thinking of that same incident. If I recall correctly from my reading of Junger's "The Perfect Storm", however, his crew wanted off the boat and had been communicating with the USCG, while the captain wanted to stay with the boat (a Westsail 32?). The Coast Guard refused a partial evacuation and ordered him off the boat, too. The boat was doing fine, experiencing the normal scary stuff that happens in a storm (knockdowns, water above the floorboards, no engine, no electrical power), but his crew were pissing in their panties.
> 
> The lesson: don't let your crew start talking to the USCG or get anywhere near your EPIRB or PLB, if there is no reason to abandon the vessel. Or prepare your crew for those eventualities: we will lose electrical power, we will get knocked down, there will be water in the boat, the engine won't work anymore, etc. Too many people are psychologically and emotionally unprepared for these events and think the boat will sink next, they panic and endanger themselves, when in the vast majority of cases, the boat is found floating intact several months later, waterlogged with shredded sails. The sailboat is tougher than the people are.





> Too many people are psychologically and emotionally unprepared for these events and think the boat will sink next, they panic and endanger themselves, when* in the vast majority of cases, the boat is found floating intact several months later*, waterlogged with shredded sails.


I do not agree. So could you prove this? How do you endanger yourself when calling the CG for help? They mitigate the danger.

If everyone wants off the boat, but the Captain doesn't the others are forced to stay? This is too broad a sweeping statement I think.

How do you prepare psychologically and emotionally for 30 ft. waves, loss of all power, ripped sails, and constant knockdowns?

I have personal experience in this. In my early 20s I signed on twice to help bring two different boats across the Atlantic from Falmouth England to the US. Both boats were blue water cruisers over 42 ft in length with crew of 5.
The first delivery was uneventful, the second was terrifying. 1200 west of Falmouth we got into a period of 36 hours of Force 6/7 with waves 20-30 ft. 
Battered the boat and crew. We hove to for two of the days. Many things broke on the well designed boat, including all the electrics. We all were sick. 
At the time there was no way to abandon as this was 30 years ago. No EPIRB, no Sat phone. SSB knocked out. I though I was prepared as well as I could be, but once in the situation it was overwhelming. I did think as did the rest of us we were going to not make it. Had their been an option I think we would have taken it.

So if 4 of us wanted to take that option, and it is available, and the Captain didn't, does he have the right to prevent us from taking it. ( Don't get into the legalities of the Captain being in charge, I understand them). Just because abandoned ships are found after rescues doesn't mean the p[people who abandoned them wouldn't have been badly injured or killed.

Suppose the Bounty crew decided they wanted to get off the ship and told the Captain that. Are you saying they are signing onto a death sentence if conditions change and they have no say in the matter. I can only imagine the SN outrage if people found out they wanted off earlier and that the Captain said no.

Its fine to comment on that you shouldn't go in the first place, and we will differ in what's safe to have and what not in terms of equipment and crew, but *you cant plan, practice for every condition or emergency you will face*. If you think you can you are deluding yourself. Mother nature has its own agenda you can practice for. Machinery breaks. Not sure I understand what you are saying here, but I hope people don't follow this advice if they get in a situation in which they are overmatched, its bad advice. Call for help

So if the criteria is the ship can survive or as you stated


> The sailboat is tougher than the people are


 how does this scenario work out.

You decide to circumnavigate the Delmarv singlehanded. As you head north along the Delaware coast, sleep deprived, muddling you decisions as well as your motor activities as you've been awake 20 hours , a T storm blows up. As you attempt to reef or bring down the sails the boat is struck by a wave and you fall breaking both your legs and arm in three places. Excruciating pain. You cant perform even the simplest of tasks. 20 miles offshore. You are in no threat of dying. The T storm passes and its calm The wave has knocked out your communications except for the EPIRB or PLB.

I wouldn't go alone in the first place as that's an* irresponsible risk *just because situations like this can happen easily but that's another issue to be argued.

Do you call for help? I would. If my crew mate ( because I wouldn't be stupid enough to be alone) needed medical assistance, even though it wasn't immediate life threatening, Id call for help.

BTW if they remove you off the boat your boat will float ashore surviving the accident.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

DRFerron said:


> I can't tell you that for certain. I do know that they have sophisticated enough equipment that they can determine where the call originates. More than a few of the cases I heard of where children.
> 
> The times I've been involved in conversations down at Sector DE Bay, I don't recall anyone ever asking the follow-up questions. I think we were more interested in how they located them.
> 
> Maybe someone else can answer but in the meantime, I will try to find out.


On our trip to Long Island last year as we made our way up the coast there was a PAN PAN from a vessel supposedly sinking off of New York Bay came over channel 16. The CG searched for two days and later determined it was a fake. It even made the National News.

Cant they in this day and age get an exact fix on where the signal at least originates or originated from? Do you know of any cases recently where they prosecuted offenders of this?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Having been involved for years in f.a. and rescue, those broken bones would most certainly represent life -threatening injuries. No question: get 'em off. Broken bones can sever arteries and immobilization would be next to impossible on a tossing boat. In the case of some captain wanting to go down with the ship and expecting me to follow along....well, I'd hope he was a good swimmer


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smurphny said:


> Having been involved for years in f.a. and rescue, those broken bones would most certainly represent life -threatening injuries. No question: get 'em off. Broken bones can sever arteries and immobilization would be next to impossible on a tossing boat. In the case of some captain wanting to go down with the ship and expecting me to follow along....well, I'd hope he was a good swimmer


Ding...ding....ding....We agree 100%

So you and I would both hit the EPIRB.

Point is you cant prepare yourself for everything. I have confidence in people, and their decisions. If they feel they are in over their heads they should call the CG to get them out of it. We can always point to incidents or second guess ad nauseum as to whether they should have been in the situation. We can decide that after they are safe and sound.

The CG have always been wonderful in my dealings with them and it is great comfort to know they are there in an emergency as the are fully trained. I would have no problem them taking control of a situation I have called them out for as THEY are the professionals in that case.

Dave


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

chef2sail said:


> ...
> 
> Cant they in this day and age get an exact fix on where the signal at least originates or originated from? Do you know of any cases recently where they prosecuted offenders of this?


I don't know of any prosecutions, but I'll ask.

As for locating the signals I do know some stations that have done it successfully. If one did and another wasn't able to, I don't have an answer for that either, only a guess. The new Rescue 21 system was rolled out across the country over the course of a few years and that may have increased one station's ability over another's. Again, that's just a guess. Since Rescue 21 we no longer have to have an auxiliarist on land relaying our messages to Sector Baltimore, but I don't know if that also increased any other capabilities.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Surely, injuries so far from help and under the "normal" conditions on a sailboat warrant early action. Bleeding, unconsciousness, broken bones, preexisting conditions, etc. all call for erring on the side of caution. However, risking the lives of the great kids in the CG should not be taken lightly. Every time they set off in a chopper to pluck someone out of the water they are in a great deal of danger. One of those crews, lost just because someone was scared but in no real danger would be a great tragedy.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smurphny said:


> Surely, injuries so far from help and under the "normal" conditions on a sailboat warrant early action. Bleeding, unconsciousness, broken bones, preexisting conditions, etc. all call for erring on the side of caution. However, risking the lives of the great kids in the CG should not be taken lightly. Every time they set off in a chopper to pluck someone out of the water they are in a great deal of danger. One of those crews, lost just because someone was scared but in no real danger would be a great tragedy.


Agreed. I am sure the CG does a good job of accessing the situation before setting forth and that is the last option.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

DRFerron said:


> I don't know of any prosecutions, but I'll ask.
> 
> As for locating the signals I do know some stations that have done it successfully. If one did and another wasn't able to, I don't have an answer for that either, only a guess. The new Rescue 21 system was rolled out across the country over the course of a few years and that may have increased one station's ability over another's. Again, that's just a guess. Since Rescue 21 we no longer have to have an auxiliarist on land relaying our messages to Sector Baltimore, but I don't know if that also increased any other capabilities.


What is the "recscue 21 system and how is it different/ better than the old protocols,

Dave


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

chef2sail said:


> What is the "recscue 21 system and how is it different/ better than the old protocols,
> 
> Dave


I can't explain it better than their website so I won't even try:

USCG: Rescue 21

Excerpt:

Rescue 21, the Coast Guard's advanced command, control and direction-finding communications system, was created to better locate mariners in distress and save lives and property at sea and on navigable rivers. By harnessing state-of-the-market technology, Rescue 21 enables the Coast Guard to execute its search and rescue missions with greater agility and efficiency.

Why this project?
Rescue 21 replaces the National Distress and Response System, which has been in use since the 1970s. Rescue 21 can more accurately identify the location of callers in distress via towers that generate lines of bearing to the source of VHF radio transmissions, thereby significantly reducing search time. Rescue 21 extends coverage out to a minimum of 20 nautical miles from the coastline. It improves information sharing and coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal, state and local first responders, and can also identify suspected hoax calls, conserving valuable response resources.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Simply stated, one of the features of Rescue21 is the installation of antennas and receivers with overlapping coverage. With a single antenna/receiver, a line of bearing can be calculated. The system can identify the same signal across multiple receivers and with multiple LOBs, an area can be defined. The system is automated so the signal shows up as a point on the incident center’s screen. It is not fail proof, two antennas still have to pick up the signal which was not the case in Northern California not too long ago. Other features of the system such as playback capability etc. did enable the USCG to do a search on the chance that the signal was legit. DSC is much better as it not only transmits position, but a whole lot more data too.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> It appears from the photo, that the boat had/has an inner forestay with an intact furled jib on it.


With the Hoyt boom, appears to be an Island Packet... Tough to tell from the pic whether that white off the stern is a wave, or a dinghy on davits...

What tells me all I need to know, however, is the freakin' full cockpit enclosure... For a trip from the Islands to the mid-Atlantic in JUNE??? Seriously?

Hmmm, why am I not surprised these clowns were caught unaware? (grin)


----------



## sailguy40 (Feb 6, 2010)

I don't get it. Why go out in the ocean when a tropical storm has been reported? Stay safe and just postpone the delivery!


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

sailguy40 said:


> I don't get it. Why go out in the ocean when a tropical storm has been reported? Stay safe and just postpone the delivery!


The story says they departed the BVIs on the 27th, long before the formation of Andrea was being "reported"... However, there was a trough that had formed at that time just east of the Bahamas, which certainly should have been a major cause for concern for any boat headed north from the Virgins around that time...

I left Trinidad with an H-R 43 on the 27th as well, and for that reason elected to head for the Mona Passage, and then up 'inside' below the Silver Bank and Turks and Caicos, the Mayaguana Passage and Exuma Sound to the NE-NW Providence Channel... We had a wonderful passage and very quick trip, and although we had to motor through over 200 miles of dead calm near the end, we arrived in Ft Pierce a mere 8 days after departing Chaguaramas, 36 hours in advance of Andrea's passage over the Florida peninsula... Then, another very quick passage in Andrea's wake, Ft Pierce to Annapolis in 4 days, 2 hours... That H-R is a true offshore thoroughbred for sure, just a wonderful boat...

It would be interesting to know more about the route they chose, but based upon the WX info that was available on the 27 May, leaving the Virgins straight for Hatteras/Beaufort would have been a serious roll of the dice, indeed... Even though that trough E of the Bahamas turned out to be no big deal, it really would have flown in the face of the advice of a guy like Chris Parker, to name just one...

Chris' forecasting was spot-on during this time frame, he was inclined to go with the initial Euro models for the development of Andrea (which, once again, proved to be more accurate in my opinion than our own) He even very accurately forecast the squally, very gusty conditions we found Monday night off Hatteras and through Tuesday AM up to around Currituck Beach, even before we has left Florida.... Most impressive, in my book - that guy is very good at what he does...


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Finally, the voice of experienced reason. Welcome back, Jon, I was waiting for your point of view and your example as a competent delivery skipper.

Do you have an opinion of whether a delivery captain should call for a rescue by the Coast Guard when conditions are merely scary, uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, but no one is seriously injured and the boat is not sinking?

What would you do if you experienced an engine failure two days out on an extended delivery? What about a loss of electrical power?

How can a delivery captain take to sea without any flashlights? Do some owners remove all easily stealable items?

How can a delivery captain find himself in a position where all the sails are shredded and there are no storm sails or back up sails?

Finally, how do you handle crew who have lost their nerve and want only to be taken off the boat because they are scared and you can't let them get anywhere near an EPIRB, PLB or Satphone or they will call for rescue because their emotions have taken over?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jameswilson29 said:


> Do you have an opinion of whether a delivery captain should call for a rescue by the Coast Guard when conditions are merely scary, uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, but no one is seriously injured and the boat is not sinking?


First, it seems a mistake to consider this guy a "delivery captain"... This report indicates he was simply a guy picking up "his new boat", and bringing it back from the BVI's...

As always, it's difficult to know exactly what they were dealing with at the time... My gut tells me they simply got to the point where so many people do, and simply wanted to Get The Hell Off the Damn Boat... Like the guys on the IP abandoned off Hatteras a couple of months ago, they just shouldn't have been there to begin with... But the guy's confidence that the boat will be salvaged speaks volumes to me, about how naively he might have approached this voyage from the get-go...



jameswilson29 said:


> What would you do if you experienced an engine failure two days out on an extended delivery? What about a loss of electrical power?


Again, difficult to say without knowing more about the boat, alternative sources of power generation, size and condition of battery banks, how power-hungry her systems were, etc... But I have a hard time picturing wanting to continue on such an passage without the means to keep the batteries up... But, in general, the loss of an engine's capability to recharge the ship's power is so often the first in a series of cascading failures that leads to these sorts of debacles, I'd be inclined to address that issue before getting too far into the trip, divert to PR perhaps to get it resolved... Again, so many unknowns and potential variables, who knows what their real problems were? My gut instinct tells me this guy might have gotten a 'deal' on a boat that had perhaps been sitting/neglected in the islands for some time, which is always a potential recipe for such problems... With the likely lack of any proper shakedown cruise prior to departure, it would seem a better argument for a return back thru the Bahamas rather than a straight shot offshore, to me... But again, just my hunch, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they weren't carrying paper charts for the Bahamas, in which case such a bailout plan after the electrons aboard have stopped flowing would be a decidedly less attractive option... If they couldn't power their running and compass lights, for example, they certainly weren't able to run a plotter... In which case, venturing into the potentially safer confines of the Bahamas without paper charts aboard could easily have turned disastrous...



jameswilson29 said:


> How can a delivery captain take to sea without any flashlights? Do some owners remove all easily stealable items?
> 
> How can a delivery captain find himself in a position where all the sails are shredded and there are no storm sails or back up sails?


Who knows? All signs point to simple inexperience, to me, and the likelihood that the term 'delivery captain' is an obvious misnomer, in this case...



jameswilson29 said:


> Finally, how do you handle crew who have lost their nerve and want only to be taken off the boat because they are scared and you can't let them get anywhere near an EPIRB, PLB or Satphone or they will call for rescue because their emotions have taken over?


Sorry, can't help you out with that one... Why do you think I prefer to sail singlehanded as much as I do? (grin) Your crew is such a hugely important component in sailing offshore, I can't imagine contemplating a bluewater passage with anyone aboard in whom I did not already have the utmost in confidence that they'd be able to deal with the potential rigors of such a trip...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, can't help you out with that one... Why do you think I prefer to sail singlehanded as much as I do? (grin) Your crew is such a hugely important component in sailing offshore, I can't imagine contemplating a bluewater passage with anyone aboard in whom I did not already have the utmost in confidence that they'd be able to deal with the potential rigors of such a trip...


Indeed. It's a real conundrum, deciding to take anyone. It obviously increases your ability to remain rested and alert but it also presents a whole array of other potential difficulties. Whenever I think it would be nice to have someone to talk to, I always think about whether doing it alone is actually a wiser alternative and the answer is almost always yes. Even for short hops, sailing can be a uniquely intense and sometimes frightening experience, requiring a fairly substantial base of knowledge and experience for anyone aboard.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

As John indicated reiterating posted originally many posts ago, anyone can call themselves a delivery captain, but that doesn't make it so.

Again, if they found themselves overmatched for conditions and felt they couldn't handle them, thus felt the need to abandon ship, that was reason enough to get removed. Imagine the scenario if they felt that, wanted to be removed, the ship had no power and no life raft and the Captain said no way. Then the ship got. Rolled and sank with the captain and one crew surviving, two dead. James you would vilify the captain for not leaving or allowing a rescue. You would go on and on about his decision. This is a catch 22 scenario with you, who like most lawyers would be able to argue either side. 

In this case they did the right thing and the captain used his best judgement as only he was there to acess the situation at the time. We weren't.

This of course does not address the overriding issue of him placing himself POSSBLY in danger unnecessarily. But again you cannot plan for everything. 

He did what was prudent to make sure his crew was safe. For that I fing no fault with his decision to protect their lives first and not worry about the boat.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> As John indicated reiterating posted originally many posts ago, anyone can call themselves a delivery captain, but that doesn't make it so.
> 
> Again, if they found themselves overmatched for conditions and felt they couldn't handle them, thus felt the need to abandon ship, that was reason enough to get removed. Imagine the scenario if they felt that, wanted to be removed, the ship had no power and no life raft and the Captain said no way. Then the ship got. Rolled and sank with the captain and one crew surviving, two dead. James you would vilify the captain for not leaving or allowing a rescue. You would go on and on about his decision. This is a catch 22 scenario with you, who like most lawyers would be able to argue either side.
> 
> ...


I think that may be a bit unfair to James' position, and if I understand him correctly, I'm inclined to side with him on this one... Re-reading my original post, I'm struck by how 'charitable' my reaction to this incident actually was (grin)...

I think all sailors should be troubled by what seems to be - in my opinion, at least - the ever-increasing tendency among many people venturing offshore these days to view the CG or ships participating in the AMVER program in the same way many automobile drivers view a roadside assistance service such as the AAA or OnStar... Again, tough to tell from such a sketchy mass media report, but there was no mention whatsoever of any critical failure to the vessel beyond the non-functioning engine, and loss of electrical power... The rig was still in the boat, the rudder apparently functional, no indication they were taking on water, and so on...

A real threat to life does not seem be apparent, they were simply suffering DISCOMFORT in the face of a rapidly moving tropical storm. The captain's confidence the boat would be salvaged would seem to betray the fact he had little doubt it would ride out the storm in fine fashion unattended... They were simply TIRED of being out there, and wanted off the damn boat, period....

I'm afraid we will all pay a future price - whether it be in terms of regulation, insurance, whatever - if the CG or other rescue services continue to be called to save sailors merely from further or prolonged 'unpleasantness', and not necessarily from life-threatening situations, at the rate this stuff seems to be happening nowadays...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

[


> quote=JonEisberg;1043616]I think that may be a bit unfair to James' position, and if I understand him correctly, I'm inclined to side with him on this one... Re-reading my original post, I'm struck by how 'charitable' my reaction to this incident actually was (grin)...
> 
> I think all sailors should be troubled by what seems to be - in my opinion, at least - the ever-increasing tendency among many people venturing offshore these days to view the CG or ships participating in the AMVER program in the same way many automobile drivers view a roadside assistance service such as the AAA or OnStar... Again, tough to tell from such a sketchy mass media report, but there was no mention whatsoever of any critical failure to the vessel beyond the non-functioning engine, and loss of electrical power... The rig was still in the boat, the rudder apparently functional, no indication they were taking on water, and so on...
> A


My opinion is still that if some one feels endangered enough to call the CG it is only they who can realistically ascertain the weather and sea the conditions, state of the of the vessel, condition of the crew etc. people sitting at home commenting may have opinions, especially after the fact, but your are there. You have the RIGHT to call any means necessary to get you and your crew out of danger.

I applaud the Captain for calling the CG.

Anyone reading this should keep in mind if you are in charge of the crew that you are responsible for their safety and will be held so legally. Had the crew been injured, these same posters would have taken the opposite side



> I'm afraid we will all pay a future price - whether it be in terms of regulation, insurance[/whatever - if the CG or other rescue services continue to be called to f life-threatening situations, at the rate this stuff seems to be happening nowadays...


I doubt this highly. It's an alarmist statement. There actually has been less calls SAR incidents progressively over the last years and even if they increased, what kind of regulation would take place. This is a red herring.

I also add to this the CG willingness and judgement to remove the vessels occupants seems to indicate that the professionals on the scene must have accessed the situation as there being danger to the crew too.

I trust their judgement.


----------



## sailvayu (Feb 3, 2013)

This brings up an interesting question and one that would seem fairly important to this conversation. Just what are the statistics regarding rescues? Have they increased since the advent of sat phones and EPIRBs? Or have they remained steady and the news media is just picking up on more stories? Not to sound like someone blaming the media again but I sometimes wonder in this day of instant communications are we just hearing about more of these or are there really more? The media does love a good rescue of any kind after all. Nothing better than a baby in a well but they will work with what they have and a good sea rescue is worth the print. 
Would love to see some stats from the coasties.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

sailvayu said:


> Would love to see some stats from the coasties.


Indeed... My feeling parallels Jon's.. it seems with the ease of access to plotters, easy positioning, cell phone coverage, and the general population's seemingly better access to recreational moneys, and a generally increased sense of 'entitlement' that there are a lot of barely-if-at-all qualified/competent boaters out there. People buying into 40 footers as 'first boats', greater availability of bareboat charters everywhere, etc it seems if the money's there you can just go "do it"..

So from our own observations over recent years I'd tend to go along with the mindset that for many it's just 'too easy' to go out there.. hey, if things don't work out there's an easy out...

Not to paint with too wide a brush.. I know there are many that do their due diligence, take the courses, decide that 40 feet is what they want/need and it's all just fine - those aren't the types under discussion here.

It appears we have a poorly prepared boat, with a less than ready crew (including the 'skipper'?) and it's a shame the boat's been left to her own devices.

But I've seen firsthand inexperienced people on boats in barely moderate conditions; in absolutely no danger whatsoever, yet panicked enough to want to call the coasties or anyone who will 'get them off the damned boat', as Jon has already said.

Confronted with that scenario, what is one to do?? If the skipper hasn't the confidence or natural authority to deal with that, it's a tough call. I expect all in this incident were immensely grateful for the rescue. Should the boat be recovered intact, it would be clear that from a strictly safety point of view it may not have been a necessary rescue..

So Chef has a point too, confronted with a boatload of scared, sick, verging on panic crew, what else could he do?

All the same, these are feeling and intuitions, it would be nice to see if the recent trend in stats backs that up...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> [
> My opinion is still that if some one feels endangered enough to call the CG it is only they who can realistically ascertain the weather and sea the conditions, state of the of the vessel, condition of the crew etc. people sitting at home commenting may have opinions, especially after the fact, but your are there. You have the RIGHT to call any means necessary to get you and your crew out of danger.
> 
> I applaud the Captain for calling the CG.


Well, you're quicker to applaud his actions than I am, in that case... Of course, none of us were there, thus able to make a fair determination whether his decision is worthy of applause, or not... But, given the absence of known damage to the boat that would have imperiled her ability to survive the weather, I'm still inclined to think that he likely placed his crew at far greater risk by calling for an evacuation, than if they had simply stayed with the boat... Unfortunately, the Coasties are SO skilled at what they do, and make it look FAR too easy... It's all too easy to forget what a perilous operation such a rescue at sea can be...



chef2sail said:


> I doubt this highly. It's an alarmist statement. There actually has been less calls SAR incidents progressively over the last years and even if they increased, what kind of regulation would take place. This is a red herring.
> 
> I also add to this the CG willingness and judgement to remove the vessels occupants seems to indicate that the professionals on the scene must have accessed the situation as there being danger to the crew too.
> 
> I trust their judgement.


I remain unconvinced by the SAR stats that have been bandied about in these discussions, to me they seem so un-specific as to be essentially worthless in making any real determination as to whether abandonments are now being made more casually than they have been in the past... But, in my opinion, they most definitely are, and the ease with which a rescue can be summoned compared to 20 or more years ago is IMHO a big part of today's mindset...

I know I'm not alone in holding this view, I know more than a couple of people long associated with a publication like CRUISING WORLD share the opinion that there has been a real sea change in the attitudes of many going offshore today... The rally phenomenon has certainly played a part in this, to a certain extent, and many now seem content to surrender a portion of their own responsibility towards others... And, the blame game is now being played where I can't ever recall it being done so before, finger-pointing at weather routers, and so on... The very unseemly criticism of Herb Hilgenberg after the NARC Rally a couple of years ago is a perfect example of the different mindset out there today - that sort of finger pointing by sailors unwilling to fully accept the consequences of their own actions, or lack of experience and preparation, would have been unheard of a generation ago...

Just my opinion, of course...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Looking at this at first glance it doesn't not appear to support the assertions of an increase in CG sorties, saves, or incidents. It in fact showed a marked decrease or leveling off. Kinda shoots down the theory that all the incompetent people we all see are the majority of what's going on. In addition it appears they not just ring up the CG when uncomfortable. Maybe we are just getting cranky in our advanced years ( I include myself in this) .

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/sarfactsinfo/SAR_Sum_stats1964-2011.pdf

Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year | Bureau of Transportation Statistics


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, you're quicker to applaud his actions than I am, in that case... Of course, none of us were there, thus able to make a fair determination whether his decision is worthy of applause, or not... But, given the absence of known damage to the boat that would have imperiled her ability to survive the weather, I'm still inclined to think that he likely placed his crew at far greater risk by calling for an evacuation, than if they had simply stayed with the boat... Unfortunately, the Coasties are SO skilled at what they do, and make it look FAR too easy... It's all too easy to forget what a perilous operation such a rescue at sea can be...
> 
> I remain unconvinced by the SAR stats that have been bandied about in these discussions, to me they seem so un-specific as to be essentially worthless in making any real determination as to whether abandonments are now being made more casually than they have been in the past... But, in my opinion, they most definitely are, and the ease with which a rescue can be summoned compared to 20 or more years ago is IMHO a big part of today's mindset...
> 
> ...


Not sure what to say. You chose to go on intuition rather than factual statistics. 
I respect your opinion and experience. I also respect facts not fiction.

The CG is very responsible and also great at what they do. Thy decided twice to take them off the boat. First when they decided to go out to the boat rather than tell them to ride it out. Second when they went out, accessed the situation in person and went ahead with removing the crew. They could have then recommended they stay put as it was more dangerous to rescue them or even then that they were in no danger. OBVIOUSLY the PROFESSIONALS agreed that the prudent measure was to evacuate. The boat been ing salvaged is irrelevant to the situation or the CG.

Facts prove that these issues are declining despite what the some alarmists claim and post as trends. Hard to argue that.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Stats, as always, can be very misleading. Military flight time is highly scrutinized today, whereas, there was a time you could hop to Maine for a lobster run, just to get your time in (particulalrly if your CO liked lobster). Sim time is now a significant part of training.

The USCG decline in sorties is affected by this. No playing with the helos, there has to be a good reason to go. I don't think the totals tell the real story, its what they are responding to that is the subject of debate.

I am in the camp that many more believe they are capable of an ocean passage than would have ever thought so a couple of decades back. They learn the hard way.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> Looking at this at first glance it doesn't not appear to support the assertions of an increase in CG sorties, saves, or incidents. It in fact showed a marked decrease or leveling off. Kinda shoots down the theory that all the incompetent people we all see are the majority of what's going on. In addition it appears they not just ring up the CG when uncomfortable. Maybe we are just getting cranky in our advanced years ( I include myself in this) .
> 
> http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/sarfactsinfo/SAR_Sum_stats1964-2011.pdf
> 
> Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year | Bureau of Transportation Statistics


Wow! Those are some very interesting numbers. A roughly *60% DROP* in _SAR Cases_ since 1985!!!!

Jon, you might want to rethink your thesis. Granted, the SAR Case number doesn't tell us anything about abandonments per se, but it definitely tells us that far, far fewer people are calling for help now than then. Yes, it could also be fewer people sailing, but the numbers here don't bear out the notion that more and more people are casually pushing the button.

Maybe those newfangled gadgets are doing a fine job of allowing more people to sail more safely. In fact, that is _exactly_ what I believe. And, I for one don't believe there is anything inherently bad about that.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Not sure what to say. You chose to go on intuition rather than factual statistics.
> I respect your opinion and experience. I also respect facts not fiction.
> 
> The CG is very responsible and also great at what they do. Thy decided twice to take them off the boat. First when they decided to go out to the boat rather than tell them to ride it out. Second when they went out, accessed the situation in person and went ahead with removing the crew. They could have then recommended they stay put as it was more dangerous to rescue them or even then that they were in no danger. OBVIOUSLY the PROFESSIONALS agreed that the prudent measure was to evacuate. The boat been ing salvaged is irrelevant to the situation or the CG.
> ...


Again, those statistics are so general as to be essentially meaningless in any attempt to determine these very specific types of offshore cruising boat abandonments/rescues we are discussing... Not to mention, add to those totals the number of cases/incidents/sorties that used to be handled by the CG that have since been passed onto SeaTow and Towboat/US, and I'll bet the numbers would tell quite a different story...

One of the most thoughtful and perceptive observers I know of the cruising/offshore sailing scene, and how trends have evolved over the past 30+ years, is Dockmaster Jeb Brearey at the Beaufort Docks... He's been watching cruisers gather at his place, and jump off for the islands since the mid-70's, and he can probably recite in great detail virtually every SAR mission that's ever occurred during that time in the vicinity of Hatteras... He has some pretty firm opinions about this sort of stuff, some of them are not what many of today's sailors want to hear, but I'll stick with his views on this subject being far more illuminating than the tables of "facts" that have been offered so far... Without FAR more specificity and detail, I fail to see what those numbers are really telling us about a comparatively tiny percentage of incidents at sea...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Stats, as always, can be very misleading. Military flight time is highly scrutinized today, whereas, there was a time you could hop to Maine for a lobster run, just to get your time in (particulalrly if your CO liked lobster). Sim time is now a significant part of training.
> 
> The USCG decline in sorties is affected by this. No playing with the helos, there has to be a good reason to go. I don't think the totals tell the real story, its what they are responding to that is the subject of debate.
> 
> I am in the camp that many more believe they are capable of an ocean passage than would have ever thought so a couple of decades back. They learn the hard way.


The stats deal in more than sorties....it talks about people and property too....all declining or stable. Pretending they aren't relevant doesn't make them that.

I don't disagree that some people who go offshore are in adequately prepared or experienced to my standards. My standards are different than say James, Jon, or Fasters, so whose standards are right or should be used as THE standard.

How do you prevent people from going offshore if they feel they can? Not rescue them? Is that the answer? I don't think this s something you can regulate. There are many people who can't drive and get and cause accidents. Doesn't mean the EMT doesn't treat them. You can't prevent stupid, in a car or on the water.

If in trouble call for help. Period.


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

"The Principle of Natural Selection" A good thing?

Down


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sorties was an example. I'm betting how these are logged has changed. Does a false EPIRB identified by a call home by a contractor even count at all anymore? These types of things probably don't even get to the USCG, like old tech did.

I'm not debating whether one should call for help when they choose, or whether it should be regulated.

I do believe these declines are not representative of a decline of the sort of emergency being debated here. Only a decline in what the USCG responds to at all.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

I think it's difficult if not impossible to draw any relevant conclusions from the overall stats as it relates to this discussion or the question: Are recreational sailors/boaters making more calls for rescues? We'd have to see the underlying data to see if the CG makes a distinction between commercial and recreational etc.

I believe the vessels being discussed here represent a relatively small sample of all the ships at sea. Proportionally ( deaths per 1,000) more Fishermen die at sea than soldiers fighting in war. I would imagine that the advances made( in safety equipment and regulation) in the fishing industry have contributed in part to the large decline in the number rescues.

That, the decline in the fisheries, the price of fuel and the increase in industrial farm raised fish like tilapia etc, might mean that the commercial Fishermen are going the way of the farmer. Only 1 % of the US population in employed in agriculture. only 1/2 of that are family owned farms.

Commercial Fishing Deaths --- United States, 2000--2009


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Sorties was an example. I'm betting how these are logged has changed. Does a false EPIRB identified by a call home by a contractor even count at all anymore? These types of things probably don't even get to the USCG, like old tech did.
> 
> I'm not debating whether one should call for help when they choose, or whether it should be regulated.
> 
> I do believe these declines are not representative of a decline of the sort of emergency being debated here. Only a decline in what the USCG responds to at all.


But it is representative . The original discussion revolved around the Coast Guard rescuing the crew so its right on point.

If you want to quibble about how the statistics were taken, EPIRBs etc. go ahead. The facts speak for themselves in terms of sorties, rescues or PEOPLE and PROPERTY. You may find it incredulous but it is what it is. Trying to disprove the facts is ridiculous. I would rather look at facts than the musings of a dock expert.

Just admit it, you are as surprised as I am that the facts are that there are LESS incidents the CG handles. Overall there has been a decline in fatalities.

BTW the misnomer that there are less boats is debunked by these statistics also. Its been pretty flat for the last 15 years or so.

http://nmma.net/assets/cabinets/Cabinet445/2011_abstract_preview.pdf

Smack has hit it on the head. The electronics have maybe made things safer

Maybe we should spend more time getting boaters to educated themselves how to use and incorporate the new electronics to make things safer for themselves instead of fighting the innovation and change. Change is hard for some to accept.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Wow! Those are some very interesting numbers. A roughly *60% DROP* in _SAR Cases_ since 1985!!!!
> 
> Jon, you might want to rethink your thesis. Granted, the SAR Case number doesn't tell us anything about abandonments per se, but it definitely tells us that far, far fewer people are calling for help now than then.


Sorry, but I'm not seeing where those numbers indicate anything beyond the fact that more people are now calling SeaTow, as opposed to the Coast Guard...



> In 1982 Congress passed legislation that mandated that the U.S. Coast Guard would no longer provide assistance to boaters in nonemergency situations...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...





chef2sail said:


> The stats deal in more than sorties....it talks about people and property too....all declining or stable. Pretending they aren't relevant doesn't make them that.
> 
> I don't disagree that some people who go offshore are in adequately prepared or experienced to my standards. My standards are different than say James, Jon, or Fasters, so whose standards are right or should be used as THE standard.
> 
> ...


Well, then perhaps we simply need to redefine what constitutes the notion of "trouble"...

Discomfort or inconvenience to the crew, in an event in which the boat survives an abandonment, equals "trouble"...

An event where the boat actually founders, or is lost, equals "REAL trouble"... (grin)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

A rather rude post, beyond stubborn to see another point of view.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but I'm not seeing where those numbers indicate anything beyond the fact that more people are now calling SeaTow, as opposed to the Coast Guard...


We have a winner.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but I'm not seeing where those numbers indicate anything beyond the fact that more people are now calling SeaTow, as opposed to the Coast Guard...
> 
> Well, then perhaps we simply need to redefine what constitutes the notion of "trouble"...
> 
> ...


When the Captain on scene believes he is trouble maybe we should just accept that he is in most cases. You don't have to wait till the boat sinks or founders to have an emergency life threatening situation.

Are we forgetting the Coast Guard on scene also accessed the situation and concurred.

The boat surviving is not the determining factor or criteria in my mind whether the situation was life threatening and required evacuation.

There are many instances where the crew is in danger and the boat doesn't sink but is found floating later.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

How do you figure that the CG concurred, just because they agreed to remove the passengers. Do you really think they would turn around and go back without them, if the crew insists?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Smack has hit it on the head. The electronics have maybe made things safer


I would suggest "maybe" is the operative word, there... If that is true, why do I see more people taking more stupid risks in places like the Bahamas than I did 20 years ago?

Or, is is more prudent to run a coral-strewn gauntlet like the Devil's Backbone in poor light while relying on electronic charts, or to wait to do so in favorable light with primary reliance upon one's good old Mark I Eyeball and a pair of polarized sunglasses, coupled with a thorough understanding that the color Brown is to be avoided?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but I'm not seeing where those numbers indicate anything beyond the fact that more people are now calling SeaTow, as opposed to the Coast Guard...
> 
> Well, then perhaps we simply need to redefine what constitutes the notion of "trouble"...
> 
> ...


Okay - now you're really not making sense. If what you're saying is the reason the numbers were 60% higher in 1985 was due to the fact that those permed and parachute-panted masses were calling for tows instead of rescues - then who are the real problem sailors?

Honestly, Jon, I think your fundamental premise is precisely backwards. In 1985 there might have been more people sailing in general. BUT, the problem was that learning the ins-and-outs of analog navigation is a pretty steep curve. When people just want to get out and sail, but they have sextants, paper charts, dividers, and trigonometry staring them in the face - what do you think they do? They blow off the hard stuff, wing it and go sail...obviously. Then they run into serious problems that only the 1985 CG can get them out of.

With electronics its WAY easier to do it "right" (i.e. - stay off the rocks, see tankers coming, etc.). Furthermore, todays electronics are pretty damn reliable and durable.

In this scenario, those CG numbers make perfect sense and don't require any pretzel logic.

Now, I'M NOT SAYING THE ANALOG WORLD IS BAD. Sometimes the electrons DO stop flowing (although there are lots of cheap backups-to-backups these days). And in that scenario, you gotta have a back-up plan like paper charts and a sliderule...and seamanship. But these numbers _absolutely_ show a decreased reliance on the CG for rescue...which is completely counter to your idea that tons more greenhorns are popping their EPIRBS and abandoning boats all over the place.

Repeat after me: Electronics. Good.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

"Or, is is more prudent to run a coral-strewn gauntlet like the Devil's Backbone in poor light while relying on electronic charts, or to wait to do so in favorable light with primary reliance upon one's good old Mark I Eyeball and a pair of polarized sunglasses, coupled with a thorough understanding that the color Brown is to be avoided?"

What a novel idea! Common sense and some good old fashioned seamanship.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Double trouble


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

It's next to impossible to parse out whether more or fewer people are calling for RESCUE since the CG stopped actually helping boaters who had some sort of trouble. Heading off potentially dangerous situations is now a function of outfits like Boat US and Sea Tow. They do a good job although they don't have the assets that the CG has. Helping, as in towing, delivering a crash pump, etc. is different than RESCUE. Rescue involves some sort of medical emergency or a foundering boat. As Jon stated, maybe we need a new definition of what constitutes the kind of "trouble" that triggers a chopper trip. If captains of pleasure craft continue to call for this kind of help without real, imminent danger, there will surely be an adjustment by government to further curtail the HUGE expense and danger to highly trained personnel. Government will step in to define the trigger point. I can envision a pay-for system whereby captains need to prove the call was warranted and if not, reimburse taxpayers. It is great to know we have such a sophisticated rescue service available to US and foreign boats but we, as operators of boats need to set some clear lines as when we call for RESCUE. To me it is ONLY if there is a medical emergency or if the boat is in danger of sinking. We don't have the whole story here but it seems like neither of these conditions was present.

It would only take one news headline about the huge cost of unnecessary chopper rides to set officialdom on a crusade to modify the guidelines. This kind of expense incurred by a small percentage of the population would cause a political reaction.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I think the devil is in the detail and all are generalizing to make their point. Overall CG response can go down and there may still be an increase in greenhorns willing to sailing offshore and requiring extraction. That's the issue at hand, not overall SARs.

Electronics are good, they are encouraging more people to be on the water and getting people out of the safety of the harbor more quickly, without ending up on the rocks. Therein lies the rub. The electronics can also allow for an increase in one's self assessment and I do believe more are willing to venture further offshore than their emergency skills have developed to deal with.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Electronics are great as a supplement to the basic skills, experience, and equipment.

Unfortunately, for many electronics have become a substitute for seamanship instead of a supplement. It is the easy way out and the more interesting way - electronic gizmos. You can read about it here on Sailnet: many want to talk about the best chartplotter, but few want to replace hoses below the waterline or rebuild or replace their bilge pumps. So what happens when they lose electricity? Call the Coast Guard, of course, cause the electronic sailors cannot really navigate without engine power and electricity. What is a paper chart?

This case is the perfect example: they have a Satphone, but no flashlight. How is that possible?


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> This case is the perfect example: they have a Satphone, but no flashlight. How is that possible?


A: It is only possible on Sailnet.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the original newspaper article quote a crew member to the effect that: "they didn't have lights not even to see the compass"? Someone on this thread then stated that "they didn't even have a flashlight". 100 and however many posts later approximately 1/3 of the posters (the OP -- you -- included) seem to have made mention of the FACT that they "didn't even have a flashlight".

Don't try to judge a complex situation like a crisis at sea based on a 500 word newspaper article or a sailnet thread. It will sure make you sound like an fool.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Here's the quote from the article:

"They could sail, but at night they were without lights, even for a compass."

It reads as if they did not have flashlights. That would also be a reasonable inference from the information given and their circumstances. Why mention no light for a compass, unless it was unreadable in any event? With a flashlight, they would likely not have mentioned that detail. Although this is a provable fact, we will likely never hear from the folks who would know, given their probable embarrassment at their general incompetence.

Who do you draw your assumptions against, the fools who need to be rescued, or the competent sailors on this listserv who are trying to learn from this debacle?

Some on this listserv are so insistent on having all the facts. I am regularly involved in the proof of facts and I can tell you, you never have all the facts. You rarely even have most of the necessary facts. Often the person or party who is in the best position to supply critical information, has no incentive to do so and will resist or hide information. You are left either to draw reasonable inferences and make reasonable assumptions from the facts that you know, or throw up your hands and act as if nothing can ever be learned. The latter course protects those who are trying to hide something or avoid harsh reality.


----------



## lowtide (Mar 23, 2008)

One can also steer a general course at night using a sky full of stars.

If stormy, one can steer pretty well by using wave direction, wind direction (my wind vane does), with an occasional flash at the compass.

If you are steering at night staring at a gps or a compass, you'll be asleep pretty quickly, and a very poor lookout.

If conditions are so dark and confused you can't use any of these, heave to until daylight, and have another go.



'


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

jameswilson29 said:


> Some on this listserv are so insistent on having all the facts. I am regularly involved in the proof of facts and I can tell you, you never have all the facts. You rarely even have most of the necessary facts. Often the person or party who is in the best position to supply critical information, has no incentive to do so and will resist or hide information. You are left either to draw reasonable inferences and make reasonable assumptions from the facts that you know, or throw up your hands and act as if nothing can ever be learned. The latter course protects those who are trying to hide something or avoid harsh reality.


Irrelevant of the final cause of boat abandonment, whether discomfort, injuries or taking on water, the Captain and crews actions led to the boat being abandoned. I know the sea is a cruel mistress and things can happen that are unpredictable. Things that come to mind are hitting a submerged container, the perfect storm, engine fire and others possibly beyond the control of the crew.

I am sure the Captain and crew of this boat thought themselves capable of this voyage. If the boat was abandoned as a result of a series of events starting with inadequate boat inspection/preparation, provisioning or decisions made enroute, it has to be a big blow to their egos. Not to mention the potential insurance claims and lawsuits to follow. If this latter scenario is the case I am sure the crew has gotten together to get their stories straight and may bring legal representation to any inquiries. I am with James on this one, the true story may never be heard. If only the boat could tell her side of the story.

This whole incident has left me thinking about adequate offshore preparations. It brings to mind "For want of a Nail" Except my proverb will be "For want of a flashlight".

On the plus side I did go out and buy (based on Chef2Sails recommendation) a battery backup. They are on sail at WM till the 16th.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

"No, no, this is scary! I want to be home with my mommy, safe and sound in my own dry bed that doesn't move! I thought we would have blue skies and smooth sailing, just like my ASA 101 course and the ads in Sail magazine. This was such a mistake, no electricity means I can't play my video games. Will someone please call the Coast Guard already? We ran out of Red Bull three days ago and my shoes are wet (not to mention my undies)! How can I live without watching the final episode of "Dancing With The Stars"?"


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

may also want to pick up a dive light. the scuba diving crowd has some very neat stuff. truly waterproof, leds , easy to hold with a strap for your wrist so you don't drop it. small and light. I don't dive but will have two on the boat at all times when heading out. great for seeing the telltales at night. get the one with the focused beam.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

I carry three little led flashlights, one large handheld waterproof led flashlightlight, a waterproof led headlamp, a rechargeable multi-led droplight, a 110v clip light, 2 handheld spots, as well as a gimballed kerosene lamp and a propane fueled backpacking globe type lamp. Light is essential.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

jephotog said:


> On the plus side I did go out and buy (based on Chef2Sails recommendation) a battery backup. They are on sail at WM till the 16th.


I did exactly the same thing. That is one ideal piece of equipment if you ask me.

Thanks Chef!


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

smurphny said:


> I carry three little led flashlights, one large handheld waterproof led flashlightlight, a waterproof led headlamp, a rechargeable multi-led droplight, a 110v clip light, 2 handheld spots, as well as a gimballed kerosene lamp and a propane fueled backpacking globe type lamp. Light is essential.


I have two headlamps, one with both red and white lights. Two penknife/tactical type flashlights, one with both red and white lights. One standard flashlight, one battery powered lantern, and one battery-powered anchor light (and a battery-operated hand bearing compass).

Total: 7 flashlights for one sailor. 3 stay on the boat at all times.

My compass binnacle is not lighted and I sail quite fine without it, illuminating it with my red headlight or red pen light while underway. I have a fairly good idea of my direction without it, based on the wind, waves, stars, moon, etc.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

I only carry 3 but to play it extra safe, I am back at the dock long before sunset. Not by choice but because my club insists all boats are tucked in bed before lights out.


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

Pak-Lite!! The Bomb! When it comes to lights! Check these out and buy a couple today!

Pak-Lite's Official Website - Pak-Lite's Official Website Pak-Lite!

These are amazing! Cheap! Small! Powerful! Colors! Headbands! Magnetic mounts, on and on...

We have several of these! A dual light headband with a red and green that can wrap around the mast. We carry them in the boats, the cars, our packs, give them as stocking stuffers to all the kids, etc.. Everyone should have these.

Check it out if you don't already know about it. A 9 volt battery with a cap that contains a two level led light. Glow in the dark! A kid invented it!

There is no excuse for not having lighting for what ever you are doing

Down


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

I forgot the red/white D cell dink light and the cyalume sticks I keep in the ditch bag along with a couple of strobes. Backpacking headlamps have got to be the best unintended boat inventions of all time. I like the red lamp idea for night vision. None of mine are red. The lamp in my binnacle is red but in an electrical failure, would be out with everything else. A red headlamp would be useful. Another useful battery gizmo is the illuminated compass in a pair of binoculars I got a couple of years ago. They make it pretty easy to determine if the bearing of a tanker is changing OR NOT.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

I have a Petzl red/white/strobe headlamp - great device for night sailing and fairly comfortable, too.


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

jameswilson29 said:


> I have a Petzl red/white/strobe headlamp - great device for night sailing and fairly comfortable, too.


We use Petzls, too. They are always with us. The 9 volt lights are more of "emergency" special applications. Up to 80 hours on high power and 12 hundred hours on low power. Yup! 1200 hours! You gotta love it.

Down


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> Here's the quote from the article:
> 
> "They could sail, but at night they were wiithout lights, even for a compass."
> 
> ...


Even when you present facts and figures, some wont admit t their validity so it makes no no difference. They then want to quibble about the facts.

BTW I did not draw your conclusion about no flashlight. I thought it meant even the light on the compass binnacle was inoperative as there was no DC current at all.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> I have a Petzl red/white/strobe headlamp - great device for night sailing and fairly comfortable, too.


Does it help you see while you nap?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

jameswilson29 said:


> I have a Petzl red/white/strobe headlamp - great device for night sailing and fairly comfortable, too.


Have to check out the red Petzl. Using a white flashlight really screws up night vision for a few minutes afterward.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

smurphny said:


> Have to check out the red Petzl. Using a white flashlight really screws up night vision for a few minutes afterward.


Yeah, it's the Tikka XP model. Nice because you can switch to white if necessary.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - now you're really not making sense. If what you're saying is the reason the numbers were 60% higher in 1985 was due to the fact that those permed and parachute-panted masses were calling for tows instead of rescues - then who are the real problem sailors?
> 
> Honestly, Jon, I think your fundamental premise is precisely backwards. In 1985 there might have been more people sailing in general. BUT, the problem was that learning the ins-and-outs of analog navigation is a pretty steep curve. When people just want to get out and sail, but they have sextants, paper charts, dividers, and trigonometry staring them in the face - what do you think they do? They blow off the hard stuff, wing it and go sail...obviously. Then they run into serious problems that only the 1985 CG can get them out of.
> 
> ...


Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, then...

In the days before Loran, then SatNav, and ultimately GPS became commonplace aboard small yachts, I saw precious little evidence that people tended to "blow off" learning how to navigate by traditional means, and setting off on extended offshore passages with at least someone aboard practiced in the art of being able to find their way to their destination... (Always exceptions, of course, perhaps Tania Aebi being one of the most notable - she might STILL be trying to find Bermuda if it hadn't been for the very powerful RDF beacon on St David's Head (grin))... So, I'll maintain my observation based upon my experience over the years, that GPS has changed everything, and now enables people with far less voyaging experience to venture offshore, and potentially 'out-sail' the boundaries that have traditionally been imposed by having to find your own way to a destination... I'll repeat what I've said numerous times before: the case of RULE 62 seems the prime most recent example - there is no way IMHO that guy would have set off for the islands, with his apparent lack of experience and that particular crew aboard, in the pre-GPS era...

I still think you and some others are reading way too much into the "facts and figures" offered thus far re CG sorties/incidents/rescues... Attempting to extrapolate any meaning applying to the possible increase or decrease in the number of abandonments of cruising yachts offshore from such gross totals is silly... If someone could produce a more detailed breakdown of those numbers, showing what percentages of the tens of thousands of incidents in any given year might have involved _rescues of crews of sailing yachts abandoned offshore_ - as opposed to rescues of crews of crab boats in the Bering Sea, or homeowners from their rooftops in Louisiana after a hurricane - well, _THEN_ we can talk more about what such statistics might actually 'prove' regarding the tendency of today's sailors to abandon their yachts more, or less, casually than ever before...



chef2sail said:


> Not sure what to say. You chose to go on intuition rather than factual statistics.
> I respect your opinion and experience. I also respect facts not fiction.


Actually, I think it's fairer to say I'm going an opinion based upon what my own eyes and ears have been telling me over a few decades in the yacht delivery business... If you choose to dismiss that as "fiction", and go instead with a table of numbers with an extraordinary lack of specificity relative to the particular type of incident under discussion, so be it...



chef2sail said:


> I would rather look at facts than the musings of a dock expert.


I'm gonna presume you're referring to the aforementioned dockmaster in Beaufort, here... Well, you obviously don't know my friend Jeb, a more astute observer of the manner in which cruising has changed over the years would be difficult to find... For over 30 years, he has been dealing professionally with sailors at one of the major crossroads of both ICW snowbirds and offshore passagemakers. He's a very accomplished sailor in his own right, has been spending his winters in the Bahamas, and his own eyes and ears have been telling him stories the same as mine...

But, while such 'anecdotal' evidence offered by people such myself or Jeb might be easy to disregard, I would suggest the opinion of a guy like Don Street would be a bit more difficult to ignore... Anyone who knows him, is well aware that the opinion I've offered here is but a less informed reflection of his own... But, the guy who wrote THE book on Trans-Atlantic/Caribbean passagemaking, and has been in the yacht insurance business for almost half a century, well... what would HE know about this stuff, right? Yeah, those CG numbers tell a far truer tale, I'm sure...



chef2sail said:


> There are many instances where the crew is in danger and the boat doesn't sink but is found floating later.


Funny you should mention that, to me that simply serves as further evidence how clearly the game has changed... After all, it wasn't all that long ago that the generally accepted proper seamanlike procedure was to scuttle a vessel being abandoned. Now, however, it's striking how rarely such an act is carried out - Skip Allan's scuttling of his WILDFLOWER off California a few years ago is the last example that comes to mind... This recent case off Charleston seems a pretty clear instance how the mentality has increasingly shifted towards an attitude of "Enough of this sh_t, just get me out of here, and I'll send a salvage team out to pick up the boat after things settle down..."

Just the first half of 2013 appears to be one for the record books... We had that Polish yacht foolishly attempting a mid-winter Atlantic crossing, rescued in mid-ocean in February... Those yahoos calling themselves 'delivery captains' going out around Hatteras during one of the most intense winter storms of the season... Then, there was the abandonment of the Swan 48 WOLFHOUND on a passage from CT to Bermuda and points south in February...

One of the better examples of today's "Easy Come, Easy Go" attitude towards yacht ownership and offshore passagemaking... A guy is determined to to show off his shiny new toy in a midwinter Caribbean regatta, so he leaves New England in February with known issues - including the vessel's battery charging system - unresolved... Yeah, what could possibly go wrong? We've got an EPIRB, after all...

Abandon Ship! The Rescue of the Crew of Wolfhound

COME AND GET IT: Free Swan 48 Available


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, then...
> 
> In the days before Loran, then SatNav, and ultimately GPS became commonplace aboard small yachts, I saw precious little evidence that people tended to "blow off" learning how to navigate by traditional means, and setting off on extended offshore passages with at least someone aboard practiced in the art of being able to find their way to their destination... (Always exceptions, of course, perhaps Tania Aebi being one of the most notable - she might STILL be trying to find Bermuda if it hadn't been for the very powerful RDF beacon on St David's Head (grin))... So, I'll maintain my observation based upon my experience over the years, that GPS has changed everything, and now enables people with far less voyaging experience to venture offshore, and potentially 'out-sail' the boundaries that have traditionally been imposed by having to find your own way to a destination...


I don't disagree at all that more people are likely setting out due to vastly improved electronics. I think you're absolutely right about that.

It's the assertions you're making in the face of the numbers that don't really hold water. For example...



JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but I'm not seeing where those numbers indicate anything beyond the fact that more people are now calling SeaTow, as opposed to the Coast Guard...


You're making the assertion that the 60% drop in CG Cases are due to towing calls? If that's the case, then the actual SAR numbers have generally held steady - which means this next assertion isn't really accurate...



JonEisberg said:


> I'm afraid we will all pay a future price - whether it be in terms of regulation, insurance, whatever - if the CG or other rescue services continue to be called to save sailors merely from further or prolonged 'unpleasantness', and not necessarily from life-threatening situations, *at the rate this stuff seems to be happening nowadays...*


What rate is that? Where are you getting your numbers?

Remember Fastnet? Those were some very experienced sailors (a whole bunch of them) who got off floating boats due to unpleasantness.

But then come the numbers in that CG report, and you say this...



JonEisberg said:


> I still think you and some others are reading way too much into the "facts and figures" offered thus far re CG sorties/incidents/rescues... Attempting to extrapolate any meaning applying to the possible increase or decrease in the number of abandonments of cruising yachts offshore from such gross totals is silly...


...while still drawing plenty of your own conclusions that don't hold up very well in the face of those numbers. That's the only reason I'm debating you on this. I just don't think you're right.

Now, GRANTED, I don't know the specifics of the numbers either. Like you've said, neither of us do. But for your assertions to hold, several things must be true (some of which are, some which don't seem to be):

1. Electronics have allowed more inexperienced sailors to do open passages.
2. More of these sailors are getting into trouble due to failing electronics and no understanding of how to get along with out them - or blindly following them into trouble like the Rule 62 incident.
3. Those sailors are willing to use the GPS like On-Star and call in the CG because they are uncomfortable on the boat.
4. This number is increasing to the point that the CG is concerned enough to call for regulation.

On the one hand, I can absolutely see where reliance on electronics and the engine is increasing. And I grant you that when everything goes south in a storm and your primary sources of reliance are gone - you'll be very tempted to push the button before you "should".

But, unlike you, I think these instances, at least in relation to the number of passages being done and the number of SAR calls actually involved, are extremely low. I absolutely don't see anywhere in the numbers that this is a drastically growing problem that is threatening to cause the CG to call for increased regulation.

I hold that electronics are a fantastic tool for sailors precisely because they generally allow a much safer passage with far fewer major mistakes. For example, I love having radar at night when we're sailing through the abandoned rigs in the Gulf. Not even my Mark I eyeball can always find those things when there's no moon.

And I will also confess this, now that I own my own boat, I'm not yet ready to head out big. The offshoring I've done has been as crew on races. I need to learn a lot more about analog navigation (and a lot of other stuff) before I take off. And I will.

At the end of the day, I just think the numbers actually speak for themselves. Things are improving in terms of SAR. Probably due to electronics.

(PS - Is the headstay missing on that Swan? If so, that's a little worse than a dead battery.)


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Jon's right. But other issue is failure to realize that even if you are past your limits rare the boat is.did passage. Had floor boards floating. All sails blew out. Threw drogues. Went below. Came up when storm gone. Gerry rigged sail. Headed west until in sight of land. Set smoke. Got home. No electronics. No CG.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jon,,

i actually agree with everything you wrote . i am not dismissive of your nor your friends obvious experience. I am suprised however of your dismissal out of hand of the CG facts.

Some of us also have at least SOME experience offshore too and many of us know our seamanship and charts. Our opinions should nt be o easily dismissed when we beleive the electronics has made our travels safer, not more dangerous.

Of course you can cite many incidents where the electronics made some overreach , but that's the nature of failures, they get reported. You can't cite the many times nor did it make news when the electronics actually helped and made the situation better.

Dave



JonEisberg said:


> Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, then...
> 
> In the days before Loran, then SatNav, and ultimately GPS became commonplace aboard small yachts, I saw precious little evidence that people tended to "blow off" learning how to navigate by traditional means, and setting off on extended offshore passages with at least someone aboard practiced in the art of being able to find their way to their destination... (Always exceptions, of course, perhaps Tania Aebi being one of the most notable - she might STILL be trying to find Bermuda if it hadn't been for the very powerful RDF beacon on St David's Head (grin))... So, I'll maintain my observation based upon my experience over the years, that GPS has changed everything, and now enables people with far less voyaging experience to venture offshore, and potentially 'out-sail' the boundaries that have traditionally been imposed by having to find your own way to a destination... I'll repeat what I've said numerous times before: the case of RULE 62 seems the prime most recent example - there is no way IMHO that guy would have set off for the islands, with his apparent lack of experience and that particular crew aboard, in the pre-GPS era...
> 
> ...


----------



## wolfenzee (Jul 13, 2008)

Loss of electric causes it's biggest problem with "push button navigators", water only accessible with an electric pump and don't for get about electric can openers. Why the sails were shredded is what I am curious about, were the all the sails in really bad shape and/or did they not reef down before they were damaged. Some boats just do not belong at sea...the Cape Dory is a good sea boat. So to have to abandon ship because of no enigine and limited electric....the actual condition of the sails and/or sail inventory is something I am curious about....some boats can take alot more than the crew do and/or some crew panic way before they are in actual danger.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> > I'm afraid we will all pay a future price - whether it be in terms of regulation, insurance, whatever - if the CG or other rescue services continue to be called to save sailors merely from further or prolonged 'unpleasantness', and not necessarily from life-threatening situations, *at the rate this stuff seems to be happening nowadays...*
> 
> 
> What rate is that? Where are you getting your numbers?


I can't offer any numbers, thus I used the word "*seems*" for a reason... Again, that is merely my _impression_, based upon my personal observation over time...



smackdaddy said:


> Remember Fastnet? Those were some very experienced sailors (a whole bunch of them) who got off floating boats due to unpleasantness.


Yeah, I do recall something about a Fastnet Disaster, actually...

Certainly, there were many very experienced sailors out in the Irish Sea that night, but not necessarily all were so... As the official inquiry pointedly made clear:



> There is no qualification in terms of competence or experience for skippers or crews to enter the Fastnet Race.


15 sailors died in that race. In hindsight, some crews paid a heavy price for their decision to abandon their yachts. Almost half of the fatalities (7) were of sailors from boats later found, and salvaged... Again, from the official inquiry:



> Life rafts clearly failed to provide the safe refuge which many crews expected. Seven lives were lost in incidents associated with rafts of which three were directly attributable to the failure of the raft and the yachts which these seven people abandoned were subsequently found afloat and towed to harbour.


That dreadful reminder will always remain one of the most cogent lessons to be learned from the 1979 Fastnet... And yet, how quickly many of today's sailors _*seem*_ to have forgotten it, no? (grin)



smackdaddy said:


> At the end of the day, I just think the numbers actually speak for themselves. Things are improving in terms of SAR. Probably due to electronics.


Well, to maintain that view, it seems you have to deny how dramatically the mission of the CG was changed by Congress in 1982, and it's continuing evolution into a drug interdiction agency under Bush the Elder, and then into a Border Security agency post 9/11, not to mention the creation of towing services to take up the slack, and then that minor economic 'correction' in 2008 which has likely affected those totals to a significant degree...



smackdaddy said:


> (PS - Is the headstay missing on that Swan? If so, that's a little worse than a dead battery.)


Must have failed after the abandonment, likely a result of damage incurred in the collision alongside the ship... The headstay certainly appears to be in place during the final view they had of her:










In any event, even if such a failure had occurred, it should not have necessarily been cause to abandon her... Any boat going offshore should be carrying a spare replacement shroud - whether it be wire, or spectra or similar - at least as long as the headstay or backstay... It would be truly pathetic, were a beauty like WOLFHOUND set adrift due to the lack of the means, or the crew's ability, to jury rig a replacement using bulldog clips, halyards, lashings, or whatever...



chef2sail said:


> jon,,
> 
> i actually agree with everything you wrote . i am not dismissive of your nor your friends obvious experience. I am suprised however of your dismissal out of hand of the CG facts.


I am not "dismissing" the CG "facts" - I am simply at a loss as to how to meaningfully interpret such numbers... Perhaps you can educate us. For the year 2012, for example, what should the "fact" that the CG recorded "43,864 Responses" tell us - with any degree of precision, or enlightenment - about the number or sailing yachts abandoned at sea, and whether they were done so under life-threatening conditions, or not?

Again, you and smackdaddy appear to be ignoring the massive prior case load that used to pad the CG's numbers in prior to the transferal of so much of their former mission to Sea Tow, and TowBoat/US:



> SB: Has Sea Tow's mission changed since the beginning? If so, in what ways?
> JF: Yes, our mission has changed over the years. The formative years were rough, as with any industry starting from the ground up. Remember, Sea Tow took on the challenge of privatizing what used to be a government/Coast Guard function starting in 1983. It took a long time for the industry to develop, along with the professionalism. And of course after September 11, the Coast Guard's mission changed once again talking on additional Homeland Security duties as a new part of that Department.
> 
> More work was placed on the Coast Guard with little change in budget, so Sea Tow and others are counted on even more to help be the eyes and ears on the water.
> ...


Now, TowBoat/US is an even larger organization than Sea Tow, so I think we can reasonably double that number of responses to 100,000...

So, roughly 100,000 additional calls annually that are no longer being attributed to the CG, and yet you're insisting that the Dept of Transportation's numbers are currently the most accurate representation of the "facts" regarding the frequency with which boaters are currently calling for assistance? Seriously?



chef2sail said:


> Some of us also have at least SOME experience offshore too and many of us know our seamanship and charts. Our opinions should nt be o easily dismissed when we beleive the electronics has made our travels safer, not more dangerous.
> 
> Of course you can cite many incidents where the electronics made some overreach , but that's the nature of failures, they get reported. You can't cite the many times nor did it make news when the electronics actually helped and made the situation better.
> 
> Dave


For the life of me, I am at a complete loss as to my obvious inability to make myself understood regarding this subject... (grin)

Why, whenever I post regarding the downside or risk of misuse or over-reliance on electronics, do some immediately cast me as some sort of Luddite? I am not "dismissing" your opinion that "electronics might have made your travels safer", I am AGREEING with you, for chrissake...

Have you never heard of a 'Double-Edged Sword"? Is it not in the realm of possibility that while such aids can greatly enhance the safety of those with the experience to use them wisely, and understand their limitations, _at the same time_ they might have the potential to lead others of insufficient experience or understanding into danger? Why do you continue to assume there must be some sort of mutual exclusivity from holding two such notions simultaneously?


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Have you never heard of a 'Double-Edged Sword"? Is it not in the realm of possibility that while such aids can greatly enhance the safety of those with the experience to use them wisely, and understand their limitations, _at the same time_ they might have the potential to lead others of insufficient experience or understanding into danger? Why do you continue to assume there must be some sort of mutual exclusivity from holding two such notions simultaneously?


Agreed!

It is so! Generally true about most systems where humans are involved. It has been curious following the analysis in this thread, of ignorance and possibly stupidity, lack of understanding and situational awareness, that have shaped our world and continue to do so. An, EIJ.  The Coast Guard is an anomaly.

Down


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> For the life of me, I am at a complete loss as to my obvious inability to make myself understood regarding this subject... (grin)
> 
> Why, whenever I post regarding the downside or risk of misuse or over-reliance on electronics, do some immediately cast me as some sort of Luddite? I am not "dismissing" your opinion that "electronics might have made your travels safer", I am AGREEING with you, for chrissake...


This is the most frustrating aspect of this argument with the folks who defend these idiots who have to call the USCG for rescue. They keep trying to twist the argument into something defensible, because the actions of sailors like Walbridge and other idiots are really indefensible.

To put it into simple terms:

Electronics = good

Coast Guard = good

EPIRBs/PLBs = good

Necessary rescues = good

Retards who need to be rescued due to poor judgment, cowardice, lack of relevant experience, lack of preparedness = bad

We all like the technological advancements in sailing. Let's talk about the poor decision making, reckless risk taking, and bad judgment: going offshore in the face of a superstorm, not heading in when the engine fails on a new-to-you boat, not understanding how to make a passage without electronics or engine, not apprehending the probable risk of loss of power and electricity in a storm, and not being prepared for storm conditions with even the minimal required equipment like storms sails, flashlights and functioning bilge pumps.

I don't care how many years of experience one has, how many miles under the keel one has traveled, if one does not respect the sea and the weather, and one is incapable of apprehending the likely risks and judging the perils of sailing at a particular time and place, one is not a good sailor. Walbridge is Exhibit A in that regard. Being a good sailor is about prudent judgment and problem solving, with some foundation of technical knowledge, not about whether you know the name of the belaying pin on the mizzenmast of a 17th century square rigger.


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

jameswilson29 said:


> This is the most frustrating aspect of this argument with the folks who defend these idiots who have to call the USCG for rescue. They keep trying to twist the argument into something defensible, because the actions of sailors like Walbridge and other idiots are really indefensible.
> 
> To put it into simple terms:
> 
> ...


Amen!

Down


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

No one is defending any idiots James. Your hyperbole is an overdramatization
Expected from a lawyer. Glad you aren't on the other than your self appointed one

When yo u ask for more info doesn't make you less than. Also those who hold opinions different than yours aren't idiots either

. Hopefully Someday if you continue sailing you will be faced with a threatening situation on your boat despite your most meticulous training and planning in which your decision will get analyzed ad nauseum by the SN jury.

Too much time spent on worrying and criticizing others in the guise of a learning "experience" on common sense actions. It becomes like a "sport" with the same usual suspects.

You can't change or regulate what others do. Pointing fingers at them repeatedly serves no purpose but to fan the fires IMHO. The double edge sword Jon speaks about goes both ways.

Just go enjoy your sailing. Minimize you risks. Stay safe in your lane. Let others decide what works for them.

And if you get in trouble you can't handle call the Coast Gaurd to. Save you or your charges lives. There is no special heaven for heros.

And by the way the term "*RETARDS*'" you used is an extremely offensive term to me and probably others also.



jameswilson29 said:


> This is the most frustrating aspect of this argument with the folks who defend these idiots who have to call the USCG for rescue. They keep trying to twist the argument into something defensible, because the actions of sailors like Walbridge and other idiots are really indefensible.
> 
> To put it into simple terms:
> 
> ...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

I can't believe there was no way of securing some sort of headstay on that Swan but that's just speculation. What DOES seem to be missing in both these cases is a reliable method of heaving-to. Neither seems to have had the ability, in bad conditions, to either set a sea anchor or a drogue. IMO, any boat going farther from land than it is possible to run back in to escape bad weather, needs some sort of reliable stabilizing/go-below-wait-it-out equipment. When sea conditions become unmanageable, there HAS to be an alternative, some way of putting one of the ends into the sea for both comfort and safety. Sooner or later, any boat making offshore passages will encounter such conditions. It's not IF but WHEN.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> I can't believe there was no way of securing some sort of headstay on that Swan but that's just speculation. What DOES seem to be missing in both these cases is a reliable method of heaving-to. Neither seems to have had the ability, in bad conditions, to either set a sea anchor or a drogue. IMO, any boat going farther from land than it is possible to run back in to escape bad weather, needs some sort of reliable stabilizing/go-below-wait-it-out equipment. When sea conditions become unmanageable, there HAS to be an alternative, some way of putting one of the ends into the sea for both comfort and safety. Sooner or later, any boat making offshore passages will encounter such conditions. It's not IF but WHEN.


Well, as I said in my initial post, absent of further details regarding the abandonment off Charleston, that full cockpit enclosure tells me pretty much all I need to know... (grin) It's one thing to sail such a passage in such 'Splendid Isolation' from the elements, and maintain such a diminished capacity to sense the approach of squalls at night, etc.... But, to leave such a contraption deployed in anticipation of dealing with tropical storm force conditions, however, seems a clear indication to me they really hadn't a clue about what they were likely to encounter, or how best to prepare for it...

Assuming the boat was an Island Packet, such a boat shouldn't have been all that difficult to heave-to... (In fairness, if indeed the main had been "shredded" earlier, the windage of cockpit enclosure could have actually served as somewhat of a substitute in enabling them to do so) I'm guessing this boat was likely minimally equipped for offshore, I'd be surprised it they were carrying such gear as a trysail or storm jib, or sea anchors/drogues, and so on...

I have no way of knowing this, of course, but to me this sounds like a classic case of someone picking up a boat in the islands which likely made its way down there via the Thornless Path, and then sat there for awhile... I'd happily wager their engine issue 2 days out was nothing more than a fuel tank which had been brewing grunge after sitting in the tropics for awhile, and they ran out of filters or simply couldn't keep it running any longer... I could be completely wrong, of course, but such a scenario is so common to boats being brought back from the tropics or Florida, I'd suggest it's at least a reasonable supposition...

Perhaps the ultimate irony of all this, is the fact that by the time the Coasties arrived to pluck them off the boat and away to 'safety', they had already weathered the dangerous semicircle of Andrea, the center of which had already passed them by, and was by then located inland in North Carolina... Again, in fairness, the most dangerous and confusing sea conditions are often to be found in the wake of a blow, when winds have begun to subside, but still...

Seems to me, however, basically yet another classic case of poor preparation, and failure to heed the significance 2 days into the passage of what was clearly destined to become the beginning of a Chain of Cascading Failure, and ultimately placing them in a place, and situation, they never should have been to begin with...


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> Remember Fastnet? Those were some very experienced sailors (a whole bunch of them) who got off floating boats due to unpleasantness.
> 
> I don't begrudge anyone who calls the Coast Guard because they think they are going to die. I wasn't on board the boat in this current discussion, so I don't know how bad it was.
> 
> I have also met and sailed with Don Green, owner/captain of Evergreen, one of the boats in the Fastnet. He firmly believes in staying with the boat, and said it a few times, "just stay with boat". If I see him again, I will ask him what he would have done were it 2013 with presumably much better SAR service.


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

Chef,

I understand the reference to the to the word "*retards*" being offensive but I don't think, here, it was intended to mean anything other than: "thoughtless, ignorant, foolish, irresponsible, etc." That is how I understood it. That old interpretation of the word is not applicable in this instance. It is not meant to disparage anyone with unfortunate disabilities. And _never_ should be!

I have a problem with people who take unnecessary risks or make irresponsible, careless decisions when the outcomes place others at risk. This is a problem at many levels and I don't know how it can be managed. Sending my son out to risk his own life and rescue some risk takers who have gotten themselves into an avoidable crisis is a problem for me. There is no way to discriminate once the s&^% hits the fan. Everyone gets helped. Perhaps we need a legal mechanism for evaluating the events, after the fact, coming up with a punitive result when judged to be "clearly avoidable". A price for risking others lives might change some behaviors?

It is a growing problem. The "Boomers" are loose! Ha!

Down


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, as I said in my initial post, absent of further details regarding the abandonment off Charleston, that full cockpit enclosure tells me pretty much all I need to know... (grin) It's one thing to sail such a passage in such 'Splendid Isolation' from the elements, and maintain such a diminished capacity to sense the approach of squalls at night, etc.... But, to leave such a contraption deployed in anticipation of dealing with tropical storm force conditions, however, seems a clear indication to me they really hadn't a clue about what they were likely to encounter, or how best to prepare for it...
> 
> Assuming the boat was an Island Packet, such a boat shouldn't have been all that difficult to heave-to... (In fairness, if indeed the main had been "shredded" earlier, the windage of cockpit enclosure could have actually served as somewhat of a substitute in enabling them to do so) I'm guessing this boat was likely minimally equipped for offshore, I'd be surprised it they were carrying such gear as a trysail or storm jib, or sea anchors/drogues, and so on...
> 
> ...


"Minimally equipped for offshore..." seems to be a constant in these cases. Maybe some of the sailors who make these kinds of passages to deliver boats for strangers should read the Pardey's _Storm Tactics_ Storm Tactics Handbook: Modern Methods of Heaving-to for Survival in Extreme Conditions, 3rd Edition: Lin Pardey, Larry Pardey: 9781929214471: Amazon.com: [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@51OoH6Aej5L or similar informational material. There is plenty of information out there about how to prepare for bad weather but it seems like many may simply be ignorant of this stuff. Nothing's going to prevent the danger of a "perfect storm" but you can surely improve chances of survival *and level of comfort *with some fairly minimal preparation.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Ninefingers said:


> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > Remember Fastnet? Those were some very experienced sailors (a whole bunch of them) who got off floating boats due to unpleasantness.
> ...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> I can't offer any numbers, thus I used the word "*seems*" for a reason... Again, that is merely my _impression_, based upon my personal observation over time...
> 
> I am not "dismissing" the CG "facts" - I am simply at a loss as to how to meaningfully interpret such numbers... Perhaps you can educate us. For the year 2012, for example, what should the "fact" that the CG recorded "43,864 Responses" tell us - with any degree of precision, or enlightenment - about the number or sailing yachts abandoned at sea, and whether they were done so under life-threatening conditions, or not?
> 
> ...


Jon, I've argued with you on this because your posts are usually pretty condescending toward those that call for help. Now, to be sure, I have no problem with condescension in general (it can be a lot of fun) - but if one is going to take that position, one should have pretty clear facts backing it up. You've just been pretty loose with the facts and heavy on the opinion. That's all.

That said, the more we talk about it, the more I think we're pretty close to being on the same page (i.e. - your double-edged sword explanation above with which I fully agree).

As for the CG numbers, I personally take them for what they are. And on that front, they show a steady decline of calls. If what you're trying to say is something along the lines that of the ~60K cases, ~50K of those were tow requests and 10K were SAR calls, well okay. In that case, the SAR calls would have doubled over that period of time. And I think the point you're trying to make is that that supposed increase is due to inexperienced sailors getting in over their heads and bailing out because calling the CG is easy...this to the point that the CG is likely to call for some kind of regulation. All this without any real numbers to back it up. You're just not making a very convincing case in my opinion.

Furthermore, one of the examples you use, that of _Wolfhound_, involves sailors that were, according to the article you provided, pretty damn experienced. Also, the problems went far beyond a dead battery, and they had reportedly done a pretty good job of preparing the boat before departure - they just got hit by the old failure cascade. The article makes it pretty clear that this is not the best example for your thesis above, though you try to use it that way.

So, I think it's the combination of these things that makes it hard for you to make yourself understood.

Here's the bottom line, I think: For your ideal to hold true, the sailor has to either commit to waiting until the cockpit is awash before getting off or, more fully, commit to dying on his boat when she goes down. If the sailor hits the SAR button before that cockpit is under, he will deserve condescension.

I think this ideal sits pretty well with you (and probably a lot of other sailors, likely singlehanders especially). Personally, though I think the ideal has merit, I'm not sure I'm ready to fully commit to it, especially if I've got family or crew aboard. That was the conclusion of the _Wolfhound's_ skipper. And I won't fault him for it.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, I've argued with you on this because your posts are usually pretty condescending toward those that call for help. Now, to be sure, I have no problem with condescension in general (it can be a lot of fun) - but if one is going to take that position, one should have pretty clear facts backing it up. You've just been pretty loose with the facts and heavy on the opinion. That's all.


Well, I can certainly imagine how some will read my attitude as condescending... For the record, however, unless it is directed at another poster who I believe may truly deserve it (tillerman/dt/Doctor Electron immediately comes to mind (grin)), I don't believe I'm generally in the habit of doing condescension "for fun"...

Sorry I can't offer "pretty clear facts/numbers" to back up what I've written, apparently my personal observations over the years aren't sufficient to form an opinion, or construct an argument persuasive to anyone else - well, so be it... However, I sure wish someone else could produce some convincing numbers that clearly demonstrate today's offshore sailors are pushing the "Beam Me Up, Scotty" Button with ever-decreasing frequency... Again, my own impression is that the reality is quite the opposite...



smackdaddy said:


> Furthermore, one of the examples you use, that of _Wolfhound_, involves sailors that were, according to the article you provided, pretty damn experienced.


What difference should that make? Hell, _I myself_ am pretty damn experienced, after all... And yet, although I dearly wish it were the case, that fact does not make me immune from still doing some pretty stupid things, myself... Should poor seamanship, or a stupid decision on my part, be excused simply because I might happen to be "experienced"? Uhhh, I don't think so...



smackdaddy said:


> Also, the problems went far beyond a dead battery, and they had reportedly done a pretty good job of preparing the boat before departure - they just got hit by the old failure cascade. The article makes it pretty clear that this is not the best example for your thesis above, though you try to use it that way.


Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more strongly...

After repeated delays commissioning the boat that pushed back their original departure by months, they were still determined to sail a highly questionable route to a very tight schedule in the North Atlantic in the dead of winter - a recipe for disaster... No shakedown route through LI Sound and NY Harbor to sort potential problems, instead they headed straight out to sea around Montauk... No less an authority than Don Street thinks the route to the Caribbean via Bermuda is a foolish enough risk in November, I would imagine he would think that it borders on lunacy to attempt in February:

Don Street's Sailing Routes to the Caribbean | Cruising World

By the time they were abeam of the Chesapeake Entrance, they _KNEW_ they were likely to suffer a loss of power before reaching Bermuda... (Hell, reading that account, it actually sounds as if they thought they could use their _INVERTER_ to charge their batteries underway) There was more serious weather in the wake of winter storm Nemo on the way, their window in which to make Bermuda was closing very quickly... They had lost the ability to prepare hot food... Ultimately, they were forced to depend on a single iPad down to 15% power for navigation (No spare handheld GPS stashed in the microwave, a brick of AA batteries, nor paper charts for Bermuda?) Just like the BOUNTY declining to take the last chance to duck into the Chesapeake, they pressed on... And yet, you think such poor judgement in the face of such adversity should be classified as little more than bad luck, or _"getting hit by the old failure cascade"???_ Seriously?



> By Monday morning conditions permitted one hour watches and soon they were sailing properly, but there was concern about a new weather system developing to the eastward in the tail of Storm Nemo. However, satisfactory progress was being maintained and they were able to move up to two hour watches with half hour rotations. The going was good, but that was as good as it was to get. In order to keep up battery power, they tried to put the new Mastervolt Charger/Invertor into service on the remote setting, but the indicator light failed to show. This was serious. They were halfway through the passage to Bermuda, but knew that unless someone aboard suddenly discovered his own previously unrevealed genius as an electrical and electronics engineer, by Day 4 (Tuesday February 5th), all systems except the engine would be down through lack of power - this duly happened at 0350hrs on the Tuesday.


Likewise, the guys who were rescued off Charleston made the same sort of questionable decisions from the outset... As I mentioned earlier, I left Trinidad with an H-R 43 the same day they sailed from the BVIs... With a low pressure trough lying E of the Bahamas at the time, their decision to apparently head directly offshore seems highly questionable, to put it mildly... Then, to press on in the face of an engine failure seems downright boneheaded, to me... Again, my apologies for sounding "condescending", but that's the way I see it...



smackdaddy said:


> Here's the bottom line, I think: For your ideal to hold true, the sailor has to either commit to waiting until the cockpit is awash before getting off or, more fully, commit to dying on his boat when she goes down. If the sailor hits the SAR button before that cockpit is under, he will deserve condescension.
> 
> I think this ideal sits pretty well with you (and probably a lot of other sailors, likely singlehanders especially). Personally, though I think the ideal has merit, I'm not sure I'm ready to fully commit to it, especially if I've got family or crew aboard. That was the conclusion of the _Wolfhound's_ skipper. And I won't fault him for it.


Yet again, I've obviously failed to make my point clear...

I'm am not faulting people for calling for rescue when there is no alternative, or in a truly life-threatening situation... Once it becomes apparent it is the right choice, it should be undertaken with dispatch, waiting until such time as "the cockpit is awash" is a good way to get your crew killed, after all... (yet another of the mistakes made aboard the BOUNTY, as a matter of fact)...

However, one of the best definitions of 'Seamanship', IMHO, goes something to the effect of _"using one's experience and skills in an anticipatory fashion such that one is not put in a position to be COMPELLED to demonstrate said superior experience and skills in order to extricate oneself from a dicey situation..." _ Neither WOLFHOUND, nor that boat off Charleston, should ever have been in the position where they required rescue to begin with, and _THAT_ is what I'm criticizing their respective skippers for...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

downeast450 said:


> Chef,
> 
> I understand the reference to the to the word "*retards*" being offensive but I don't think, here, it was intended to mean anything other than: "thoughtless, ignorant, foolish, irresponsible, etc." That is how I understood it. That old interpretation of the word is not applicable in this instance. It is not meant to disparage anyone with unfortunate disabilities.


Having a member of my family who is retarded I find great offense at that remark, as I would find offense at any remark which disparaged any ethnic group, religious affiliation, gay or any other different person. I believe most people do. My relative is neither


> "thoughtless, ignorant, foolish, irresponsible, etc."


.


> He has a COGNITIVE MENTAL DISORDER by genetics which has none of the above characteristics.


.

The word comes from a lawyer...I wonder how many times he uses that word in court in front of others, no matter what you think he meant by it I am sure he doesn't so as not to offend a juror. but its ok here right cause its the internet. No rules of decency APLY HERE

In any manner of speaking its an OFFENSIVE remark the way it was used.

Enough said about it. This thread was not about that comment was way out of bounds.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I can certainly imagine how some will read my attitude as condescending... For the record, however, unless it is directed at another poster who I believe may truly deserve it (tillerman/dt/Doctor Electron immediately comes to mind (grin)), I don't believe I'm generally in the habit of doing condescension "for fun"...
> 
> Sorry I can't offer "pretty clear facts/numbers" to back up what I've written, apparently my personal observations over the years aren't sufficient to form an opinion, or construct an argument persuasive to anyone else - well, so be it... However, I sure wish someone else could produce some convincing numbers that clearly demonstrate today's offshore sailors are pushing the "Beam Me Up, Scotty" Button with ever-decreasing frequency... Again, my own impression is that the reality is quite the opposite...
> 
> ...


Agree with the seamanship definition. Maybe they shouldn't have been there.

Can you lend you experience and crystal ball to others.

I really don't care why they are there or how they got there. No one has set standards of procedures on what is right or wrong to go offshore except of course the self professed experts who believe they are the bees knees of seamanship.

When in danger call the CG that's all simple as that. No fault insurance


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> However, one of the best definitions of 'Seamanship', IMHO, goes something to the effect of _"using one's experience and skills in an anticipatory fashion such that one is not put in a position to be COMPELLED to demonstrate said superior experience and skills in order to extricate oneself from a dicey situation..." _ Neither WOLFHOUND, nor that boat off Charleston, should ever have been in the position where they required rescue to begin with, and _THAT_ is what I'm criticizing their respective skippers for...


I'll agree with you on that.

And I also agree that the Wolfhound skipper's decision not to pull into the Chessie was their biggest mistake. That struck me while reading the story. The reason I said these guys didn't fit your thesis very well was I thought your point was that _electronics and On-StarPIRBS_ were drawing _inexperienced sailors_ into bad situations. From my reading of the article, these Wolfhound guys were experienced - they just made some bad decisions. To me that's a different cup of skipjack.

That said, I personally wouldn't put the Wolfhound guys and the subjects of this thread in the same league. Maybe what that means is that the Wolfhound guys are more open to slamming for their mistakes. I don't know. I'm just saying I won't slam that skipper for making the call to push the button considering the situation they were in. It was bad.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Can you lend you experience and crystal ball to others.
> 
> I really don't care why they are there or how they got there. No one has set standards of procedures on what is right or wrong to go offshore except of course the self professed experts who believe they are the bees knees of seamanship.


LOL!

Well, I'm not sure one really needs a Crystal Ball to appreciate the risk of undertaking a North Atlantic passage in the middle of one of the more volatile winters North America has seen for weather in recent years, on the initial voyage aboard a brand-new-to-the-owner boat, with some known 'issues', and persisting in the face of the likelihood of a total loss of power, etc...

Nor, should a Fortune Teller be required to assess the risk of setting out for the first voyage from the Virgin Islands aboard another boat of unknown quantity, to the east of a low pressure pressure trough parked off the Bahamas at the start of hurricane season, and continuing on such a passage after the failure of the boat's engine, rather than re-shaping a route closer to the various hidey-holes offered by the Greater Antilles, and passing behind the most likely potential track of the low...

But, then again, perhaps that's just me...

Yeah, as long as the batteries are up in the EPIRB or satphone, it's all good... (grin)


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Ok.. here's a question. Given their predicament. Assuming no sails, no engine, no sea anchor, but they wanted to ride it out, wait for the weather to clear and see if they could rig a sail. What would the strategy look like ? 

Run downwind/seas with bare poles? If they needed to slow, trail warps?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I'm not sure one really needs a Crystal Ball to appreciate the risk of undertaking a North Atlantic passage in the middle of one of the more volatile winters North America has seen for weather in recent years, on the initial voyage aboard a brand-new-to-the-owner boat, with some *known 'issues'*, and persisting in the face of the likelihood of a total loss of power, etc...


Again, you make it sound like these guys _knew_ they had a problem boat and headed out anyway, without any care for the weather/route. Where do you get that? The story seems to say otherwise:



> However, they knew there were some days of work to be done in any case before they could sail, and by the time that was completed the economy of Connecticut had benefited from the Wolfhound campaign by a significant amount. As expected, a new top-of-the-range Viking liferaft had to be installed, but less clearly expected was the necessary acquisition of a new Zodiac inflatable tender and outboard, and completely inexplicable was the need to install a new Charger/Inverter, the original having disappeared. The boat, in other words, was not precisely as Alan remembered her from the last time he'd seen her in early December, but with goodwill all round she was made ready for sea.
> 
> Thanks to friends in the Cruising Club of America, Alan and his crew had a briefing session with people well used to sailing the 650 miles to Bermuda at 1215 on Saturday 2nd February, and at 1530 hrs they headed out round the northeast end of Long Island and shaped their course parallel with the American coast towards Cape May in order to slip between weather systems and get in to more clement conditions as quickly as possible, for though the winds were favourable northerlies and easing after the storm force winds of Nemo, the temperature was minus 8.


Maybe they installed the inverter themselves and never tested it? This would jive better with your portrayal of these guys. But I sure don't see that in the story. Maybe it just broke - leading to the cascade laid out in the article.

This is what I mean by being a little loose with the facts as portrayed in these articles.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> That said, I personally wouldn't put the Wolfhound guys and the subjects of this thread in the same league. Maybe what that means is that the Wolfhound guys are more open to slamming for their mistakes. I don't know. I'm just saying I won't slam that skipper for making the call to push the button considering the situation they were in. It was bad.


I don't disagree, if I found myself in similar straits, can't say I wouldn't have done the same...

I would hope I would have managed to avoid the temptation to publish this poem afterwards, however... (grin)



> Wolfhound (the adventures of Alan, Morgan, Declan & Tom)
> 
> Dublin, Boston, then Bermuda bound
> To start our journey on the new Wolfhound
> ...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Again, you make it sound like these guys _knew_ they had a problem boat and headed out anyway, without any care for the weather/route. Where do you get that? The story seems to say otherwise:
> 
> Maybe they installed the inverter themselves and never tested it? This would jive better with your portrayal of these guys. But I sure don't see that in the story. Maybe it just broke - leading to the cascade laid out in the article.
> 
> This is what I mean by being a little loose with the facts as portrayed in these articles.


You're right, "unknown issues" is probably more correct... It certainly sounds as if they never bothered to try the "newly installed" inverter until they were well underway... (Still trying to figure out what they would be accomplishing by "putting the inverter/charger into service", as there has never been any mention of a generator onboard) That would seem to be in line with other aspects of their pre-departure prep - or lack thereof - such as never having gotten around to registering their EPIRB...



> "That boat has bad karma imo."
> 
> "The engine runs at the dock, but shuts down at sea..."


That quote comes from the former captain of the boat under her previous owner, when she was named BELLA LUNA... He was taking her south as part of the NARC Rally in 2011 that got trashed between Newport and Bermuda... In an odd coincidence, he got just about as close to St George's as McGettigan did, before they fell off a wave and blew out the speed transducer thru-hull fitting... Wound up with a couple of feet of water below, which seems a circumstance considerably more dire than she later experienced as WOLFHOUND... But instead, they plugged the hole, pumped her out, and diverted to Charleston for repairs...

FREE SWAN 48: More Info And A Plan

The embedded YouTube interview is a bit long and drawn out, but pretty compelling nevertheless...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Oh yeah. I watched Drake's interview of AJ several months ago - and his and Mo's ride along on Bella Luna down to the islands. It's on his YouTube channel.

AJ seems like the real deal.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Those cheap little automotive inverters that plug into cigarette receptacles work quite well for charging up cell phones and computers. If the main inverter goes out, at least you can keep chartplotters, computers and phones charged.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> I really don't care why they are there or how they got there. No one has set standards of procedures on what is right or wrong to go offshore except of course the self professed experts who believe they are the bees knees of seamanship.
> 
> When in danger call the CG that's all simple as that. No fault insurance


Wow, that's certainly a more 'charitable' view than mine... (grin)

Just curious... Say you had a family member who was a CG Rescue Swimmer... Would you be just as happy to see him called to jump out of a helo into 20' seas in the middle of a winter's night, a hundred miles or more east of Hatteras, to rescue a recreational boater in dire straits due to recklessness, imprudence, or sheer stupidity - as to save the crew of a commercial fishing or merchant vessel, who perhaps had more 'business' being out there, were doing everything in a competent and professional manner, and who simply had an unanticipated failure/run of bad luck? You'd make no distinction whatsoever between 2 such comparable incidents, in respect to your willingness to see CG rescue assets being compelled to expose themselves to such risks in either case? Seriously?

Charlie Doane has raised some interesting points on this very difficult issue:



> *RESCUE COMPENSATION: A Modest Proposal *
> 
> Tuesday, 13 July 2010 17:06
> Written by Charles Doane
> ...


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

When I registered my PLB, I had to certify my understanding that it was not to be activated unless I was in distress and REQUIRED IMMEDIATE assistance.

I believe this is the applicable federal regulation:eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations

47 CFR § 80.1111 Distress alerting.
(a) The transmission of a distress alert indicates that a mobile unit or person is in distress and requires immediate assistance. The distress alert is a digital selective call using a distress call format in bands used for terrestrial radiocommunication or a distress message format, which is relayed through space stations.

We could eliminate 90% of these unnecessary distress calls with the implementation and public knowledge of 2 regulations:

1. The vessel must be scuttled as it poses a risk to maritime navigation, either by the owner/operator or by the USCG at the owner's/operator's expense.

2. The owner and operator of the vessel are jointly liable for all the actual costs of rescue, to be reimbursed within, say, 90 days of rescue, if the USCG determines either that immediate assistance was not required, or if the rescue could have reasonably been avoided with prudent trip planning and seamanship.

So, sure, you can call the Coast Guard, but you will lose your vessel in every event and, in the event you are at fault for the distress situation or unnecessary rescue, you will pay for the rescue.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Wouldn't scuttling a plastic boat bring down environmental law upon the scuttler? The disposal of plastic is illegal on all waters, not to mention the release of fuel and other prohibited substances.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

O.K.

"...provided the vessel is in water with a depth of at least 50' ."

At the rate we are going, we will be seeing some EPIRB activations in the Bay when the chop gets above 3 feet.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

smurphny said:


> Wouldn't scuttling a plastic boat bring down environmental law upon the scuttler? The disposal of plastic is illegal on all waters, not to mention the release of fuel and other prohibited substances.


On a serious note, these unmanned, unlighted, abandoned sailboats are, in fact, a hazard to navigation to all of us, particularly those of us in other small sailboats.

How would you like to run into that Swan 48 at hull speed during a period of poor visibility?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jameswilson29 said:


> On a serious note, these unmanned, unlighted, abandoned sailboats are, in fact, a hazard to navigation to all of us, particularly those of us in other small sailboats.
> 
> How would you like to run into that Swan 48 at hull speed during a period of poor visibility?


Well, chances are I'd run into it while down below grabbing a quick nap while singlehanding, so I'd have little cause to gripe about it, actually... (grin)

However, if you're gonna hit an abandoned derelict, may as well make it a beauty like WOLFHOUND, no? Having a shot at salvaging something like that might not be all that bad a deal... With my luck, however, I'd run into that Island Packet off Charleston, instead....

It will be interesting to see what happens with that one... The guy claimed they were "tracking" it, and it would be salvaged... One would have thought they would have done so by now, no? Once the Gulf Stream gets hold of that puppy, it's probably time to wave bye-bye...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

jameswilson29 said:


> We could eliminate 90% of these unnecessary distress calls with the implementation and public knowledge of 2 regulations:
> 
> 1. The vessel must be scuttled as it poses a risk to maritime navigation, either by the owner/operator or by the USCG at the owner's/operator's expense.
> 
> ...


Talk about opening the door to litigation.


----------



## wolfenzee (Jul 13, 2008)

Several things I have been able to glean from this thread
Peoples over reliance on push button navigation has removed training in good old fashion seamanship. Electronics fail even under ideal conditions...but when the **** hits the fan it is even more likely to fail, if any part of the electrical system goes down you techno gizmos go down. 
As the USCG has been adsorbed into "Fatherland Security" they are putting more emphasis in their training towards protecting our borders and less towards what they were set up to do. 
No matter how well you are trained things can still get nasty, sailors need to not only know how to handle this, but having a boat prepared to go offshore is significantly different than a boat set up for weekend coast sailing. 
An important part of preparing a boat for offshore is preparing yourself. I was told that in getting my boat ready I should take her offshore in something nasty and "beat the snot out of her", this would not only help me to ready the boat but help to ready me.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

wolfenzee said:


> Several things I have been able to glean from this thread
> Peoples over reliance on push button navigation has removed training in good old fashion seamanship. Electronics fail even under ideal conditions...but when the **** hits the fan it is even more likely to fail, if any part of the electrical system goes down you techno gizmos go down.
> As the USCG has been adsorbed into "Fatherland Security" they are putting more emphasis in their training towards protecting our borders and less towards what they were set up to do.
> No matter how well you are trained things can still get nasty, sailors need to not only know how to handle this, but having a boat prepared to go offshore is significantly different than a boat set up for weekend coast sailing.
> An important part of preparing a boat for offshore is preparing yourself. I was told that in getting my boat ready I should take her offshore in something nasty and "beat the snot out of her", this would not only help me to ready the boat but help to ready me.


+Freakin'1


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> It will be interesting to see what happens with that one... The guy claimed they were "tracking" it, and it would be salvaged... One would have thought they would have done so by now, no? Once the Gulf Stream gets hold of that puppy, it's probably time to wave bye-bye...


Maybe he wants to assert continued ownership and deny that he ever abandoned it. My brief review reveals that the law of salvage is not entirely settled, particularly if there is some question about whether the vessel is derelict, although the American Rule favors the finder over the owner. Some authorities believe the salvor merely acquires a possessory salvage lien, which must be enforced in the federal court system.

So after all the risks of securing and towing an apparently abandoned vessel home, you might end up with an admiralty suit or a federal case. (Remember the towing collision in the Drake/Paragon case? If you can't sail or motor the Swan 48 home on its own, it can certainly destroy your vessel in bad weather while you tow it.) What is one salvages a vessel at great risk, only to discover the boat is now worth less than the purchase money financing lien? I assume you take title subject to the lien of any secured creditor.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

jameswilson29 said:


> Maybe he wants to assert continued ownership and deny that he ever abandoned it. My brief review reveals that the law of salvage is not entirely settled, particularly if there is some question about whether the vessel is derelict, although the American Rule favors the finder over the owner. Some authorities believe the salvor merely acquires a possessory salvage lien, which must be enforced in the federal court system.
> 
> So after all the risks of securing and towing an apparently abandoned vessel home, you might end up with an admiralty suit or a federal case. (Remember the towing collision in the Drake/Paragon case? If you can't sail or motor the Swan 48 home on its own, it can certainly destroy your vessel in bad weather while you tow it.) What is one salvages a vessel at great risk, only to discover the boat is now worth less than the purchase money financing lien? I assume you take title subject to the lien of any secured creditor.


It would almost certainly be a standard case of, "He with the most expensive lawyers with the best connections wins." In other words: American justice.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Wow, that's certainly a more 'charitable' view than mine... (grin)
> 
> Just curious... Say you had a family member who was a CG Rescue Swimmer... Would you be just as happy to see him called to jump out of a helo into 20' seas in the middle of a winter's night, a hundred miles or more east of Hatteras, to rescue a recreational boater in dire straits due to recklessness, imprudence, or sheer stupidity - as to save the crew of a commercial fishing or merchant vessel, who perhaps had more 'business' being out there, were doing everything in a competent and professional manner, and who simply had an unanticipated failure/run of bad luck? You'd make no distinction whatsoever between 2 such comparable incidents, in respect to your willingness to see CG rescue assets being compelled to expose themselves to such risks in either case? Seriously?
> 
> :


The answer is I would be proud if my family member decided his profession was to save someone's life,,,,, period.

The are far greater egregious situations where our military is put at risk for far less a calling than saving lives say in Afghanistan ( I am sure you protest that too right)

But its ok for the CG to be put at risk on the Bering Sea rescuing crabbers putting pots out next to ice floes in 60 foot seas and 70 mph winds. Why...because they are professionals.

Or maybe someday if/ when you get in trouble Jon and call them because of an unforeseen emergency or a failure on one of the boats and they decide to take stock of you whether to come get you or not. I mean really delivering boats, Is that a reason for them to come get you either?

To me yes it is, but I don't discriminate because someone has called for help.

Listen I don't like any of the military to be put in harms way but they are. I think its a better use of the military ( the CG is part) to have them rescue *ANY *sailor in distress from *ANY* country for *ANY* reason than to have them put at risk in Afghanistan exposed to haters.

The CG is a voluntary organization last time I checked so the swimmer volunteer to do that duty, they aren't conscripted.

And yes I think they should rescue anybody when in their ( CG) assessment they determine they need to be rescued. Who are you to determine that? They are the professionals. I have no problem, with them doing their jobs.

In addition it is proven by the *facts* presented which you fail to recognize due to stubbornness and some kind of professional " feeling " you have that the amount of rescues of people...not just sorties is down. If the facts stated the opposite youd be ramming them down our throats instead.

Just like the axiom says...You can lead a horse to water...but you cant make it drink. For the life of me I cant understand why even the facts seem to escape you here.

The CG is there to save lives period. If you feel you are in peril call them. The CG who will also be there with you can assess and help in the determination. Call the professionals if you need them.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> When I registered my PLB, I had to certify my understanding that it was not to be activated unless I was in distress and REQUIRED IMMEDIATE assistance.
> 
> I believe this is the applicable federal regulation:eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
> 
> ...


Its a great theory, but the premise is wrong as you haven't proven that 90% of the distress calls are unnecessary. And who determines it...the SN jury?

In addition in this case the CG already makes the determination *BEFORE *it comes out in determining whether immediate assistance was required.

I am wary of any lawyer who feels there should be another law created. This is an unnecessary law and a waste of time and is a ploy to create another unenforceable law. The affect of this would not have an effect on the facts of rescues by the CG and would not keep people from asking to be rescued if they felt they needed it.

The sole purpose of is punitive and is to make money for the lawyers.


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

jameswilson29 said:


> We could eliminate 90% of these unnecessary distress calls with the implementation and public knowledge of 2 regulations:
> 
> 1. The vessel must be scuttled as it poses a risk to maritime navigation, either by the owner/operator or by the USCG at the owner's/operator's expense.
> 
> ...


The Coast Guard, of course, is consistently and vocally opposed to any such law. But, what do they know, they don't have a sailnet account!


----------



## tweitz (Apr 5, 2007)

I am late to this thread, and have two comments. First, there is an amazing amount of discussion based on a very short news article. I have never seen a news article about any sailing incident get things right, especially the details. 
Second, one thing to note about those CG statistics we are talking about: If the reason for the decline was a change in methodology or a similar event, the change would be precipitous, not gradual. The fact that it is a fairly steady gradual decline suggest to me that it represents a real trend. I do agree that the changes in mission and transfer of responsibility for towing to the private industry may have some effect, but most of Boat US and Sea Tow work is towing and out-of-fuel calls. In fact, if there is a life in peril on the boat, the Coast Guard also is called, and it would show up in the Coast Guard stats.

Fight nice, children.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> In addition it is proven by the *facts* presented which you fail to recognize due to stubbornness and some kind of professional " feeling " you have that the amount of rescues of people...not just sorties is down. If the facts stated the opposite youd be ramming them down our throats instead.
> 
> Just like the axiom says...You can lead a horse to water...but you cant make it drink. For the life of me I cant understand why even the facts seem to escape you here.


Perhaps Charlie Doane has expressed a bit more clearly what I have observed during my own time running boats and cruising:



> I suspect the public at large doesn't really understand how often we sailors ask to get rescued. *My guess is the number of idiots, as a percentage of the total sailing population, who get themselves into trouble unreasonably has probably remained fairly constant. But the fact that it is now so easy to call for help, thanks to modern satellite distress-signalling technology, has surely increased the number of distress calls made by such people. Satellite communications have also greatly increased the number of relatively inexperienced people engaged in more-or-less reasonable voyages who call for help when they don't really need it.* I can cite any number of examples here. The most compelling, from my own experience, involves a cruising rally participant who once pressed the panic button and called for an offshore evacuation from his vessel simply because he was intimidated by a weather forecast.


Please, lead this stoopid horse to water... Show me *precisely* the "facts" or "numbers" which conclusively demonstrate Doane is wrong, or indeed the opposite is the case, regarding the very specific subset under discussion of offshore sailors calling for rescue, and abandoning their yachts at sea...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps Charlie Doane has expressed a bit more clearly what I have observed during my own time running boats and cruising:
> 
> Please, lead this stoopid horse to water... Show me *precisely* the "facts" or "numbers" which conclusively demonstrate Doane is wrong, or indeed the opposite is the case, regarding the very specific subset under discussion of offshore sailors calling for rescue, and abandoning their yachts at sea...


At least Doane uses the phrase "my guess". And that's what it is. A guess.



> Guess - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> Guess - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> *to form an opinion of from little or no evidence*. 2. : believe, suppose <I guess you' re right>. 3. : to arrive at a correct conclusion about by conjecture, chance, ...


Jon my friend you have been supplied the numbers. I can't help you here that you can't see what they mean. I can only show you the water. I can't make you drink it.

Thanks for proving my point. You rely on a guess. I supply facts at least to extrapolate from. You keep asking for more refined facts while making more and more guesses. Now which makes more common sense. To rely on guesses or facts.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

One factor not mentioned yet is the fact that wood boats have all but disappeared. I wonder how the decline in wood hulls correlates with the steady decline in rescue calls.  Can't help but guess that sinking calls have decreased.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> At least Doane uses the phrase "my guess". And that's what it is. A guess.


I don't believe I've ever claimed that which I'm asserting is anything more than my _*Opinion*_, informed by what my own eyes and ears have told me over the past 35 years as a professional involved the recreational boating industry... I think I fully appreciate what I've seen and heard over such time remains only "factual" in my own mind, those are the only "facts" I have access to... Anyone reading this thread is certainly free to suspect I may simply be some internet blowhard who may never even ventured out on the water, that my impressions derived over the better part of a lifetime in the delivery business are still nothing more than those "based upon little or no evidence", or am inventing stories out of whole cloth merely for the sake of argument... Or, that others who have come to hold views concurrent with my own - people like the dockmaster at Beaufort Docks, or Charlie Doane, or even Don Street - are entirely mistaken about the similar opinions we've each arrived at independently, as well...



chef2sail said:


> Jon my friend you have been supplied the numbers. I can't help you here that you can't see what they mean. I can only show you the water. I can't make you drink it.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point. You rely on a guess. I supply facts at least to extrapolate from. You keep asking for more refined facts while making more and more guesses. Now which makes more common sense. To rely on guesses or facts.


As I've said before, those numbers you're provided are of such a general nature as to be essentially meaningless to this discussion... Since I seem to have misplaced my reading glasses capable of viewing columns printed in invisible ink, or that show Imaginary Numbers, could you be so kind as to provide the breakdown for the gross totals of Sorties/etc for, say, 2012? You know, stuff like how many involved commercial vs. recreational vessels? Power vs. Sail? Inland waters vs. Offshore? Or, homeowners rescued from their property after Hurricane Sandy vs. sailors rescued from abandoned sailboats offshore? If you could offer a bit more detail with your "facts" you continue to insist disprove my own observations, then we might actually be getting somewhere in this roundabout...

Until then, anyone versed in the application of statistics would get a hearty chuckle re your attempt to extrapolate true significance about a category not even defined within those grand totals, such a process seems akin to "extrapolating" how a particular county in America voted last November, by knowing nothing more than the total national vote count for Obama and Romney...

Look, I did my first trip down the ICW back in 1975... All I can say, is that the nature of the game has changed significantly during that time. It's a bit more difficult to me to PROVE that, of course - the best I can do is offer by OPINION, bolstered by impressions and incidents of an admittedly anecdotal nature... Now, perhaps my hundreds of trips up and down the East coast over the years have been entirely unique, and I've witnessed things that have only occurred once, and never repeated or witnessed by anyone else... Possible, I suppose, but seems a bit unlikely, to me...

Back in the 70's, the Coasties handled virtually EVERY call for assistance on the water... They had many more assets along the way in those days, CG stations in strategic places like Coinjock, NC were shuttered a long time ago... They did everything from delivering fuel to boats that had run empty, to the sort of life-saving routines they do today...

However, for a boat run aground, first thing they would determine would be the state of the tide... If it was falling, unless the vessel might truly be in danger, they would generally not dispatch a vessel until the opposite phase of the tide... Makes perfect sense, of course...

Today, I am astonished at the ease with which most boaters call upon a service like Sea Tow, seemingly at the drop of a hat... And, Sea Tow will often happily comply coming out on a falling tide, it's all money billable by the hour in their pocket, after all...

The notion of 'Self-Rescue' seems almost entirely absent among many of today's boaters, much less the patience to wait 6 hours or so for the tide to refloat one off the bottom... So many of today's sailors have schedules to keep, after all, or reservations at the next marina... "Get me out of here, _NOW_ - I've got Unlimited Towing, after all..." The extent to which this sort of attitude trickles over into other aspects of the way many sail today seems obvious to me - as is the way in which many of these attitudes have been taken offshore, as well... "Get me out of here, _NOW_ - I've got salvage coverage, after all..." But alas, yet again, I cannot provide the 'facts" or "numbers" to PROVE that, so - such an impression must remain:

Just my opinion, as always...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Here's a straw man. 

You pay some portion of the rescue, unless you opt for one of the following:

1. Pay an insurance premium of a few thousand dollars before you depart. I think that is probably a reasonable risk premium for a potentially several hundred thousand dollar rescue.

2. (which I like better), you must have your boat inspected and passed by the local power squadron or CG Aux or whomever, just like the boats that participate in offshore racing, and have passed a safety at sea course, just like boats participating in offshore racing. Many boats that intended to comply with the offshore outfitting rules, still fail on their first inspection.

Your freedom is intact. If you choose to go without, you can take your chances on the expense.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> ...Until then, anyone versed in the application of statistics would get a hearty chuckle re your attempt to extrapolate true significance about a category not even defined within those grand totals, such a process seems akin to "extrapolating" how a particular county in America voted last November, by knowing nothing more than the total national vote count for Obama and Romney.......


Excellent point. This discussion is about a particular subset of that data and it could have increased for all we know, while the totals decreased. Flashing the totals makes no relevant point whatsoever.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

blowinstink said:


> The Coast Guard, of course, is consistently and vocally opposed to any such law. But, what do they know, they don't have a sailnet account!


Actually I believe she is a moderator here.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> Here's a straw man.
> 
> You pay some portion of the rescue, unless you opt for one of the following:
> 
> ...


That raises some intriguing questions. We have Sea Tow and Boat US for inshore towing and non life threatening "rescues." They do what the CG used to do. I'm wondering when the private sector will get involved in rescue-for-hire. It is legitimate to ask why the government is involved in this at all and why taxpayers should be footing the bill for a select few. We seem to be on the path to privatizing everything else, why not rescue at sea? Private industry seems to be able to do things more effectively, at lower cost than government in almost all cases. Why not ocean rescue?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

smurphny said:


> .... Why not ocean rescue?


I doubt a private operator could make a penny - given the real costs of running offshore boats and aircraft, along with the required expertise, and couple that with an almost guaranteed inability of the 'rescued' to pay the real costs involved, let alone the markup.. and how would they enforce the 'fee'?? Refuse to carry out the rescue until the 'skipper' offers up his firstborn?

Can't see it happening...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I might be okay with privatizing rescue, if the govt would give us the money back, but that won't ever happen.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Privatized rescue doesn't have to be for profit. Unless I'm mistaken, DAN (divers alert network) is a not for profit hyperbaric rescue network, which relies on modest membership fees and donations.


----------



## wolfenzee (Jul 13, 2008)

If a boat is derilic the State of Washington charges the owner to pull it off a beach and take care of it...I wonder when the USCG is going to start charging people/insurance companies...it would be a rider on your insurance policy which would make insurance companies give your boat an OK for offshore use. Before my insurance company insured me for offshore use, they did ask alot of questions (actually I told them of all the extra stuff I had before they could ask), they then asked if there were any other provisions implemented for the crew not previously mentioned.
On the other hand insurance compamies could give discounts for boats that were prepared better for off shore "circumstances"....though alot would rather insure weekend coastal sailors that keep there boats in marinas (owners and boats who are not prepared for nasty weather and propably never will see it anyway)....it actually took me awhile to find someone who wanted to insure someone who was sailing internationally and/or offshore.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

Faster said:


> I doubt a private operator could make a penny - given the real costs of running offshore boats and aircraft, along with the required expertise, and couple that with an almost guaranteed inability of the 'rescued' to pay the real costs involved, let alone the markup.. and how would they enforce the 'fee'?? Refuse to carry out the rescue until the 'skipper' offers up his firstborn?
> 
> Can't see it happening...


Agrees and finding someone to jump out of a helicopter into a winter storm on a seamans wages, might be hard to find.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

If private rescue was organized the same way as towing services, the financial viability would depend on the number of people in the base paying the fee/premiums. If there were no other option for rescue, that would be almost all boaters (with any common sense.) Would like to see some rough numbers before deciding something like this is not practical.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Sailors represent a tiny percentage of all the ships at sea. The coast guard is there for everyone. And they've been doing it for a long time. Soon to be 100 years. It's only my opinion, but I don't think anyone could do it better. When the mission becomes profit instead of saving life and property, I'd be careful of what I wished for. 

Short story. My neighbor was a Guardsman during WWII in the Greenland Patrol. He also served time on the lightship Nantucket . While on liberty in Boston harbor one winter. A young boy fell off his fathers small fishing boat into the frigid waters. While everyone was watching him flail in the water from shore or other boats, my neighbor dove from the deck of his cutter into the water and pulled him to shore. It was covered in the local newspapers. He never mentioned the incident again for 60 years not even to his wife. I was going through his scrapbook with him one day and came across the article. No big deal in his mind. 
Since, by the time I had met him he had spend 40 years volunteering in the local rescue squad. The german U boats or the storms at sea seemed to scare him less than the 8 babies he delivered in the back of his ambulance, one set of twins among them. 
I guess my point is that Mike didn't care if you were a knucklehead, he was going to rescue you anyway. 

Anyway, If Jon is correct.. about the increase in recreational rescues..and he may be. I tend to believe that the sailboat numbers are still proportionally low compared to all the other missions/ sorties. For instance, the number of reported "recreational" sailing deaths on auxillary sailboats was 1% of the total number of all deaths for 2012. 6 out of 651. ( state reported) 

So, what are we really talking about here? did they lift people off 10 sailboats this year instead of 5 last year? We really can't obtain the information from the overall stats. 

I did drill into some of the contributing statistics from each sector. I noticed a significant reduction in Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska makes sense, since the CG has made a concerted effort through regulation and inspection to make the fishing fleets safer. The US east coast numbers seem to be relatively flat since 2005.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Speaking of storms, I picked up John Rousmaniere's " After The Storm" last week. Never read it. Good book if anyone's looking. I'm supposed to sail from Annapolis to Portland in a couple of weeks, so this chapter was an interesting read. His conclusion is interesting.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship-articles/19375-<b>-wreck-<i>portland<-i><-b>.html


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Here's a straw man.
> 
> You pay some portion of the rescue, unless you opt for one of the following:
> 
> ...


Interesting....are you sure you don't moonlight as an insurance salesperson.
This may not affect you much as you have the 54 foot boat , but I doubt many are in your financial position. So you are proposing a class structure that the haves can obtain, when many people don't even carry the basic insurance.

How about commercial interests, they pay too I assume? Foreign vessels? They all pay to be rescued?

Lets do a land analogy. Should we all be charged for the firefighters, EMTS police in rescues at our homes, cars etc. to pay for the services. Pay for the jaws of life to cut people out of cars, pay for the cop to direct traffic at the scene of the accident. Pay for the firefighter who goes and rescues people in a burning building?

If a plane crashes does the airline or pilot pay for the rescue?

Even the Coast Guard doesn't agree with this. Let them do their job in peace. This is a bad idea which wont work and would never pass any legislature

Besides there really isn't a problem of increasing incidents except for a few people who every time an incident is published get on here and rail about the new electronics and the dying seamanship and try and convince us its a trend without one fact.

Funny thing is they have no stats to back this up. Except they can be critical of what stats there are which disproves what they say. Their friends say its so, so it is. I don't see it.

I think its similar to when the auto come into being. There were always people unwilling to accept that the change was in general good. They liked their horses. Not every bit good, but in general.

No added insurance will stop stupid people or poor seamanship or accidents. They will always happen. So will real ones because of nature.


----------



## wolfenzee (Jul 13, 2008)

That would definitely make offshore sailing a richman's sport.....the ironic thing is the rich sailors that can afford all the fancy gadgets and gizmos have replaced seamanship with push button navigation and would more likely need to be rescued. If insurance companies required boats be properly equipped for offshore sailing before they covered it would make it safer incase anyone does get caught up in something nasty.


----------



## wolfenzee (Jul 13, 2008)

Quite simply people have to realize that boats designed and equipped for coastal weekend sailing should not attempt offshore sailing, it's a different world. As we have noticed that even when the boat was perfectly seaworthy....the crews were not prepared psychologically...they paniced.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Interesting....are you sure you don't moonlight as an insurance salesperson.
> This may not affect you much as you have the 54 foot boat , but I doubt many are in your financial position. So you are proposing a class structure that the haves can obtain, when many people don't even carry the basic insurance.
> 
> How about commercial interests, they pay too I assume? Foreign vessels? They all pay to be rescued?
> ...


Chef, you seem to be having a hard time with a civil discussion lately. Was the insurance salesman crack supposed to help you make your point? Does rubbing my nose in owning a 54 ft boat make your point? In fact, the post you replied to specifically offered an idea that I indicated I like better than the insurance. They were straw men for a civil discussion. That could not have been clearer in my post, read it again.

Having an inspection and requiring training is something even the less fortunate should find personally necessary before risking their life and the lives of the USCG. The later does not always survive the rescue.

Many of us disagree with you. There is a fact.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

wolfenzee said:


> If insurance companies required boats be properly equipped for offshore sailing before they covered it would make it safer incase anyone does get caught up in something nasty.
> 
> Quite simply people have to realize that boats designed and equipped for coastal weekend sailing should not attempt offshore sailing, it's a different world.


Sorry, but I think such notions are absurd... It it rarely the _boats_, or how they are equipped, that are at the heart of this issue, or the cause of these types of abandonments... WOLFHOUND was most certainly an offshore-capable boat, for example - it was the poor prep and decisions made underway that led to her demise...

The prospect of some freakin' insurance agent mandating what sort of boats can sail out of sight of land is laughable in the extreme... Define "properly equipped", or "designed for offshore", for us... Just a hunch, but I would venture that most insurance company's list of "required" equipment would disallow people like the Pardeys or Thies Matzen & Kicki Erickson from legally entering US waters with their minimally equipped boats, or Beth Leonard & Evans Starzinger being told they cannot leave port without a liferaft... Absolutely absurd...

Sorry, but I think any of these proposals to legislate or mandate better seamanship are futile... Such measures are certainly not worth the concomitant loss of freedom all sailors could potentially feel, it's all moot anyway as there is no way we are going to privatization of offshore rescue services in our lifetimes...

If any meaningful action is to be taken, seems it has to be universal in scope... That's why I think Charlie Doane's proposal I cited earlier is an approach that has some merit, a way to deal with some of the more egregious examples of foolishly unseamanlike ventures (I'm thinking of things like Jarle Andhoy's ill-fated voyage to Antarctica and the loss of BERSERK, for which he was eventually fined by the Norwegian government) The prospect of an International Maritime Organization jury to deal with such events is far more inviting as a means to deal with this stuff, than the sort of pre-voyage mandates or insurance coverage that have been mentioned, IMHO...

And, in my view, the rescue of the crew off Charleston is certainly not an example that qualifies as reasonably requiring 'reimbursement' to the American taxpayer... Sure, it might easily have been avoided with better planning and execution of the trip, but many aspects of such a voyage still thread a fine line between Poor Seamanship, and 'Sh_t Happens', and there are many, MANY more examples out there deserving of harsher condemnation than this particular one...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I do not think we should hand inspections over to the insurance companies. They are indeed a profit based organization and this is a safety issue. There are many examples of non-profit safety organizations, from mountain rescue to the Safety at Sea folks.

However, there is no romantic notion of the minimalist sailor that convinces me we should go retrieve anyone at our expense that wants to run offshore in a bathtub either. You're not even allowed to drive a car that isn't minimally inspected for bald tires.

To participate in offshore racing, one must attend a simple two day course. Absolutely, everyone that I know that has attended has learned something valuable, even the most experienced. Secondly, while some of the commissioning issues are draconian, many of them are wisely considered and the average sailor may never think of them until they learn the hard way. For example, how many coastal boats really insure that no floor board or folding table could fly around during a knock down. I will bet many never even consider it. Even the Caribbean 1500 has basic commissioning requirements, if I'm not mistaken. 

I'm not suggesting that these are mandatory, government inspections. My suggestion was that to avoid the exposure to partially reimbursing your rescue, you would have to voluntarily submit to one. I will bet that organizations like the CCA or Seven Seas or some such would happily organize the inspectors and keep the cost at the non-profit level. It won't take the issue to zero, but may convince some that they or the boat are not prepared. Better yet, they may become prepared and do it more successfully.

Personally, we're trying to gear up for a Bermuda passage in the next year or two. The winter before we leave, I will actually have the boat surveyed for the purpose. You never know what you don't know and I've been on the water for nearly 40 years.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Besides there really isn't a problem of increasing incidents except for a few people who every time an incident is published get on here and rail about the new electronics and the dying seamanship and try and convince us its a trend without one fact.
> 
> *Funny thing is they have no stats to back this up. Except they can be critical of what stats there are which disproves what they say.* Their friends say its so, so it is. I don't see it.


C'mon, Dave - this is getting old... Time to "put up, or shut up..." (grin)

I have stated from the outset that it _SEEMS_ to me that sailing yachts are being abandoned offshore with increasing frequency today, and perhaps more "casually" than ever before... I have admitted I can produce no "statistics" in support of this opinion, one that happens to be shared by others reasonably qualified to voice their opinion, as well...

You continue to insist, however, that you have the "facts", and "numbers", that clearly invalidate my opinion... Please, either show us those "statistics" _that apply to sailing yachts abandoned/crews rescued offshore_, or stop claiming you are privy to such evidence that objectively 'proves' that I am wrong, OK?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Think this conversation speaks to the loss of personal responsibility in the society at large. Think given these folks will be uninsurable or need to have unlimited resources in the future to continue to sail this problem usually solves it self.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

To address the concept of only the wealthy being able to sail, that's a fact! Anyone that owns their own boat is all but certainly in the top 50% of wealth in the US. The poor little guy that can't afford insurance on their boat is still likely in the top half. 

I have no sympathy for the luxury of a free helicopter rescue requiring you to spend a few hundred dollars on training and/or inspections, when you have a privilege beyond most already. For the exception to the rule, where the near homeless take up residence on a nearly abandon vessel, they are not found floating 100 miles offshore on a passage.

By the way, it was asked whether this would apply to commercial rescues and I would suggest it already does.  They are both trained and inspected.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Just because tempers appear to be starting to blurble, I'm throwing out a reminder to keep the discussion civil, if you please.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> Interesting....are you sure you don't moonlight as an insurance salesperson.
> This may not affect you much as you have the 54 foot boat , but I doubt many are in your financial position. So you are proposing a class structure that the haves can obtain, when many people don't even carry the basic insurance.
> 
> How about commercial interests, they pay too I assume? Foreign vessels? They all pay to be rescued?
> ...


You really need to stop letting things get under your skin dude. I agree with Minne above - try keeping it civil and stop taking shots at people. You're starting to push the Smarmy Scale.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> I do not think we should hand inspections over to the insurance companies. They are indeed a profit based organization and this is a safety issue. There are many examples of non-profit safety organizations, from mountain rescue to the Safety at Sea folks.
> 
> However, there is no romantic notion of the minimalist sailor that convinces me we should go retrieve anyone at our expense that wants to run offshore in a bathtub either. You're not even allowed to drive a car that isn't minimally inspected for bald tires.
> 
> ...


+1. After having some involvement with the SAS folks, I think that program should be "self-mandatory". NO ONE should go off-shore without taking such a course. I won't.

And as for the have/have-not crap...if you can't afford education on how to do it right - don't buy a freakin' boat.

(PS - What does "blurble" mean? "Help me! My temper's blurbling all over my topsiders!")


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Insurance companies as sailing qualification experts? You've really got to be kidding! Not only would there be the kind of conflict of interest as in so many other government-sponsored extortion schemes involving mandatory insurance but these companies can't even do their own boat "surveys." They farm that out to "boat surveyors," a field of dubious qualification and standards. Plllease.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Inspections


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have a libertarian view of this:
Agree mandating inspections is foolish. Won't prevent people from leaving perfectly good vessels to be found still afloat days/weeks later. Once money changes hands have no problem with inspected vessels but private citizens should not have this intrusion.
Agree involving insurance companies is to bring hardship and expense to large numbers of cruisers. Even now many skilled cruisers need to have X number of people on board or a "licensed" captain or some other silly requirement to maintain insurance when they have the boat and skill set to make perfectly safe passages. Insurance companies will limit risk to decrease pay out and enhance profit. They have no interest in your "living the dream". This is a major reason we will pay off our boat loan when the house sells so with no loan can go with no insurance if/when it limits our sailing options.
YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID. No amount of government/insurance company action will prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. Conversely, no amount of prep will prevent the cascade of events that sometimes results in the need to rescue thoughtful people finding themselves in dire need of emergent help. 
Do think it not unreasonable for cruisers from this country or other countries underwriting the CGs expenses. See my taxes as already doing that but a small entrance fee when clearing into this country ( or for us clearing into another) seems fair provided it actually goes to CG services.
Please note for every blue water race I have been in or can think of a pre race inspection has been required. I have a personal checklist ( and I'm sure everyone on this thread has their own) I go through before any transit (don't race any more). Believe the safety courses are worthwhile and think those who would act inappropriately would not gain much from requiring that activity as they would go into the experience with the wrong mindset.
Believe economics have little to do with this. I rather sail with a person with the right mindset on a proper stout 20 year old small boat set up for sea than a million dollar piece of glitz crewed by sunny day sailors.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I do not think we should hand inspections over to the insurance companies. They are indeed a profit based organization and this is a safety issue. There are many examples of non-profit safety organizations, from mountain rescue to the Safety at Sea folks.
> 
> However, there is no romantic notion of the minimalist sailor that convinces me we should go retrieve anyone at our expense that wants to run offshore in a bathtub either. You're not even allowed to drive a car that isn't minimally inspected for bald tires.
> 
> ...


That's certainly a very reasonable, prudent approach... However, until such time as government actually does start coming after us sailors for rescue reimbursement, the necessity for people to take a 2-day course to "avoid the exposure to reimbursement costs" would seem to be a moot point... Not to mention, THAT should not be the primary reason for anyone prepping themselves and their boat for an offshore passage, anyway... I'd suggest sailors should simply want to do so to maximize their chances of completing their passage aboard the same boat, and with the same number of crew, as they started out with... (grin)

People simply need to educate themselves, and gain their experience in a progressive fashion, it's as simple as that... Sorry, but I have to chuckle a bit at the notion of a "2-Day Course" being of any real value - especially given the extraordinary wealth of information already available to anyone who can read... Hell, I'd venture the few hours spent reading a book like Bill Seifert's 200 PASSAGEMAKING TIPS would be a far bigger bang for the buck than the equivalent amount of time spent sitting through most any weekend seminar... A winter spend reading the works of people like Steve Dashew, Beth Leonard, Hal Roth, Calder, Street, the Pardeys, or any of a score of others would prove FAR more valuable than any such preparatory course, IMHO...

And yes, the Caribbean 1500 does go through the motions of a 'safety inspection' - but at least during the year when I was in Hampton prior to their send-off, from what I could tell it was a bit of a joke... For example, the absence of any requirement for carrying paper charts is laughable - but then again, that's probably just me, I suppose it's time for me to get with the modern program... (grin)


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

smackdaddy said:


> ...
> 
> (PS - What does "blurble" mean? "Help me! My temper's blurbling all over my topsiders!")


Think of a pan of water on the stove. It's that instant just before the water starts to form the small bubbles that indicate it's on its way to boiling. In the blurble stage you don't see anything but a faint movement of the water and you know it's about ready to start the small bubbles that, if left alone, then lead to the full boil.

(I made it up, by the way)


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> People simply need to educate themselves, and gain their experience in a progressive fashion, it's as simple as that... Sorry, but I have to chuckle a bit at the notion of a "2-Day Course" being of any real value


I hope you are satisfied with yourself. You just killed another sacred cow around here. The 2 day bluewater sailing course touted by many, particularly if it is given in a warm sunny location...

God forbid anyone should have to open a book about anything! It is supposed to be easy and fun.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> ...Bill Seifert's 200 PASSAGEMAKING TIPS...


Just bought it. So if I'm plucked off my boat by the CG you can't say "I told you so".

AND I'm still going to take the SAS course.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Chef, you seem to be having a hard time with a civil discussion lately. Was the insurance salesman crack supposed to help you make your point? Does rubbing my nose in owning a 54 ft boat make your point? In fact, the post you replied to specifically offered an idea that I indicated I like better than the insurance. They were straw men for a civil discussion. That could not have been clearer in my post, read it again.
> 
> Having an inspection and requiring training is something even the less fortunate should find personally necessary before risking their life and the lives of the USCG. The later does not always survive the rescue.
> Many of us disagree with you. There is a fact


Minnie,

Sorry about the insurance crack. I guess because it came from me and not Jon it becomes offensive so let's try and make the insurance the point of the discussion instead of me



> Many of us disagree with you. There is a fact


And the point of that is what? To shut me up? We all get opinions on here rich or poor, founded or unfounded. Is many 4 ? And if many disagree what difference does that make if taken from the same demographics. Propose this to the CF and they would laugh at you. Propose this to the CG and they would all disagree with you.

I showed your post to the Group Commander Sector Baltimore and he laughed.
"Amateurs doing rescues. We will be out rescuing them." Was his direct quote.

You proposed the insurance idea, not me. That's the point. It's a red herring which will never be doable and will never fly. The CG doesn't want private amateur rescuers out there there they will now have to rescue. Who regulates that industry? Make people pay for their rescues.

Answer my previous posts real questions in steady of a peripheral issue. Who pays for airplane crash rescues? Fire fighter rescues? Automobile crash rescues? Why are we creating a special class for sailors? You can't get people to buy basic boat insurance how will you enforce this even if you could get a bureaucratic system set up?

All this because a sailor who felt they were in trouble called the CG to rescue them. Even when the FACTS show this minimal and has shown a flat or steady decrease over the last 5 years. You are going t o create this huge problem, when there really isn't one. The same suspects do this'd cry over and over again. There is no indication there is a lack of training overall. It is a few zealots here who claim that every time there is an incident, but the figures show an actual decline. That's indisputable no matter which way you want to interpret it. I almost cringe, after I see someone has lost their life ( I pray for them first) or someone has been rescued. It seems to bring out all the sailors who want to criticize the rescued/ dead and usually before many facts are known.

I am for safety, I am for seamanship and hopefully I practice the best to my ability on my boat when I travel offshore. I know the penalty for not doing this is the ultimate for me and even rose for my crew. That's enough for me. I don't need one SN nanny telling me what I need on have on board, while they sleep singlehanded, or that I can't have electronics or I need to purchase special insurance to be rescued.

The bigger disaster to me would be someone not to call the CG for help when they need it because they cant pay for it. That shouldn't enter the equation.

In the safety courses I have taken, one of he first rules is always to call if you get in trouble. Even is you don't need rescue call to let them know that you are experiencing trouble.

Having traveled offshore myself enough to know you are by yourself it is comforting to know that should a disaster befall me for whatever reason, the CG is there for advice or rescue. No questions asked and no criticism. The big risk for me was when crossing the Atlantic where there really s no CG.

I see no reason to change the system we have or incorporate another fee to further deter or prevent the average sailor from sailing and make it a rich mans game only. I see no need for further restrictions or training. The same people will avail themselves as now, it doesn't prevent stupid.

The funny thing is and I talk to members of the Baltimore and Cape May CG stations frequently as I have friends in command positions in both, that this is a non issue to them. They don't see an increase in rescues, in fact with the cuts it has affected their training dollars on the water, and some sorties are good to help them practice their skills.

These are the professionals talking, the ones laying their lives on he line as was mentioned. Not the musings and shop talk of a few sailors, who take in incident or sinking and blow it out of proportion.



> Many of us disagree with you. There is a fact


Lets go back to your disrespectful statement here, you are right, but the ones who agree with me, mainly the CG are the opinions which count.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> Just bought it. So if I'm plucked off my boat by the CG you can't say "I told you so".
> 
> AND I'm still going to take the SAS course.


It's a great book. My wife's going through it now. My dreams of going to the Carribean when I am retired are probably dissipating.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

DRFerron said:


> Think of a pan of water on the stove. It's that instant just before the water starts to form the small bubbles that indicate it's on its way to boiling. In the blurble stage you don't see anything but a faint movement of the water and you know it's about ready to start the small bubbles that, if left alone, then lead to the full boil.
> 
> (I made it up, by the way)


I like the term ..

First water blurbles...then it simmers ( small bubbles) along the edge ...then it 
Boils ( bubbles breaking the surface) ....then a roiling boil.....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chef2sail said:


> Minnewaska said:
> 
> 
> > Many of us disagree with you. There is a fact.
> ...


Chef, this is what I mean when I say you need to grow a thicker skin. If you take someone merely saying they disagree with you as "disrespect" - you're thinking way too highly of your own opinion.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Good Grief!!! Methinks that too many posters here have been spending too much time with their feet in the dirt instead of butts in a boat. This Friday is the solstice man! Get out there for the cure to whatever ails you! You guys on the East Coast need to stay free from the man. Over-regulation is never the answer! Already here on SF Bay, we need to serve an apprenticeship with L124C or pass a vetting by him before we “qual” for side-tying our boats! It’s been two weeks since I’ve last sailed (or raced!) and I’m sliding into the DTs! And there is no relief in sight, no sailing for me next weekend, not even my quarter scale laser. So quit your carping (you guys are closer in your opinions than you realize) and tell me a sailing story before I whack out and unload a little frustration myself!


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

chef2sail said:


> I like the term ..
> 
> First water blurbles...then it simmers ( small bubbles) along the edge ...then it
> Boils ( bubbles breaking the surface) ....then a roiling boil.....


I couldn't think of the word "simmer." Thanks.

Of course, blurble is not to be confused with "burble," which is a word and is the sound of the water rushing past your hull when under sail. And if you're going to Google to check, I beseech you to ignore the Urban Dictionary definition.

Now. Have we all calmed down? It's time for cocktails.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Been living on/sailing the boat for much of the last three weeks. First day back at the salt mine. Now that's a reason for a cocktail. Be a good thread - favorite cocktail when the boat stops moving. Mine's currently is a gin blossom
Hendricks
grapefruit juice
tonic 
St Jermaine's
Drink and repeat- then doesn't matter if someone dissed you -you're on Island time.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

I don't want to derail the thread, just diffuse the tension. Cocktail threads abound in the forum. Here's one:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/92111-favorite-cocktail.html


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

chef2sail said:


> ....then a roiling boil.....


aka 'ebulating' (real word!! )


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Peach Schnapps 2 oz..
Kettle Vodka 2 oz
Orange juice 4oz
1 Fresh peach -fuzz
6 large ice cubes

Put it in a blender

We call it a Peach Reach" great for the hot Chesapeake summer


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> Chef, this is what I mean when I say you need to grow a thicker skin. If you take someone merely saying they disagree with you as "disrespect" - you're thinking way too highly of your own opinion.


You are right that statement is not disrespect, my bad for the wrong choice of words.

I will PM you as none of this is really relevant tp the topic and serves to distract the discussion to a personal note.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Minnie,
> 
> Sorry about the insurance crack.


Thank you. The 54ft boat crack was uncalled for as well.



> I guess because it came from me and not Jon it becomes offensive so let's try and make the insurance the point of the discussion instead of me


Nice try. I don't recall such a stupid quip by Jon.



> And the point of that is what? To shut me up?


Thin skinned. The point was to be absolutely clear that I disagree with you.



> We all get opinions on here rich or poor, founded or unfounded. Is many 4 ? And if many disagree what difference does that make if taken from the same demographics. Propose this to the CF and they would laugh at you. Propose this to the CG and they would all disagree with you.


You're entitled to it. I'm entitled to disagree with it. Exactly what proposal of mine would the CF laugh at and CG disagree with? Frankly, reimbursement is up to the tax payer, not the CG.



> I showed your post to the Group Commander Sector Baltimore and he laughed.
> "Amateurs doing rescues. We will be out rescuing them." Was his direct quote.


When did I suggest amateurs do the rescues? I recall replying to another posters recommendation. I also pointed out that not all rescue agencies are for profit. For that matter, how many TowBoat rescues have they had to perform after these groups took over a significant part of their previous responsibilities. It was an interesting point, but I don't recall making it. Unless you can show me the post of mine that both made this proposal and the big shot laugh, I call BS.



> You proposed the insurance idea, not me. That's the point. It's a red herring which will never be doable and will never fly. The CG doesn't want private amateur rescuers out there there they will now have to rescue. Who regulates that industry? Make people pay for their rescues.


A straw man is not a proposal. By definition its an argument put forth for the purpose of being debated. Debate away, just back off the emotional nonsense, you are extremely thin skinned. Again, I did not propose amateur rescues. I would be open to them, but did not propose them.



> Answer my previous posts real questions in steady of a peripheral issue. Who pays for airplane crash rescues? Fire fighter rescues? Automobile crash rescues? Why are we creating a special class for sailors? You can't get people to buy basic boat insurance how will you enforce this even if you could get a bureaucratic system set up?


Airplane crews are fully trained. People have no choice but live in houses that might burn. Automobiles are all inspected. Sailors are exempt from each. No training required, going offshore is fully optional and no inspections are required for recreational use. Thanks for helping make my point.



> All this because a sailor who felt they were in trouble called the CG to rescue them. Even when the FACTS show this minimal and has shown a flat or steady decrease over the last 5 years. You are going t o create this huge problem, when there really isn't one. The same suspects do this'd cry over and over again. There is no indication there is a lack of training overall. It is a few zealots here who claim that every time there is an incident, but the figures show an actual decline. That's indisputable no matter which way you want to interpret it. I almost cringe, after I see someone has lost their life ( I pray for them first) or someone has been rescued. It seems to bring out all the sailors who want to criticize the rescued/ dead and usually before many facts are known.


Beat the drum all you like on the overall decline in rescues. You've drawn absolutely no correlation to the number of offshore blue water recreational rescues. I wish you could, so we could put an end to it. I would be delighted to know they've declined. I doubt it, however.



> I am for safety, I am for seamanship and hopefully I practice the best to my ability on my boat when I travel offshore. I know the penalty for not doing this is the ultimate for me and even rose for my crew. That's enough for me. I don't need one SN nanny telling me what I need on have on board, while they sleep singlehanded, or that I can't have electronics or I need to purchase special insurance to be rescued.


You just can't get over it. SN nanny. You're too much. Let's just be clear on this much. I don't care what you do or don't do. Nanny.

To clarify the straw man, it doesn't say you must buy insurance to be rescued. Everyone would be rescued in the straw man. It suggested there be minimum standards to avoid the obligation to partially reimburse the cost of it.



> The bigger disaster to me would be someone not to call the CG for help when they need it because they cant pay for it. That shouldn't enter the equation.


This is a valid point. Perhaps the only one you've offered, particularly without vitriol.



> In the safety courses I have taken, one of he first rules is always to call if you get in trouble. Even is you don't need rescue call to let them know that you are experiencing trouble.


Agreed.



> Having traveled offshore myself enough to know you are by yourself it is comforting to know that should a disaster befall me for whatever reason, the CG is there for advice or rescue. No questions asked and no criticism. The big risk for me was when crossing the Atlantic where there really s no CG


.

So then where is the magic line where you feel everyone is entitled to it? Is it 50 miles, 100, 200 or is it just coincidentally the limits of fuel capacity of the helo? What if we had a helo that could circle the globe? Would we all expect them to get us anywhere? Where does the obligation end?



> I see no reason to change the system we have or incorporate another fee to further deter or prevent the average sailor from sailing and make it a rich mans game only. I see no need for further restrictions or training. The same people will avail themselves as now, it doesn't prevent stupid.
> 
> The funny thing is and I talk to members of the Baltimore and Cape May CG stations frequently as I have friends in command positions in both, that this is a non issue to them. They don't see an increase in rescues, in fact with the cuts it has affected their training dollars on the water, and some sorties are good to help them practice their skills.
> 
> These are the professionals talking, the ones laying their lives on he line as was mentioned. Not the musings and shop talk of a few sailors, who take in incident or sinking and blow it out of proportion.


You see no arrogance to suggesting any conversation that disagrees with your point of view as "musings and shop talk"?

Further, you don't see any disconnect in the CG's point of view. They are not personally paying for these rescues. The rescues are, in fact, keeping them employed.



> Lets go back to your disrespectful statement here, you are right, but the ones who agree with me, mainly the CG are the opinions which count.


I said I disagree with you and that remains a fact. You always have a very tough time with that, from anyone.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> That's certainly a very reasonable, prudent approach... However, until such time as government actually does start coming after us sailors for rescue reimbursement, the necessity for people to take a 2-day course to "avoid the exposure to reimbursement costs" would seem to be a moot point...


Of course it's moot. However, its one premise of the discussion. Should they do so, not will they do so.



> Sorry, but I have to chuckle a bit at the notion of a "2-Day Course" being of any real value - especially given the extraordinary wealth of information already available to anyone who can read...


I get the point and agree with it narrowly. The course would not make one a competent offshore passagemaker. But it would firmly get the attention of many and could prevent the ignorant from taking on what they don't know. The remaining few that deserve the Darwin award would remain unaffected, but I believe it would improve the current condition.

I believe the inspections would be even more valuable. I'm certain there are sailors that would be willing to make improvements they are not even aware should be made.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

I attended the 2 day Safety at Sea Seminar @ the Naval Academy in '98. I came away with a lot of good information. It's true that you can read much of it in books and on the internet. It's just a little more difficult to ask a book a question or network with other sailors and exchange information. Having attended alot of conferences and trade shows in my career, I've always felt that if I came away with one idea that I could put to use, it was worth my time. In '98 I was able to meet Ron Trossbach, who graciously agreed to come aboard my boat and do a courtesy inspection then sat in the cockpit with us and discussed his recommendations over a cocktail. It was like attending a Master's class. I still have all the notes I took.


----------



## wolfenzee (Jul 13, 2008)

This all boils down to the biggest problem isn't the way the boats are equipped but the mindset of the sailors and as this world is becoming more and more automated with computers/smart phones/chart plotters etc doing more and more thinking for us real down to earth seamanship (something that is needed when the power goes out and/or circumstances are more than a micro chip can handle) is going out the window.
People just need to be better educated as to what is possible offshore....it's not the same, by far...and when it gets really dicey some people can't handle it and just freeze up.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Tempest said:


> .....In '98 I was able to meet Ron Trossbach, who graciously agreed to come aboard my boat and do a courtesy inspection then sat in the cockpit with us and discussed his recommendations over a cocktail. It was like attending a Master's class. I still have all the notes I took.


What a great opportunity. Ron was one of the instructors in the class that I took before the race a few years back. He was excellent. Retired Admiral, who has sailed his own boat across the pond at least once, I believe.

He demonstrated the inflatable pfd and discussed issues like crotch straps, which is a good example of something one would not just know from experience. How many sailors with thousands of miles offshore have ever actually been in the water in a pfd? How many have actually tried to board a liferaft from the water? I think this course may deserve a bit more credit that we've collective acknowledged. The guy who did the section on seasickness, gave his experience in the Fastnet. It was much more compelling than any book.

Ron was wearing his personal pfd and it was time for new CO2 cartridges, so he thought he would fully demonstrate an inflation. He is wearing it during his talk, so when he's done, he pulls the cord. It stutters and puffs, but barely inflates at all. It was shot. What a great experience for everyone in the room, including him!!!


----------



## wolfenzee (Jul 13, 2008)

When ever I see a boat come in from obviously a long passage I ask to "pick thier brains" I also ask questions of anyone I know who has made and/or has significant experience in long passages.....knowledge is valuable....you just have to be careful for the same reasons you are in information from forums.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

I blew by this thread a few times in the past several days. Never read a post.

Opened it yesterday and finished reading it today.

Great thread. Thanks to all the posters. Thanks for the links to other boat-loss stories.

I learned a lot. 

Biggest lesson I learned was to never start an argument with chef...he don't give up. I got a brother who argues like that and I have to kick him out of the house and make him go home sometimes because he doesn't think he has convinced me that he's right and I'm wrong.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

I feel great comfort knowing that there is NO Coast Guard Units available to rescue me. The only thing I can rely on is ME!. My boat preparation, my seamanship, my study.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

fryewe said:


> I blew by this thread a few times in the past several days. Never read a post.
> 
> Opened it yesterday and finished reading it today.
> 
> ...


Great contribution really worthwhile. Look forward to more of your critical insights .


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Tempest said:


> I attended the 2 day Safety at Sea Seminar @ the Naval Academy in '98. I came away with a lot of good information. It's true that you can read much of it in books and on the internet. It's just a little more difficult to ask a book a question or network with other sailors and exchange information. Having attended alot of conferences and trade shows in my career, I've always felt that if I came away with one idea that I could put to use, it was worth my time. In '98 I was able to meet Ron Trossbach, who graciously agreed to come aboard my boat and do a courtesy inspection then sat in the cockpit with us and discussed his recommendations over a cocktail. It was like attending a Master's class. I still have all the notes I took.


Ron is a great guy. I've not met him, only spoken and corresponded with him several times. And he was gracious enough to send me a couple of ISAF/Safety books - signed by him of course.

I'd definitely serve up a few D&S's to pick his brain in person.


----------

