# Single-Handed Sailor Dismasted Near Cape Horn



## Jim H (Feb 18, 2006)

*Single-Handing Sailor Dismasted Near Cape Horn*

Ken Barnes has been written about in Latitude 38, and today's news is that he's been dismasted near Cape Horn and is awaiting rescue from approaching vessels. Details: http://www.kensolo.com/

Also at http://www.infoasis.com/~latitude38/LectronicLat/2007/0107/Jan03/Jan03.html#anchor1085433

Surprisingly, single-hander Donna Lange (on a 28 foot Southern Cross) is only 150 away from Ken at the moment. Her site also has recent updates: http://www.donnalange.com/home.html

Jim H


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Hairy story...but tomorrow should bring good news! Sounds like he was rolled from the damage reports. It will be interesting to hear the real story.


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

I hope wind magic doesn't read this.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

sailortjk1 said:


> I hope wind magic doesn't read this.


Yeah, me too. 

Wind magic should just let sleeping dogs lie. LOL.

I just hope Ken gets rescued and is ok, and that he is somehow able to continue his trip.


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

From cnn.com

Sam


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

wind_magic said:


> .
> 
> I just hope Ken gets rescued and is ok, and that he is somehow able to continue his trip.


Wife and one of the two daughters said no way, he's done


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

heh heh ... Ken might have his own plans ... girlfriend, wife, daughters ... runnin' to or from? Sometimes ya just gots ta get away.


----------



## lamb0174 (Jul 17, 2006)

sailortjk1 said:


> I hope wind magic doesn't read this.


Yeah. It looks like this guy lost both masts.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Update:

http://www.comcast.net/news/nationa...IC&fn=/2007/01/04/554993.html&cvqh=itn_sailor


----------



## Jim H (Feb 18, 2006)

There are now pictures of the dismasted boat at

http://www.kensolo.com/kenstatus.htm

They were taken by the second Chilean aircraft. I can imagine the effort needed to clear away two downed masts on a 44 foot boat in bad weather by yourself.

Jim H


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I hate to be the one negative on this thread, BUT... From looking at the current photo's of the boat, I don't understand why he couldn't have jury rigged a sail onto the stump of the mainmast. He clearly has canvas on deck and it looks like there is plenty of mast to rig a small sail. 

From reading about this guy on several sites it apears he didn't have a lot of blue water experience. In my humble opinion, it shows and he is now risking the lives of a lot of SAR people.

He should read sailnet!


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

T34C said:


> I hate to be the one negative on this thread, BUT... From looking at the current photo's of the boat, I don't understand why he couldn't have jury rigged a sail onto the stump of the mainmast. He clearly has canvas on deck and it looks like there is plenty of mast to rig a small sail.


I could hazard a wild guess that, after rolling a 44' boat through 360 degrees, he just wants off the d**n boat. I don't know if there are still any Francis Chichesters out there, who, at about age 71, and having already lost a lung to cancer, rolled a 57' boat through 360 degrees twice on the way to Australia, had a new keel installed on it during a 2 week stopover, and then proceeded around Cape Horn, singlehanded. Now that was a man!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Sailormon- I agree 100%. In this situation, as in Chichesters, we are talkig about survival. Being able to in some way aid in your own rescue can mean the difference in life and death. What if his EPIRP had not been working, or been washed overboard??? What if there simply weren't any assets available for a rescue??? Hell, Giulietta recently documented in another thread a group of fishermen that died when their boat wrecked 50m from shore!!! I'm not talking about Sir Earnest Shackelton feats here I'm talking about having a little more knowledge and putting forth a lot more effort to save ones own skin and not counting on someone else to risk their life for you. I think in less than an hour I could learn how to overcome his issues simple by reading info from other people on THIS site. Its not rocket science, plenty of other people have gone through similar ordeals. All he had to do was be will to learn, and put forth some effort.

In this case it sounds as though he got very lucky and had a higher power looking after him.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

T34...The only mitigating circumstances I see to your analysis are:
-He has lost his rudder as well as both masts so even if he jury rigs a sail, he is still gonna have a heck of a time steering the boat.
-Apparently the boat also has stove in hatches/hatchboards which make it vulnerable to boarding seas. 
-Another low pressure system is bearing down on him in some of the toughest coldest waters on earth. 

I'd say his chances of surviving another blow in the condition the boat is in, with a jury rig and drogues for steerage would be pretty slim. We hear about the great sailing abilities of those who have done it...but we don't know about all those who tried and were never heard from again! Time to punch the Epirb and get the life raft and survival suit ready. 
He may be a bit short on experience but seems to have prepared theboat well and was determined not to require any help along the way...but once you've seen what the ocean can do and nearly lost your life, I imagine your perspective changes a bit!


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

Check out the size of the cockpit on his boat    

Also the published log entries make for some interesting reading, particularly the one for 12/28.    

Donna Lange, who was 150 nm north of Ken, "was able to navigate the storm and maintain control without serious concequences." according to her website. Clearly, though, the 150 mn could have made a huge difference in the intensity of the storm that each boat experienced.

Doesn't seem like he was all that experienced from what little I have read. Could be wrong though. From the looks of it he had plenty of materials to jury rig something and he still has stays and sails still hanging off the bow and stern.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Cam- You're right, thank God he did the right things in preparing the boat. There is a thread on this website discussing steering w/o a rudder. There are things you can do, even when jury rigged, to (help) steer the boat. I'm not pretendig that this guy could have sailed to Jamaica and been found sitting on the beach with a boat drink in hand. I'm just saying that if it is time to bust out the survival suit and get the life raft ready then it's time to also take steps to rescue yourself. Every mile he can put under the keel is a mile he won't put under the liferaft. The EPRIB can be deployed as a back-up while your making tracks toward shore, any shore. The closer he gets to some land mass the closer he is to rescue. The stoved in hatch isn't going to take on any more water while slowly under way than while sitting there. It may even take on less water as he is likely to have been forced into running downwind if jury rigged thus reducing spray and hopefully green water. 

I guess the gist of this is that after all the accounts of sailors surviving the southern ocean in open boats, and many that didn't, I personally wouldn't be waiting around hoping someone else comes along and saves my arse. Iwill be very interested to read his account after he is successfully rescued.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I am not going to second guess him from the comfort of my easy chair. His website indicates he was well prepared for this trip. I respect him for having the cajones (thats balls for the folks outside of Texas) to make this attempt in the first place. He is no armchair sailor like me.
pigslo


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I guess it is a bit of second guessing, but maybe there is something to be learned here. I too admire the fact that he went in the first place. I do disagree the his website indicates he was well prepared for this trip. It indicates that his boat was well prepared.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

To clarify, I didn't mean to diminish Ken's effort or ability in any respect. I'm awed by the exploits of some of the great sailors in history, like Chichester. I agree that we shouldn't second guess Ken. He knows better than us the current condition of his boat and his supplies, as well as his own condition. A person who has the courage to undertake a trip like that, and who undoubtedly put his heart and soul into preparing for it, isn't likely to abandon his boat if he thinks he can salvage it.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

His sister said on the news that he has been sailing since he was 8 years old. My guess is that he was better prepared both boat and personally than the kid who just made it across the Atlantic. Sometimes you just get unlucky...and the less prepared you are, the more dire the results. I agree that a lot of questions need to be asked and answered but right now it is mostly armchair speculation based on second hand reports. 
Did any of you read his website where it was said that the boat as built had two steel plate bilge keels as well as the center keel...and that Bob Perry told him it was OK to remove them and get rid of the weight? I wanna hear more about that as well!


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

My understanding is the bilge keels are to stand the boat up at low tide, so I don't think he needed them rounding the Cape.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Yes, I cought the deal with Perry also. You are right about being MUCH more prepared than the kid with the marketing stunt.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

If you look at the website of the 14 YO he did singlehand across the Atlantic; but his father was also sailing alongside him "just in case". Not to diminish the accomplishment; having another boat nearby with a more experienced sailor was a prudent safety measure.

I don't think Ken is doing anything wrong by waiting for rescue. If he were to try and sail to the coast of SA he could be putting himself and his boat at more risk of damage/sinking and might be headed away from those who are trying to reach him and assist. It's possible that his current position is farther from forecasted bad weather than if he were trying to make landfall also. There is a good possibility that he has taken these factors into account and has decided to just sit and wait; we just dont know those details yet.

I don't think he can do much but sit/wait. With a 25 ton boat he would not be making much headway with a jury rig and an inefficient rudder. A sea-anchor to prevent rolling would probably be the best way to wait for help to arrive. It's good that he has an EPIRB and SSB (among other equipment) onboard; it will probably save his life.


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

I heard on the local news this morning that he has been rescued.
Can anybody confirm this?
Glad to hear that he is o.k. I'm sure he is a bit battered and bruised but at least he is o.k.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

He was successfully rescued. Reported as healthy and well with one cut on his leg.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/01/05/555675.html&cvqh=itn_boat

I don't think he could have put his boat at more risk. They were planning to scuddle it when he got picked-up.


----------



## 1970Columbia34 (Aug 24, 2006)

Why sink it? Can't they just tow it in?


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

From these aerials taken yesterday, the boat appears to be listing from all the water it took on. Even if someone was willing pay the huge expense of towing - not sure it would stay afloat being so far from land


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

What happens with insurance after they scuttle it?

Will he be able to receive a settlement or will his insurance company claim that they are not responsible and that the liability or fault lies with him?


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I'm not sure how the insurance company would regard this? Yet another reason to try and get closer to land???? 

TB- Hard to tell if she is listing or if there is a long swell that is slowly rolling her about.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Foxnews.com and the NYTimes have both posted more information Friday morning (Eastern US time). Apparently he is seriously injured, with a "gash to the bone" on one leg. (At least, I'm calling it serious whenever there's a cut to the bone, infection at that level can be extremely dangerous.) That would be sufficient reason for an immediate medevac.

There are reports on some ham radio lists that his distress call and the rescue coordination were done via Airmail, SSB ham radio email link, not by satellite phone or conventional ham radio as the Nooze have reported.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I don't know of any insurance company's willing to insure single handers with no ocean experience heading to the Southern Ocean. My guess is that it is Ken's loss...not an insurance company. 

HelloS...the boat had SSB/Sailmail/Pactor installed and YES those were used during the rescue...but he also had an Iridium phone that he was using to call his lady. I heard his lady tell Greta Van Sustern all this on her show last night. Greta unfortunately did no prep for this interview and didn't understand much or ask any of the questions we've all been asking. I guess it will take a few days before we have a clear picture of what happened.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

All reports I have heard this morning stated that he had a cut to his leg that required attention, but was not serious, and was being atteded to by a paramedic on the ship. 

If it is true that he was communicating with rescuers via SSB they may have advised him to stay put, either to aid in rescue or due to wound. I'm very interested to hear from him.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

T34C said:


> If it is true that he was communicating with rescuers via SSB they may have advised him to stay put, either to aid in rescue or due to wound. I'm very interested to hear from him.


I didn't see an antenna for SSB on that boat. I'm sure there used to be one ...


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

sailortjk1 said:


> What happens with insurance after they scuttle it?
> 
> Will he be able to receive a settlement or will his insurance company claim that they are not responsible and that the liability or fault lies with him?


I also doubt that he could get insurance to cover this trip, but, generally, insurance covers your casualty loss, regardless of whether the damage resulted from the violence of nature, or from your own fault. For example, if you have an auto accident that is determined to be your fault, your casualty insurance will still compensate you for your loss.

The insurance carrier is not only liable to the owner for the loss of the boat, but it's also liable for any damages the abandoned boat might do to any other person injured or damaged by it. If you abandon a derelict boat, without scuttling it, it represents a hazard to navigation until it either sinks or is salvaged. I'm not a maritime lawyer, but believe that, if you abandon it, knowing you haven't the ability to salvage it within a reasonable period of time, then you have a legal duty to scuttle it, if possible, to eliminate the hazard to navigation. Thus, if you scuttle a boat that has been damaged by an accident of some sort and is no longer seaworthy, and that is unsalvageable, then the insurance carrier should compensate you for the loss, unless there is reason to believe that you are committing an insurance fraud.

In such case, you're doing the insurance carrier a favor by limiting their loss to the value of your boat. If you don't scuttle it, some commercial fisherman might hit the unlighted hull at night, and your insurance carrier might also be liable for damages to the fishing boat, as well as to any crew members who are injured or killed.


----------



## Jim H (Feb 18, 2006)

The AP has now posted photos of the rescue:

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=ken+barnes+yellow&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-405&c=news_photos

I've read books about off-shore passages that emphasized one to "think inverted" when preparing for a passage through dangerous seas. Given that, I've yet to see many boats that really had a way to secure the cabin sole panels and most anchor lockers don't look like they would hold if inverted. Not to mention flying stoves and all the other gear that would/could come loose in a violent roll. Add to that the possibility of leaking fuels and other not so great things.

This reminds me that I need to read _Once is Enough_ by Miles Smeeton about a pitchpole incident:

http://www.amazon.com/Once-Enough-M..._bbs_sr_1/002-0467329-0269610?ie=UTF8&s=books

Jim H


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Agree with that Jim. I have never had the sole panels come out of my boat, but I have been in two storms where eveything inside was going port to starboard (including the TV, which was quickly rectified). 

Another problem people do not think about is their nav stations. I had a starboard facing nav with chair. Looked nice at the show. But here lies the problem: put it in a large sea offshore and you are being flung out and in - making it almost impossible to write down your 30 min positions. I had to lash myself to the nav station to make the written observations. 

It amazes me the stuff that gets missed down below. Little things you learn from after the first storm that makes you realize you wont make that mistake again. That is why when people talk to me about cruising, I tell them to take their boats offshore in a not-so-nice sea state to learn what things are going to fly around. Do it in a controlled environment in home waters so you can learn from the things you missed - not 100 miles offshore.


----------



## Chuteman (May 23, 2006)

*Educate your land Crew*

What jumped out at me watching his family & girlfriend on CNN-Larry King Weds & Thurs, was their lack of understanding (or acceptance) of the risk & rescue procedures.

Risk - Listening to them, It sounded like he was kidnapped, taken 500 miles off South America & dropped onto a dismasted sailboat. Concern is more than understandable but did they think sailing around the world was without serious risk? As sailors, we have to make sure family & friends know that serious risks exists & that steps have been taken to mitigate as much as possible. Plus they play an important role, when the Epirb goes off & are contacted by the coast guard or You call them on the Sat phone (like he did often) or contacted via SSB, they w/b critical in passing on critical info, making arrangements or contacting resources.

Rescue - They started blaming Chile for not sending a helicopter to pick him up & their slow response. Again, they did not understand that even if he was between Hawaii & the mainland, a helicopter would not be stopping by a few minutes after the Epirb went off. He seemed to be picked up from a more remote area in a reasonable time. Based on the reports, the coast guard kept them informed along the way, a plane spotted him early on based on epirb coordinates & nearby ships were diverted to him. But he was hundreds of miles away, so it was naturally going to take some time.

I would not want to be stuck on a bobbing sail boat in the southern ocean or anywhere for that matter in any level of distress. But it has highlighted the need to make sure family & friends know the full picture & how important their support will be under stress.
He was prepared with communication gear, stayed with the boat & had add'l resources (life raft, etc) just in case. Glad it was a happy ending.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Nice writeup C-man... and i agree.


----------



## snider (Jun 26, 2006)

*Questionable tactic?*

I'm the last to second guess decisions made out there while I'm here, but have any of you listened to his phone interview on his website? I could be mistaken as it was hard to hear, but it seems he was running under mizzen alone with the wind over the starboard quarter, the wind gusted, causing him to round up, which put him broadside to a breaking wave. I wonder why one would chose to use such a sail arrangement, It would obviously put the boat out of balance. I'm just curious.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Snider...that's exactly what I heard him say...mizzen only and rounded up sideways to a 25ft. breaking wave and was rolled and everything broke. 
It gets curiouser and curiouser...


----------



## snider (Jun 26, 2006)

*I'm not trying to take anything away from the guy.*

I'm not trying to take anything away from the guy, just objectively look and learn from the situation. I also dream of crossing oceans, and maybe one day sailing around Cape Horn. I didn't realize no one has done this from the west coast of California yet. If I were a few more years experienced and had a good sturdy boat, I'd seriously contemplate an attempt. It would be kewl to be the first, although you really aren't doing anthing that hasn't been done before, just from a diff start and finish. It's good to see that he was well equiped. I hope he gets back on his feet.


----------



## deckhanddave (Oct 22, 2006)

Jim H said:


> I've read books about off-shore passages that emphasized one to "think inverted" when preparing for a passage through dangerous seas. Given that, I've yet to see many boats that really had a way to secure the cabin sole panels and most anchor lockers don't look like they would hold if inverted.
> 
> Jim H


That would be John Vigor, its one of the things I love most about his book _Seaworth Offshore Sailboat_. Every chapeter has a foot note that says "think inverted" and in each of these sections is a bunch of questions that relate to an inversion that the reader should ask themselves. One that always sticks in my mine is about hatches and portlights. He stresses (no pun) that they have to be properly sized and designed to take the weight on in an inversion. Ken had a very heavy, steel sailboat.

That said, I'm glad the guy came out of this ok, pretty ugly turn of events.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Good points, Chuteman.


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

I just noticed that Donna Lange ( http://www.donnalange.com/ ), the other solo sailor near Ken Barnes has rounded Cape Horn in her more modest and seemly managable Southern Cross 28.

Congrats Donnna!!   

Sam


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

svs3...Yes she certainly seems more competent, prepared and diligent about managing her
passage. One item in her log did disturb me though:

*the Alternator spontaneously started to put out
full voltage again. this is important because
it is enabling me tokeep the computer on with the
c-map program containing the only charts i have
of this area.

*I hope that this is only related to her deicision to put into a port unexpectedly rather than a reliance on electronic charts only.
I guess you can't carry paper for every possible place you might need to pull into when going 'round the world.

BTW..the www.kensolo.com site says he'll bearriving in LA tomorrow morning. Hope we get more details then.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I would like to hear some *circumnavigators* weigh in on this as it would appear that a smaller but seaworthy boat may be better than a bigger, harder to manage boat in an emergency. This story of two boats raises the issue. Maybe there is too big in some cases.
pigslo


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I don't want to offend anyone, but I think the difference in situations is more likely the difference in the sailors, not boats.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

pigslo-
Check out _Fastnet, Force 10_ to get a read on the size issue. The smaller boats took way more damage. Perhaps because small boat owners don't have the same finances, or newer boaters are found in small boats, or years of "two feet more" racing upsmanship, but most likely because small boats will always be comparably smaller than big waves. 
Wave heights are "really really big" only a small amount of the time, but that's when the wx is worst and being in the comparably smaller boat makes you all the more likely to be overcome by the bigger wave breaking over you.
( I'm probably not saying that clearly if you have to ask what I meant.)


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Pigs..I have a good friend who has twice circumnavigated on a Valiant 40...once in the late seventies with virtually no electronics. He would not want to do it on anything smaller...but was sailing as a couple. For a single hander though I can understand why something in the 35-40 ft. range might be better. Obviously smaller boats can do it if well built. Maybe Robert Gainer will weigh in on this since he's done a lot of blue water alone.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

T34C, not offended at all, but I was trying to avoid the issue of the difference in sailors as they both have more guts than me and I have too much respect for both of them to debate that part on a public forum. Thats is why I qualified the question the way I did. I would truly like to know the answer as I posed it as this event has me thinking.
hellosailor, thanks for the input. I will follow up on that.I understand your response. I recall a guy that crossed the ocean a few years back in an 8 foot cork that was capable of taking anything as it would seal up like an egg and I just wonder if when you consider the structural strength on a smaller object relative to its own thickness of build if there is not some advantage in a small tank of a boat that can be battened down. Any of that make sense.
Cam, I think you have the jist of my musing. Yes, guy like Robert Gainer would be able to answer it.
pigslo


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Who is Robert Gainer??


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Pigs- I understand what you're getting at and I too respect both sailors for their respective efforts. As for the public forum part, I think the mental exercise of reviewing the events and trouble shooting can make a good learning exercise for others. Not trying to learn from other experiences is how you get into trouble in the first place. I would also like to point out that both of these sailors put themselves into the public eye with their websites.

As for the size of boats, I don't think you can totally seperate the tool from the operator. It is like trying to decide which car can go around a race course fastest without taking into account who is driving.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I gather from his interview that Ken Barnes knows what his part was in his adventure and I am betting on him to be back for another round next year or the year after. One story says he scuttled the boat and another says it may be recoverable Anyone know the boat status at this time? Yes driver and car are inseparable, but I'll bet I could win a race in a formula 1 car if Mario Andretti was driving a stock Toyota Corolla.
pigslo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Pig,

Not a circum, but here is a real life example:

Was in a 15+ for 27 hours. Breakers on the stern quarter. THree boats:

1) 42 foot center cockpit (cannot remember the type of boat, old heavy - like a C&C but it was a center cockpit). Took a breaker INTO the cockpit. Ended up having to change course to make the destination. Autopilot went out. They could not hold our bearing.

2) 34 foot Hunter. This was actually one of the older ones. I think he had a backstay. Got beat up terribly. Lost the autopilot in the first couple of hours. Ended up having to steer in behind us for navigation.

3) Catalina 380. Actually a pretty heavy boat. We held our autopilot the whole time. We were never beat up, but as I have said many times before, I don't care if you are in a Valiant or a Hunter... we all have to ride the mountains. We did fine, though a lot of junk went flying all over the place down below. Not a pleasant trip. We fared the best of the three boats, followed by the 42, lastly the Hunter. Our friends in the Hunter got pretty bruised up.

My opinion (though there are many others that have more long distance offshore work than me), the longer the boat, the better the ride. Longer boats also can run faster, thus are in the seas less time. But a lot of it is knowing your boat and how she takes the seas. The CCockpit, in this example, did NOT take a breaker on the quarter well at all. She ended up taking them "more comfortably" off the beam, hand steering. The Hunter, I think in a combination of draft, displacement, and LOA, took a beating no matter what! That big, fat Catalina we were sailing... it didn't care. Autopilot was pulling some serious amps though.

Just my thoughts. 

- CD


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Pigs- I'd take Mario and give you time. I'm affraid you might be reduced to porkchops after that F1 got away from you!

I think you're right about his returning soon.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

CD, thanks for the response. Just the kind of info I was interested in. 15+ waves or 15+wind by the way.
pigslo


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

Don't count on it T34C. I spent my early years in a few pretty fast cars that I could rebuild from bumper to bumper, and I did. It is a bit ironic I now participate it a sport that 8 miles an hour is going fast. My point of course was that no matter how good Mario Andretti in a stock Corrolla can still only do 95 miles an hour. He will certainly outdrive me on the every inch of road but his road will be behind me from the start.
...
I am just thinking a single handed sailor has to really pick his boat and gear and settup very carefully.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

15+ waves with others that had to be meaner, but we could not make them out at night. I cannot remember what the wind was, but it was howling pretty good. I remember having to go forward and put in another reef in the middle of the night (that is a story in itself with waves and sea spray going everywhere... ugh!). Woke up (well, that is a lie, I hardly slept) to an UGLY landscape the next morning. That was the one I mentioned where the dolphins were swimming in the waves right behind us. I got a picture of it and put it in my album, but you have to use a lot of imagination with all the crap on the lens. Pictures never do that stuff justice. Not to mention, I was sea sick as hell.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

One addition, I was not single handing. It was me and my wife. Other two boats were couples too. No singles.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

CD Wow. Great story. Great experience that I'll bet you would not trade.
pigslo


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Over here, we say "THE BIGGER THE BOAT, THE BIGGER THE STORM".

It has not to do with the fact that big boats rock more than smaller boats, but it is related to the fact that for a larger boat, the storm has to be bigger to be called a storm.

I remember that coming North from the south of Portugal, a lot of years ago in a small 28' boat and to cross Sagres Point (most south eastern point of Portugal and Europe, where its 24/7 15'waves and 30kts winds from the north all the time, day and night) used to be hell!!! Scary, very scary, and we used to spend 8 hours to "bend" the cape, We need to start the passage before 4 am otherwise at 9 am its hell.

Now with a larger boat, its child's play. We even have time to eat now!!

So I believe big is better, but too big, becomes harder to handle. 35 to 40 is the rigt size for single passage.

I also believe this guy just run out of luck. Like many others.
At the end of the day, he went home, and is with his wife....how many can't claim that??


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Pig,

Well, I could have done without it at the time. 

If anyone else is reading this (to learn from my mistakes... well, there are sooo many of them, but be nice), I would like to emphasize the importance of sea state, wind state, and fetch. Strong winds for a short amount of time over a small area will not make that large of a sea state (which is primarily all a ocean sailor cares about, in my opinion, though some may dissagree). However, even a moderate... 20+ wind, over a long sea (the gulf, for example), will build a nice little sea state/fetch. Stronger winds, longer periods of time, lots of area blow across, they will get UGLY! And it is true, the waves do become more tolerable in the deeper water. They seem to roll longer and wider. Take a long roller that starts coming into shallow water, it seems to build in heighth and becomes square and dangerous. You really might find it more comfortable (and safer) to stay well out at sea in a storm. 

Those are my humble little observations. I am curious what others have seen/storm experiences offshore and if they have the same conclusions.

- CD


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

Good points, G. And the bigger the boat, the longer the waterline and the faster potential and the least time in the storm (seaworthiness aside).
pigslo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giu,

Agree. Bigger is better... as long as you can handle it. 1 person, 35 feet I guess. 2, 35-40... maybe 45 or a little bigger if you are both pretty experienced. 3, 45-50+. I don't know that two people would really go a lot bigger than 40s. Offshore, you are still single handing. You don't have help until you have three. 

But that is just my opinions/comfort level.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> Who is Robert Gainer??


Giulietta,
My name comes up at times like this because I did the same thing he did with the added touch of having my obituary printed in a lot of boating magazine and newspapers in 1976 after I rolled my boat 550 miles east of Porto Rico during a hurricane. The hurricane hunter said 90 knots wind speed and the waves were higher then my mast so I have no idea what the height was. I prefer to remember the good times and point out the successes which far outnumber my occasional (but spectacular) mistakes. My first solo offshore trip was when I was 13 and my first solo trans-Atlantic was with an un-powered 22 foot boat when I was 21. A book was written about my sailing in 1978 and I received an award just last fall during a diner at the Bristol Yacht Club for one of my trips. I also am listed in the "Honor Roll of Single Handed Sailors" in the second edition of Richard Henderson's book "Single Handed Sailing." I also do a bit of sailing on boats with other people. Last fall I sailed to Bermuda from Washington DC with a friend on his CSY 44 and I was the Sailing Master on a 100 ton West Country Ketch during a sail from England to Brazil by way of Europe and Africa. I now teach boatbuilding, history of design and construction, navigation and design at the Hudson Fisheries Trust and will be sailing to Greenland this summer with my Tartan 34C. This is the short version of my past and so far it's only been useful if I want to impress a girl in the current port of call.

What all of this means is simply that people expect me to have an opinion about things like this, but I don't. The way I look at it is that any boat, any size, good or bad can make any trip given good luck and a competent skipper. The flip side is that the perfect boat may not survive a simple trip with an incompetent skipper. It all depends on a combination of luck, skill, preparation and the boat. With suitable luck you need less preparation but if you don't want to bet your life on just luck then you might want to do a better job of preparation and in my book that also includes the research necessary to select the correct boat for a given trip consistent with your plans for handling the boat under all conditions you will encounter during the planed trip. There is more them one correct way to handle a boat and you need to pick a boat that is compatible with your own plans and experience. Each person needs to make his own choice and there isn't much point in second guessing someone because under different circumstances the trip might have worked out fine. The best thing is to look at the details and integrate the good parts into your own library of tricks or if you aren't comfortable with what he did keep it in the back of your mind as an example to use in a discussing tactics with others on board your boat during your own trip.

I guess I could sum it up by saying I don't know the man or his experience and I am unwilling to say much because he's the only one who knows what he was thinking and how far he was planning to push his luck on this trip. I don't agree with his choice of boat and some of his decisions about storm tactics but he had the guts to decide he wanted to do it and he has the right to make that decision. After all no mater how much you do or don't do to prepare you need to start the trip at some point and he just now found out he wasn't quite ready for prime time and he needs to go back to the drawing board and start over. I think that kind of education is called experience and I know what it feels like to make almost the same mistakes he made but as they say if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

CD... I used to feel about the same. Obviously I now don't! The difference is that with 2 aboard you are only single handing at sea when conditions permit and the boat has been properly adjusted. Conditions that REQUIRE two people on deck in MY boat after things have been adjusted are far more serious than on my medium displacement 44 footer that I owned previously so I can "single hand" now in conditions that formerly required both of us and I feel a lot safer due to the fact that severe conditions for this boat don't come along nearly as often as severe conditions for the old boat. Of course...you have to have everything set up to handling the larger vessel to adjust to deteriorating conditions is as easy and safe as on a smaller boat. For us that meant a full cockpit enclosure for protection, roller everything from the safety of the cockpit, big winches and electric assistance (without having to RELY on it!) and a very robust auto pilot. Not suggesting this is right for everyone...just works for us.

Robert...thanks for jumping in and great post!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

pigslo said:


> ...
> I am just thinking a single handed sailor has to really pick his boat and gear and settup very carefully.


Totally agree. From the sound of things Ken seemed to do a good job at it, but did he pick the right boat??? From the looks of things, I would guess he may have picked the wrong boat for him.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cam,

Bigger is better, as long as you can handle it. But we are also talking storm versus the tyical getting it in and out of the slip. Don't you get jealous when you see some schmuck in his Catalina 320 flip his boat around in 20 knot blow and whip into the gas dock? Versus you (and me to a point) that is calling out, "ALL HANDS ON DECK!! NOW PULL BOYS!! PULL LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT!!" HAHA! I am kidding... well, mostly.

You are very experienced. You knew what you were getting into, I would bet. As far as the second person in a storm, absolutely it helps. How could it not. But our rule always was a boat that we could single. 

However, in some ways, I am hippocritical. Going back, I sort of wish I would have just sat around and bought the Mason or Hylas we had been talking about forever. But we did not, and saved a bunch of money by doing it (though I hear the market is good to buy a used boat right now! My wife would kill me if she read this). Lord, I hope Giu did not read that last passage. He will never let me live it down.

Whatever you can handle. PS, where are you right now? Bahamas or US?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> But we did not, and saved a bunch of money by doing it (though I hear the market is good to buy a used boat right now! My wife would kill me if she read this). Lord, I hope Giu did not read that last passage. He will never let me live it down.
> 
> Whatever you can handle. PS, where are you right now? Bahamas or US?


*EHEHEHEHEHE I DID!!!!!!!!!!   *
I knew it!!!!! its called denial where I am!!!  

From now on, I will no longer joke about the catalina!!!  Can't abuse someone that is suffering!!!!

Please, don't be ashamed!!!! Its a boat, remember??? better than no boat!!

now..... to the Catalina site..... for sale... almost new... reason.... denial....want a Hylas


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cd-
"Take a long roller that starts coming into shallow water, it seems to build in heighth and becomes square and dangerous. " It doesn't just SEEM to build, it does build. I've heard various numbers from various sources but I think they'd all agree that when water depth is 10 wave-heights deep, the bottom very much affects the waves and they get rougher faster.

Personally, for inshore or nearshore sailing? Small craft warnings are all too common, and in those 4' seas a 26' boat will waste an awful lot of energy fighting to get through them. At 32' they become a nuisance but not a stopper, and one man can still manhandle the main or genoa in most conditions. Somewhere over that...the boat is too big to fight, you have to outsmart it. (Or try to.<G>) And frankly, at 42-45', I find there's so much boat that there's TOO much space and TOO much to take care of. Not to mention, too mch to do. I'm just not interested in more than that, unless there's other hands and we're all there for a reason. Besides, once it gets that big, the bow and stern can yell at each other all day long--and only the guy on the mast can hear both sides of it. Takes the pleasure out of things.<G>


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Cruisingdad,
I can think of a lot of advantages to a small boat in a storm. And I can also think of a lot of disadvantages to a large boat under the same circumstances. Once again it’s more a function of the skipper and his needs instead of an absolute.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

A topic that has not yet been addressed would seem to be single handing on a circumnavigation. Why?
If we compare similar feats, that have already been done, we don't see too many people repeating them. Admittedly I'm thinking about polar exploration and mountain climbing. My impression is, that once the feat has been accomplished, the bloom is off the rose and being number two to accomplish it is not nearly as prestigous or coveted.
That being said, and you desire to sail around the world, why would you elect to do it alone? Let's let the seamanship issue lay a hull for a moment and consider the psychological aspect. Being alone does strange things to men. Man is inherently a social creature. Being alone at sea, in the open ocean, is a form of sensory deprivation. Exposure to such conditions will do "interesting" things to one's mind. The "alterations" to one's mind could have a profound effect on one's actions during a crisis. How would one train for such conditions? The only organization that I know of that does such training is the military. I believe that Outward Bound used to have some type of program in this regard, how extensive I don't know.
I mention this because even on ships with a crew of 20-40 men certain individuals, after a prolonged time at sea, begin to act a little "squirrely". I suspect that the individuals contemplating such a venture do not give this area their full concern. Admittedly there is more stimuli available to the current single-hander than was available 50-100 years ago, but how many times can you listen to your Simon&Garfunkel tapes before you start thinking you're Paul Simon?
I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but would be interested in other's on it.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

Great thread. Many valid points made without anyone being stepped on.
pigslo


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

CD...had too many things going on to head south again so actually we are ashore in NC for the winter...boat is on the hard getting new bottom paint, zincs and some TLC while we luxuriate with all the hot water we want and flush toilets! <grin>


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sailaway21:

To answer your question as to, "why people single hand?" not sure what other have to say about it but I do it because of convience, mainly day sails during good weather but hope to be good enough soon to take off and just float south. Will mostly do it in short day sail hops. Yeah thousands if not millions have made the journey before me... but they didn't do MY journey. 

My training for the solitude aspect of it. I've taken care of a building at the end of cape cod in an old fishing town, for 4 winters now and enjoy the peace. January February March and parts of April on the cape are dark and bleak, and no one visits. Lots of days of solitude. Now, I could never imagine going back to living in noisey city or one full of sprawl. I spent 14 years in NYC and 4 years in Las Vegas... I prefer the quiet. I have a great relationship with myself and enjoy my own company. If you need people emotionally or physically don't leave the dock without them, single handed isn't for you. 

But I wonder about the Simon and Garfunkel comment... I couldn't imagine listening to anything when I sail... I like to listen to the wind and the slap and rush of the water. I like classical in the galley when I cook and eat. I'll put speakers in the cockpit and will see if I ever turn on the radio.

Matthew
Tranquility C29


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

So, by the same reasoning, if one watched "The Bounty" over and over while at sea, one might not think they were Paul Simon, but rather Captain Bligh, or is it Bly?...and would then remain much more capable at sea? 
I get your point "21"....just a counterpoint for thought.

Oh, and one thing KB said about what he did after being rolled. I forget just how he worded it, but he said, "Well, when your batteries are at..." something to the effect of...at eye level, as if you imply his batteries were seriously dislocated......wouldn't that be fairly high on the boat prep to-do list to make sure the batteries were properly secured so as to survive such an event? Armchair quarterbacking, but still. I dunno. Maybe, at that moment he really yelled out, "Dangit, I knew I was forgetting something!"


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I don't know about Simon&Garfunkel, but I sometimes hear Gordon Lightfoot running through my head singing "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Going to the single handing question, I don't mind it, but much prefer the company of my wife. Luckily I have someone that loves being on the water as much as I do. But I would not call us socialites, at all. We are happiest as far from civilization as possible. I can live anywhere, and chose a house 1 1/2 hours from the closest city (Dallas). When we cruise, I much prefer places off the beaten path and avoid "popular anchorages" with a few exceptions. I am passionate about gunkhoeling, and getting out in the dink and going exploring deep in the mangroves (wonder why my prop is so chewed up??). But you get a LOT of alone time when you are offshore (with 2 people at least).


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

On the question ... "Why single hand around the world ?", I don't think that is a choice that is consciously made so much as just an extension of what your life is already like. I mean if you are a family man, go out to dinner with your friends all the time, love your wife, adore your kids, and can't wait to get out on the boat with the rest of the regatta then you probably aren't going to just suddenly decide, hey, I want to single hand around the world. But if you're like some of us (I include myself) and you have always lived alone, spend limited amounts of time with others, don't have kids, love meeting new women (polite way to say that lol), and have always been on your boat alone, then it would almost be odd to suddenly try to find a bunch of crew to circumnavigate with. I mean if you have always single handed, and you are used to leaving when you want to leave, used to having your dinner the way you have your dinner, walk around the boat with your ass hanging out, etc, then it's going to be quite a lifestyle change to suddenly have a bunch of folks in and around your boat, even one person could be enough to drive you crazy. Some people are just loners. I have always lived alone, having other people in the house with me really bothers me. I have my own way of doing things, I learn things on my own, I don't really give a **** what other people think or what their opinions are unless I really respect their experience and want answers, and spending a lot of time with other people doesn't excite me and make me stronger .. it exhausts me, and makes me tired and cranky. That's not to say I don't like to meet folks and have a good time, but I like to go home when it's done and make some hot chocolate and go to bed. Lonely ? I wouldn't say so, alone yes, lonely, no. Not to say you don't get lonely, but when you do you just go hang out with some folks until they get on your nerves and that lonely feeling goes away. I think (my personal opinion) that single handers are very social in their own way, on their own terms, but in their hearts they are single handers, they are just born and made that way. When you are very social and around people all the time and seek out other people's opinions, and find reassurance in the fact that other people agree with you, etc, then that's just the way you are used to doing things, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. But when you are a single hander and you are used to figuring things out for yourself, keeping your own counsel, interacting with nature to figure things out, etc, there isn't anything wrong with that either, it's just a different way of doing things. Anyway, my point I think is that I don't believe most people who single hand long distance really wake up one day and say, wow, I'm going to single hand around the world ... I think they are just put together that way, and it's not that much of a leap in thinking to go from having dinner alone, to watching a movie alone, to buying a boat alone, to day sailing alone, to sailing the bay alone, to sailing south alone, to .... sailing around the world alone.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

* I think ....that single handers are very social in their own way, on their own terms, but in their hearts they are single handers, they are just born and made that way.*
Great post Wind!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Very well put, Wind Magic. 

Having done much solo mountaineering from the mid 1960s, to the early 1980s, as well as a lot of single-handed sailing, I can add that lone does not mean lonely. To me the terms solo and single-handed imply competence, self sufficiency, self-confidence and an inner peace.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I think that like in all things in life there should be balance. Not to dry and not too much water....

I do a lot of single hand sailing, (that was also one if the items I specified when building my boat), and do a lot of sailing with people around also.

I enjoy both modes. Each sailing mode has its advantages and disadvantages, but I allways adapt my sea going technique to the circumstances of that particular case.

I think we all enjoy our "alone" moments, as well as our "with friends" moments.

Where we can't fail is behaving as "alone" with others and "with" friends" when solo. That is where things go wrong.

There is nothing like going to sea for one or two days alone and take the time to think about "life", as well there is nothing like going to sea with the Son, the wife, both, friends, and think how good it is to have "life".


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Nice Giu. A bit of a romantic, aren't you? Nice post.


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

I agree ...
very well put, great post, Wind

Sam


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

The older I get, the more I appreciate time alone. I too love the time I spend with wife and son but being alone does not frighten me as it did when I was`a younger man.
pigslo


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Not disageeing with anyone. The solitude of sailing is one of it's prime attractions. If it isn't you've obviously answered the question, "can you have too large a boat?". I think that after a period of time though, say 2 months, things can change. I recall the line from the movie "Jeremiah Johnson" where the old grizzly hunter was talking to Robert Redford about going back out into the mountains alone for another winter, "those mountains can do strange things to a man".
Just a thought.


----------



## Chuteman (May 23, 2006)

*Ken Barnes on TV*

I stumbled onto his interview with Greta on Fox Cable. His girlfriend was with him.
Due to the line of questioning (human interest vs strictly sailing) & some basic responses, not much was uncovered vs what we have already heard.
Mr. Barnes seemed very laid back (could be just weary from the trip or whole experience) and distant. But here are a few highlights to me:
1) Girlfriend glossed over her frantic TV interviews but did mention, oh BTW the Coast Guard did called me as soon as the Epirb signal was set off/rec'vd and put into motion the rescue.
2) They did thank everyone who helped including the Chilean gov't who was criticized by the family early on....the fishing boat that did the pickup was also very accomodating by all accounts.
3) Mr. Barnes noted he was kocked down several times before a complete rollover....and that the storm continued for some time after that
4) He did mention batteries everywhere after the rollover. He said that he did not try to start the engine due to batteries being dislodged & his concern that maybe the mounts were damaged or shaft was bent.
5) Rollover broke dinghy in half which was over hatch which started to leak big time 
6) He was down below to protect himself from the approaching storm & had battened everything down to minimize water ingress.
Can't wait to hear more details that will address many of the questions raised on the thread....hopefully he's able to join in here or with a sailing journalist.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

That was a great post by wind, not in my makeup, but a very interesting insight none the less. 

The other morning I snuck off the boat as quiet as a chuch mouse so not to wake the wife and dog, (alone time ) went down to the point to have my morning java, watch the sun come up, watched a sea lion poke his head up, just soaking it all in, then it hit me like a ton of bricks, what a blessed life I have and it just don't get any better.

As I sat there ( actually, saying thanks ) I looked to see a little white fur ball crawling into my lap, a pair of legs wraping around me from behind, a chin on my shoulder and a pair of arms with another coffee in her right hand coming around the front and I though, Oh yeah it does, it gets way better.

I don't have a desire or urge to sail solo, not when we can sail singlehanded alone together....if that makes any sense


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One thing that strikes me as odd is the boat had only 12000 lbs of ballast according to the specs, after removing the two bilge keels, that was down to about 11,200 lbs. However, according to the website, her displacement for the voyage was almost 50,000 lbs. That means her ballast by percentage was only 22.4%...which strikes me as being awfully light for a bluewater passagemaker.


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

This is my take on single handed ocean passages.You sign a form stating that if you require rescue,you pay for it.Going on extended voyages to find some zen like solitude should also come with responsibilty.Most countries around the world that give a damn about safety require that any workers have someone with them in any nightshift manufacturing plant.The reasons are so obvious,not even getting into the legal aspects.Can you imagine on your next flight ,the captain states he is going to sleep for a few minutes and there is no co pilot but things are on auto so don`t worry.Having no one at the helm because he is asleep doesn`t seem like good seamanship.It is one thing to be in that position because of circumstances,but,to actually plan it doesn`t sound good to me.The sailing communtiy by in large thinks they have this right ,i don`t.Now before you all go into a frenzy,just my opinion.With all this talk about safety ,never ending, and this never gets the attention that i think it should.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

dman said:


> This is my take on single handed ocean passages.You sign a form stating that if you require rescue,you pay for it.Going on extended voyages to find some zen like solitude should also come with responsibilty.


Personal responsibility seems to be a lost atribute these days.


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

dman,

That is one reason people like Pardeys cruise without EPIRBs and the such. Danger to the rescuers is another potential reason why there is no guarantee that rescue is coming when an EPIRB signal is received. I agree that a large amount of personal responsibility is surrendered by those who live life as though it is others' responsibility to pull their bacon out of the fire when things go downhill. I believe this evolving belief is the result of 1) people sacrificing their liberty for a little convenience (remember Ben Franklin's famous quote) 2) an unintended result of the modern welfare state (not that I believe that a social safety net is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself and compassionate society should by definition, I believe, help those who are less fortunate). This lack of personal responsibility is encouraged by corporations, government bureaucracies, and individuals who see this a an opportunity to make profits and/or justify their existence. 

By the way, it is my understanding that with most modern commerical aircraft are on autopilot for most of their flight, save take off and landing.

Part of the attraction of sailing to me is as an escape for all this and as a way feeling more in charge of my life. 

Jeffersonianism lives!!!

Sam


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It is true that the aircraft autopilot is put to extensive use in today's airline cockpits--however there are usually 2 pilots in that cockpit and at least one of them is awake!

We certainly have the technological capability to make a completely automated airliner. It has not been done because not many people would be willing purchase tickets to ride an aircraft with no human backup capability.  If I am a passenger at 30,000 feet and he autopilot craps out, I know the guy up front can take over and get me back on the ground.

I think any solo skipper has the right to use his autopilot to catch a few winks, so long as it is only his butt on the line. What I do have a problem with is that he not only endangers himself, but others when exercising his "right."


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I am now curious what the total number of solo sailors is at any given time circumnavigating the globe and what would that make the odds of hitting any thing but a Whale or container. After all, they usually are sleeping with radar alarms on and what have you and usually stay out of shipping routes. Isn't the danger mostly borne by the sailor to himself?
pigslo


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

> Isn't the danger mostly borne by the sailor to himself?


 This is the responce that is usually used.If i am working on machinery in a shop by myself,it is only i that can die as well,would that be calling myself responsible?It is something that just isn`t done in industry for safety reasons.I have been in situations where another perspective,opinion has literally saved our butts.Sometimes it`s hard to see the trees in the forrest when you are caught up in a bad situation.There are many times when repair work cannot be done or safely done by 1 person.Just because people do it ,doesn`t mean that it should be done.It is this hippocracy of sailors,with all their safety talk that fills these boards and this is an accepted practice.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Getting back to the Ken Barnes story where we started this thread...
Ken was on live with Greta VanSustern last night but again, she doesn't know enough about boats to ask any of the questions we'd all be interested in hearing. He really didn't explain anything we didn't know except to say that after the roll a lot of water had come in a large cabin hatch which was broken. He said that after sorting things out he found that the hatch was *intact* but the securing dogs were broken. There was no questioning or admission that he did anything wrong or would do anything differently. He didn't *TRY *to start the engines because the baterries were all over the place and with the water in the boat he was afraid of shock. The impression one was left with was that it was just bad luck or "fate".
On his website there is now a brief Q&A as follows with the promise of more to come. 
**********
*Q. What will happen to Privateer?*
A. Privateer was scuttled. Ken felt it was far too damaged to repair. In order to prevent it from becoming a Maritime hazard to others, he sunk it.
*Q. Was Privateer Insured?*
A. No, it is very expensive and nearly impossible to insure a vessel for a round the globe adventure. Ken is out the costs.
*Q. When will Ken try again?*
A. Well, mentally speaking, from his statements, we believe he would like to attempt this again. Financially speaking, he is not able to even think of an attempt right now as he was all-in with Privateer.
*Q. What caused the demasting and rudder failures?*
A. Privateer encountered a burst of heavy air (common to this area) and rounded up/broached into a breaking 25 foot wave. This caused the boat to roll 360 degrees, which in turn broke both masts, ripped off a hatch(s), and flooded the cabin with 3 feet of water before the boat righted.
*Q. What will Ken do now?*
A. He is contemplating that right now.. 
More Q &A to come as well as more details. Please check back with us !!! 
Any questions, please direct to [email protected]


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

Ya know, the more I read about this incident and granted not alot has been made public, the more convinced I become that Mr. Barnes didn't really know what he was doing. For instance, in all my reading of this I have not read a single word about any kind of significant shakedown cruise (that doesn't mean there wasn't one though) and given his stated trouble with his mainsail downhaul; I don't think there was a shakedown cruise. He apparently spent several years outfitting this boat for this trip yet didn't find purdent to rig some kind of interior steering arrangement (i.e. as Moitessier did on Joshua prior to his Tahiti to Spain voyage). His storm tactics seem to have amounted to setting the autopilot (he say he had a windvane but never mentions actually using it) then sitting down below and hoping (praying??) for the best. I could go on but I will wait and see any more detailed info comes out.

And no I have not singlehanded around the world or across an ocean but what little I do know about sailing suggest to me that there is huge amount I don't know and that I would need to radically expand my knowledge and experience before attempting a solo circumnavigation or solo trans-oceanic voyage.

Sam


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

I have to agree Sam,there sure are alot of strange events here.The electocution thing was another.!2 volt....inverter on maybe?Where was the battery disconnect in the bilge? 250,000 dollar price for a rescue.When asked if he was to pay for it,he said that is not how things work at sea,and when pressed about whether he should pay he reluctantly said If i have too.The fishing boat that picked him up lost time and money.I`ll bet their crew which often get`s a percentage of the take ,makes very little.His girlfriend said more in the interview than he did.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

I didn't really realize until today how big all this was, I mean, in terms of media coverage and such. I went to get my hair cut and Rhonda starts asking me if I heard about this guy that almost died down south somewhere haha. I'm like, yeah, Ken Barnes, and she starts saying yes that was his name, Ken, and how he was so brave to go down there and try to sail around the world and isn't it terrible his boat got damaged and that he wasn't able to finish. I mean this from someone who probably has never even been on a sailboat before, and she knew all about what was going on, I was really surprised she had heard about it.

And thanks for the nice comments earlier in the thread.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

While I agree that we are primarily responsible for ourselves, and that we shouldn't rely on others to rescue us when we get in trouble, I don't think there's anything admirable about "going down with your boat," merely because you don't want to put the coasties in danger by asking them to come get you. The coasties are thoroughly trained and equipped for these very purposes. They know the capabilities of their equipment, and the extent of their own skills, and, if they think the conditions are beyond their capabilities, they won't be pulling you out until the conditions abate. So, we are ultimately responsible for our own safety. If you can't keep yourself alive until they get there, you'll die.

If your house catches fire as a result of your own negligence, are you going to let it burn to the ground because you don't want to call the firefighters and have them endanger themselves by fighting it? Many firefighters are injured or die every year responding to just such calls. If a crazed person starts shooting up your favorite pub, are you going to decline to call the police because you don't want any police officers to get hurt or killed? Of course you're going to call for help, and the same should apply if you get in trouble with your boat. 

Police, firefighters and the coasties are trained and equipped for what they do, and most of them have wives and children that they want to go home to at the end of each day. They are courageous people, but they don't take foolish risks. It's nice of you to show such selfless concern for for the coasties' safety, but they consider what they do to be reasonably safe, when their equipment and training are taken into consideration. So, if you decline to call for assistance, out of a misguided concern for their safety that even they don't share, you're just wasting whatever is left of your life, for no good reason. You might be willing to accept that consequence, but most of us have friends and relatives who would mourn our deaths and prefer to have us alive. You owe it to those people to do whatever you can to come back alive, even if that means asking for help.

It might feed your ego to think you are so independent and resourceful that you can go through life without anyone's help. Most of us would respect you for possessing that quality. Likewise, most of us would not respect you for wasting your life so pointlessly.

We're fortunate to have EPIRBs and similar life saving equipment, and we're fortunate to live in a society that places a high value on life, and that is willing to provide life saving services. The government is going to pay for those services, whether you use them or not. You might as well use them. If society decides we should have to pay for using those services, then that can be accomplished. Many cities now charge you for ambulance services. Personally, I don't think lifesaving services should only be available to those who can afford to pay for them.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Regarding the solo-trip and outside help:

I guess I would like to throw in my personal thoughts. I agree that "to think that when you go down somebody should have to come and rescue you" is wrong. We are sailors and should be our own best keepers, in every possible situation. However, I will also say again that we are sailors... and stick together. It is a way of life that crosses border and knows no boundaries. I have no problem with the Chilean government assisting him. Was it their responsibility? Yes and no. No they did not have to do it but yes they should because it is the right thing to do and accidents happen. The Chilean people pay for that service. The same would be said if a CHilean sailor needed to be rescued by the USCG. I would not have a problem with it, at all. In fact, if I was in the vacinity, I would do all I could to assist and would want no payment. If I am not mistaken in maritime law, as a USCG licensed vessel and captain, you are REQUIRED to lend asistance to the point that it does not compromise your safety, or that of your crew or vessel. I might be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

We work together and survive together and help out no matter where we are, or whose flag flies off the stern. Those who travel the sea have to look beyond the colors flown off the stern.

- CD

PS I cannot imagine ANY solo that thinks he should just get rescued and have his butt saved in the event his boat goes down. I bet for every Ken Barnes that is rescued, there are a dozen (or more) that were never found.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Sam, dman- Totally agree with you both. As I'm sure I over stated early in this thread, I think Mr. Barnes was over his head and I think he should HAVE to pay for the rescue. Exactly right on the fishing crew! Every time there is more information about this, it only raises more questions. When stranded in the southern ocean, how do you not even try to start the engine? At the very least start assessing your concerns with the engine to see if there is any risk in starting. How do you not secure the batteries (as mentioned a while back). The idea that you can go and do anything you choose, regardless of your abilities and the affect it has on others, and then just walk away (and probably profit from a book later) is mind blowing to me.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

T34,

If it was me, I would try in every respect repay the costs... or as much as I could At the very least, 50k to a Chilean school or charity would go a long way, now wouldn't it? What about the fishermen? 

Still, my decision to help him or not to help him would not hinge on his ability (or lack of or desire of) to repay me. It would not you either, I would guess. If a CHilean boat went down off of US waters, we would do anything and everything we could to save him without a thought to whether or not to get repaid.

As far as his prep... I just don't know. I can think of some things I would do different... I bet most people that have been offshore much can. But we were not there and faced with the exact same decisions he faced. Good sailor? Bad seamanship??? WHo knows. I am just glad he came out alive and glad another country did all they could to save him. Humanity.

- CD

PS Doubt I will buy his book.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Here's the interview he gae t the AP. I thought what he learned was interesting. 
http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/fv/fv.htm??g=d7247fd3-b2a2-4c3d-bb41-cd939ab14b36


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

AHHHHH I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!! SEE!!!!

He said in the very end.... "You've got live Life" Exactly what I said in my post!!!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

CD- I too am glad for the happy ending to it all. I think that there are some good lessons to be learned here and that is one of the reasons why I think this needs attention focused on it. Maybe by looking at it in detail and putting KB's actions under the microscope another sailor will be more prepared for their voyage. As you stated I too would do (and have done)anything within my power to aid another sailor in distress. At the same time, if I, my boat, or crew are in distress, it is my sole responsibility/duty to ensure our safety. If someone else or another vessel is able to help it obviously would be welcome, but I'm not going to count on it.

You know the book is coming!


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

Another few of little tidbits that amazes me:

1) Apparently while awaiting rescue it seems he made NO effort to pump the water out of his boat. I guess he didn't think he would need a manual bilge pump or with the his 14 unsecured batteries to handle the electric pumps. But then again who hasn't dreamed of sitting in 3 feet of freezing in a survival suit living off pop tarts for three days. Damn it, its Miller time!

2) The log entries posted to his website prior to the incident intimate that he was sleeping uninterupted for hours on end and not waking up regularly to look for shipping traffic, check the weather, etc. I especially like (irony intended) how he talks in one entry about "wandering"   into a storm. I wonder how adept he is a reading and interpreting weatherfax and other weather forecasting data?

3) It seems pretty amazing to me that the need to have the bilge keels removed from his boat didn't scream to Mr. Barnes that just maybe his boat selection was less than optimal. I wouldn't be surprised if the removal of the keels had a negative effect on the stability of his boat.

His website sure lists a lot fo computers, generators, GPS, batteries, radars, a 16 gph watermaker, etc. with no mention of boring stuff like paper charts, manual bigle pumps, backup tillers. I know he says the list is just a sampling of the gear and systems he had on board but he comes off sounding way too enamored with technology. Now with tongue planted firmly in cheek let me say: given his boat, its size, accommadations, and all that it sound more like he was going into charter business than trying to sail around the world non stop and by himself. 

I work with computers professionally (first as a sys admin and now as the sole proprietor of a computer repair and support business) and so I spend a whole alot of picking up the pieces when thing go wrong. Being overly in love computers and technology is not one of my problems. I have many clients look at me with more than a little suprise with some of the low tech solutions I suggest, especially when they are looking (and wanting) to spend money on the latest gee whiz tech and gizmos.

I hope I don't sound uncaring. I really am glad for him and loved ones that he is safe. Had I been in the area I would have done everything I could to help. But still, my attention is focused on this event because of what I and others can and should learn from it. I would much rather seem a little cold and analytical here on the net and learn from this than commit the same errors he did and possible suffer not quite so happy an outcome.

One final thought for what is worth and this may sound a little silly. Although I never met him, the sailor whom I admire most is Bernard Moitessier. When ever I read, see, of hear about something like this (or really almost anything regarding sailing) one of the first questions I ask myself is some variation of the following: What would Bernard do? A Sea Vagabond's World opens with the following thought: "Firmly put aside anything superfluous. Given a choice a choice between something simple and something complicated, choose what is simple without hestitation; sooner or later, what is complicated what is complicated will almost always lead to problems - needless expense, loss of time, and waste of energy. ... Make do with what you have, and don't have eyes bigger than your stomach." (p. 13). I can't help but think Mr Barnes should have read a little more Moitessier and spent a little less time trolling the net for the "perfect boat." 

Sam


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

> I think that there are some good lessons to be learned here and that is one of the reasons why I think this needs attention focused on it. Maybe by looking at it in detail and putting KB's actions under the microscope another sailor will be more prepared for their voyage.


 Exactly T34C ,Those points also crossed my mind Sam.


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

A most excellent thread. It's said, Teachers come in many disguises. He learned, we learned (or at least were reminded). 
Privateer didn't deserve her fate.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Bob- Interesting thought. Waste of a perfectly good boat.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I finally took some time to look at Ken's website a bit more. From Ken's log



> *Well after trying for a while, in my muttled condition, to figure out which way to turn the autopilot to head downwind I finally started to get things sorted out, in my head, now for the boat. *First of all I knew there was a large low pressure system ahead of me when I went to sleep but I had been watching these lows and they all seemed to pass by rather quickly, usually in about 24 hours so my thinking was this one will pass and I will get in behind it, I thought wrong. This low decided to camp out for 3 days and as I slept I wandered right into it.....
> 
> ...I stayed below waiting to see what would break first just hoping it would not be the autopilot. As with all things this storm has passed. Winds are now 10-15 kts. The seas are still rough but the sun is out and the barometer is up. *There is another low on the way but this one won't catch me sleeping. 1400 miles to Cape Horn and still moving,* KEN


First question, how many of you know how to turn your autopilot (or boat for that matter) to get it to turn downwind and how much do you have to think about it to do it?? This makes me wonder how much actual experience he had with the boat and the gear on it.

Wouldn't you be keeping a bit closer an eye on the weather in the southern Pacific, when you're trying to round one of the hardest navigational/sailing challenges in the world???

Apparently, this low did catch him sleeping...

I am glad he is safe and back home, but still have to question his choice of boat, and what his actual preparations for his voyage were.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I've read all the posts, watched the AP video, and I've come to a couple of conclusions. My conclusions are based more on my experience as a master mariner than as a small boat sailor.
I know what the crew of the fishing boat was thinking when they got the call. Another damn fool. And they are right.
If you have to single hand around Cape Horn to find yourself or to "live" you have some mental problems with the chief one probably being a lack of maturity.
There are many ways to single hand a boat. There are many ways to circumnavigate. There are even many ways to circumnavigate single-handed. The route chosen was foolish. Being in a position where he had to gather his muddled thoughts made single-handing a foolish decision and made his vessel unseaworthy.
Everything I see indicates a narcissistic individual apparently trying to increase his self image and prove he has balls. If sailing is your passion by all means indulge it. Engaging in risky behavior proves nothing. There is a reason there are no 50 year old Formula 1 drivers, for an example. First, they're not much good at it. Second, they are then at an age where they do not feel the need to prove much, and certainly not die doing so. And a 50 year old F1 driver would have a better than even chance of dieing. This sailor was engaged in an activity of similar risk. We expect foolish behavior of youth, the actuarial tables tell us our expectations are well founded.

To further make my point that this was the action of an immature, narcissistic individual: apparently too little thought was given to the risk to others. As a professional mariner I have had to respond to distress calls and luckily for myself, my vessel, and my crew none were killed or injured. We always respond-the tradition and honor motivating more than any written law. As I have stated elsewhere, most rescues are done by merchant vessels. The CG of the US, or any other nation, is not out cruising the high seas just in case they are needed. The seamen who are out there are earning a living in a potentially hazardous occupation. They do so with the utmost regard to their vessel, their safety, and a proper evaluation of risk. Now they are expected to suspend their livelihood, steam miles out of their way, and engage in a rescue operation they have little training in. They do so out of a sense of duty to their fellow seamen and at potential risk to themselves and their vessel. Anyone who does not consider the risk that others might have to take in saving them from their own foolish actions is criminally immature. I do not have the option to not respond to your distress call any more than i would expect another vessel not to respond to mine. This individual has presumed upon the integrity and life of all mariners about him. I do not call him brother. I call him "Fool".

No admiralty court would exonerate the Master or owner of a vessel that engaged in this action. The vessel would be deemed unseaworthy from the moment she let go her lines. All liability-for life, cargo, and vessel-would be assumed by Master and owner. The vessel was under-crewed for a minimum, and possibly manned by unqualified crew. In maritime law that is prima facie evidence of unseaworthiness.

The decision by the Pardey's not to carry an EPIRB may be foolish. The decision not to deploy an EPIRB when engaged in reckless behavior is honorable in that it denotes a conception of the risks involved in such behavior. The Pardey's decision certainly gives a nod of respect to their fellow seamen unmet.

There is a world of difference between the professional mariner and the sport sailor. The yachtsman is engaging in an optional activity, the seaman in his livelihood. The difference is seen in how they approach their sport and avocation. The best yachtsmen emulate the professional's approach.

I'll conclude this over long tirade by posing a question. How do you feel about the ice fisherman who knowingly goes out on too thin ice, falls through, and perishes? How do you feel about the shoreside passerby who perishes trying to rescue that ice fisherman?

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"
1 Cor. 13:11


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

Hey Sailaway,

I'm still waiting for you to post something I disagree with    

Peace,
Sam


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

Actually any guy that will climb a mast in those conditions to cut a hallyard _*DOES *_have balls.
pigslo


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey svs3,
Go over to the submarine thread-I think your wait is over! LOL

Peace


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

I was referring to maritime issues. The next time someone agrees with politically will probably the first time. 

Sam


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey-that's kewl. I prefer to do the poly-sci over on fight club, but sometimes can't resist jumping in. Bad habit on my part.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Sailaway- Thanks for doing a very good job in stating what wasn't PC enough for many to say, but what most will agree with.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Sailaway, and others
Most but not everybody would agree with you sentiments. I understand why people might not be in favor of a trip like this. You don’t need much experience or skill to know that he wasn’t prepared or skilled enough for this trip. If enough people did this sort of thing new laws and rules would be written to prevent sailing like this and that would be a shame. 

But I know how it happens better then most. I was once in the same fix some thirty years ago for very much the same reasons trying the same trip. But I have covered a lot of miles since then. From the beginning of recorded history there are many examples of mistakes some of which lead to great advances and some just became disasters and footnotes in history. The greatest thing they all had in common is the undeniable urge man has to not only challenge himself but to extend the frontiers for everybody. I sail most of the time now to accomplish something I did not do before but not so much for a place in a record book as to have a personal best one step closer to an unattainable goal. As society becomes more complex and man becomes more and more removed from his origins a spirit for adventure and personal independence is dieing out. We as a group are becoming more and more dependent on someone else and in fact we are coming to expect someone else to make everything right instead of being responsible for ourselves. 

Ken Barnes is a good example of how not to do “it” in sailing and life in general because he didn’t do his homework but also he is the poster child for lack of independence and sense of responsibility. This doesn’t mean everybody should just give up and be satisfied to just read about the great adventures of the past. You and Ken Barns can learn from both his mistakes and your own mistakes and try again. My own disaster did not stop me and I don’t think Ken Barns or anyone else needs to give up just because its harder then they imagined. Sit back and reconsider both how to do it and reconsider if you even want to do now that you know more then you did when you started out on that voyage or any other voyage you may choose to make by sailing or in other life decisions.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

There are some questions concerning "well prepared". If the boat were well prepared there would be no caved in hatches. A boat prepared for sailing in the roaring 40's should have bulletproof hatches. It should have sufficient materials on board to jury rig a rudder of some kind. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent rescuing him, and many lives were endangered as well. 

Some other points are. He hasn't cut the failed rigging away. Parts of the masts are still attached. I think the guy just wanted out. He’s lucky the mast hasn’t punched a hole in the hull. 

I also can't believe he scuttled his boat. I think he had decided that sailing around the world just wasn't what he thought it would be and wanted out. So when the opportunity presented itself, he grabbed it.

JMHO

Chauncey


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sailaway...I agree that he was unqualified to undertake the voyage he did and made a lot of mistakes and put others in jeopardy. But I will comment on some of the things you said...
***********
If you have to single hand around Cape Horn to find yourself or to "live" you have some mental problems with the chief one probably being a lack of maturity.
*I think all long distance solo sailors are not "normal" but I wouldn't define their need of and joy in the solitude and the sea as mental problems. To have a dream of doing something no one else has done and set out to achieve it is how much of mankind's progress has been made. I would not call it ego or immaturity. Donna Lange is right now doing much the same thing as Barnes attempted (though with much more smarts and sense)...and many look to her as an inspiration rather than a mental case. *
Everything I see indicates a narcissistic individual apparently trying to increase his self image and prove he has balls.
*He proved he has balls. It's what's between his ears that we question! *

apparently too little thought was given to the risk to others. 
*Given that he didn't give sufficient thought to the risks he posed to himself...it is pretty much certain that he didn't think about any risk to others...but since anytime anyone singlehands they pose a risk to others by your definition I hope you are not suggesting that singlehanding be banned?*


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Chaunclm said:


> Some other points are. He hasn't cut the failed rigging away. Parts of the masts are still attached. I think the guy just wanted out. He's lucky the mast hasn't punched a hole in the hull.


I doubt that luck had much to do with this...more like the fact that it was a steel hull had a lot more to do with it...


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I hold my tongue on this man's qualifications for a number of reasons. 1.) All the facts are not in and only Ken knows the rest. While the current lay of the information does not speak well for him, it *IS *incomplete. 2.) Respect for his efforts. 3.) It actually is hard to believe he screwed up as much as it *appears* he did when you read thelist of people he consulted for this trip.

That being said, I think the event having made the world stage has given us all time to examine our own situations. I for example will replace my batteries with a dry cell or gel next time around. It makes me look at my boat upside down etc.. Lots to learn.
pigslo


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Chauncy, 
Welcome aboard! I have a couple of points of info that bear on your message:
1. The boat had previously sailed through the med and across the atlantic by previous owners and there was no evidence of anything being substandard.
2. The hatch itself was not stove in or broken from its' hinges. The dogs on the hatch were ripped out which indicates there was a large UPWARD force exerted on the hatch. Two possibilities occur to me: Something heavy and unsecured (like perhaps one of those batteries??) could have dropped onto the hatch during the rollover OR since the dinghy was tied on deck just above the hatch and was lost...perhaps those lines ripped the hatch lid upwards. In any case, I don't believe the hatch was substandard. 

3. He scuttled his boat because it would have cost over 500K to salvage it. ..and he did not want to leave it afloat as a hazard to navigation. I can't fault him for that. 

I found his preparations for the boat to be quite well thought out and nothing was left to chance so it would be my guess that he had materials at hand which would have allowed him to jury rig some solutions had he had the heart or mind to do so. Like you, I found his actions during the voyage to be rather passive and that became more pronounced after the roll-over. I think that once he knew help was on the way, he gave up trying to do anything and simply waited with his pop tarts for others to end his misery. 

My gut feel is that he learned little and will not be heading back to sea...But as Robert so correctly and eloquently points out...once the furor dies down, Ken has the opportunity to really think about his voyage, reconsider his actions and set a new course for his life that may benefit from what he has been through.


----------



## scurvy (Jul 24, 2006)

Chaunclm said:


> Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent rescuing him, and many lives were endangered as well.


Can't speak for the amount of money that it cost to rescue our sailor, but I think this may be a slight exaggeration? 

What I can speak for is this tired old argument of the lives that were put at risk during the rescue. I have been climbing mountains for over 30 years now (rock, ice and Mountaineering) and have had experience working with the SAR in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. I participated, knowing full well, of the dangers that were involved and that my life and the lives of the other team members were at risk. We signed on because we loved what we did. We believed in what we did, and we did so accepting those risks. Perhaps it is just a peeve of mine, but if I had a nickle every time I heard a canned phrase like this one...the blood starts to liven up! Not angry here, nor do I mean any dissrespect (absolutely nothing personal here), but the above quote belongs with statements like..."Well, at least he died doing what he loved".

Accidents happen. Mistakes happen. And no matter how much we prepare for life's adventures, there is always that chance (and it is usually a pretty good one), that things are not going to go our way. When they don't, there are people out there willing to help out, without judgement or ill feelings.

That is why we have a coast guard, civil air patrol, Mountain Search and Rescue...just concerned people doing what they love to do.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

scurvy- I understand what you are saying. I too have spent a lot of time on rock. I've worked as an EMT, Firefighter, and Athletic Trainer and have put my own life on the line many times to help others. The difference in this case is that it wasn't just the Coast Guard or professional SAR team that were involved in rescuing the guy. We're talking about fishermen who were trying to earn a living and are not trained for this kind of thing. Did they think about any undue risk, no probably not they are already working one of the most dangerous jobs going. I'm sure they were just mad about the loss to their income and the extra time at sea. But, that extra time at sea does involve them risking their lives even if they weren't putting alot of thought into it.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Cam,
I think you may be mis-construing my point. And I would be the last one to think of banning any activity based on risk alone.
What i meant to illuminate was what I perceive to be the sophistry inherent in the idea of going to sea to find one's self or develop one's character. The competent solo sailor has already found himself and his character is not developed on his voyage, it is revealed.

I think that Robert and I would agree that the prudent mariner picks his passages based on his skill level, previous experience, and commitment to preperation. This is the same standard that impells us to not leave the dock in sheltered waters without life-jackets. I would pose the question as to how a man or woman develops the skill-set necessary to transit Cape Horn while single-handing? Because numerous individuals have done it, and it is summer, does not alleviate the prudence issue. Let us not confuse a hopeless romanticism with the extreme diligence required of such a venture. What do we call an individual who, because of their actions, ensures themselves of a less than 50% chance of survival and predicates their actions upon the availability of rescue?

They cut a ditch across Panama almost one hundred years ago to meet the needs of mariners engaged in such ventures, and prudent mariners use it. If you wish to prove your heavy weather abilities there are any number of locations to do so-where you can arrange for privately funded assistance standing by should you need it-and they would not entail the selfish actions we have witnessed.

I am in full agreement with the idea that the actions we saw were selfish, ego-driven, and immature. That is not seamanship. Seamanship has a hard, calculating, flinty-eyed look to it-it is constantly weighing and evaluating conditions and circumstances. If danger can be avoided, it is avoided, and the only response to those who knowingly do not avoid it is incredulity and, ultimately, contempt.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sailaway... I guess I did misunderstand...I agree with your first two paragraphs in their entirety. 
Maybe I am missing the point in the 3rd paragraph but you seem to be saying that the Panama Canal is there for us and anyone who chooses to round the horn instead should arrange private rescue services regardless of how well prepared one is? Is that what you are saying??

As to the last...I don't know enough about him to say anything about ego, selfishness and immaturity. I suspect that you are at least in part right, but I would simply call him stupid for undertaking such a voyage without seeing the need to prepare himself and test himself in less risky situations first.


----------



## scurvy (Jul 24, 2006)

POint well taken T34C!

I guess my comment was aimed at the military operation that was mounted in Argentina. The fishermen risk their own lives each and every day they leave the harbor, they certainly did risk above and beyond what they normally do on the day to day aspect of their profession (unquestionably). Seems like the fishermen made a "choice" to help out...not true? Thanks for the clarification...


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

I'm no sea lawyer, so I'll ask this question. 

In the event one participates in a rescue, looks over the situation, and initiates a tow of the ABANDONED vessel even though one has her rescued captain on board, who would hold legal right to the hulk.

Legally, what constitutes abandonment?


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Not 100% on this one, but I think if the vessel is in distress, at risk of foundering, someone taking it in tow could claim salvage rights with the captian on board, possibly even with the captain on board his own ship if he accepts the help without clarifying that it is not a salvage.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

cockeyedbob said:


> Legally, what constitutes abandonment?


Leaving with no intention of returning. 
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## scurvy (Jul 24, 2006)

Tartan34C said:


> Leaving with no intention of returning.


That was my understanding as well...but then you get into the "Tow vs. Salvage" debate. Have known a few people stung by this one...


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Don't you also have to indicate that you will be returning if you leave, ie...sign or note?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I believe that T34C is right. 

If the vessel is either abandoned or in danger of sinking, then it does become a salvage operation. If the vessel is in danger of sinking and not abandoned, it still is a salvage situation. Even if all you do is help put a few pumps aboard to help empty the bilge.... you are in a salvage situation if the boat would sink without your actions.

If the boat is a hazard to navigation or other boats it may also become a salvage situation...but I'm not sure about the circumstances. For instance, if you leave the boat to get assistance/equipment, and the currently empty boat floats into a shipping channel... then it may be a salvage operation, as it is effectively in danger of being sunk, by being hit by another vessel.


----------



## scurvy (Jul 24, 2006)

Yep...

There seems to be a lot of grey areas surrounding the circumstances and legalities of it all. I once read an article that explained it, then read another article a few months later that nearly contradicted the first! Just hope that it never happens to me so I don't have to sift through the litany (or lose the boat for that matter!)  

I believe that sailingdog is right, and I believe that the vessel is a salvage if she is sinking or unable to navigate on her own which can be deemed a threat to navigation. An engine out would not necessarily constitute this...but I have heard some stories...better read the fine print on this I suppose?!?!


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

There's a fairly good discussion of maritime law in Wikipedia that answers some of the questions here.

With regard to the question of whether the fishing boat that rescued Ken can get compensation for doing so, it appears doubtful. Wikipedia says: "When property is lost at sea and rescued by another, the rescuer is entitled to claim a salvage award on the salved property. There is no "life salvage." All mariners have a duty to save the lives of others in peril without expectation of reward. Consequently salvage law applies only to the saving of property." This raises another interesting question. In law, where there is a legal duty, there is usually a legal cause of action against any person who fails to do that duty. If the fishermen refused to go to his aid, would he or his heirs have had a right to sue them for not going to his aid? The article isn't detailed enough to answer that question, but that is certainly a possibility. Moreover, although we might all be sympathetic with the fishermen for having to do so at their own expense, I think any seaman would be universally condemned if he failed to go to the aid of another seaman in dire distress without good reasons.

The remainder of the article can be found at the following hyperlink. Especially scroll down to "Salvage and treasure salvage" for a general discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#Salvage_and_treasure_salvage


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Litigation against the designer*

I will not be surprised if our intrepid dismasted sailor doesn't sue the designer for telling him that it was all right to remove the bilge keels. He has mentioned this tidbit in several interviews. I hope he doesn't, but as you all know already I don't have a real high opinion of this guy.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

My understanding is that those bilge keels were only there to stand the boat up in the mud at low tide. The arguement could be made either way that they would slow the roll like a drogue might or increase the roll from added weight and momentum. I am not an engineer but I played one on T.V. Engineers will weigh in before the ink on this post is dry.
pigslo


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Are you guys saying that boat had *no* ballast keels?? Of any kind?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

HS...he had a main "center" keel...there were also two welded steel bilge keels weighing 800 lbs total that were used to stand the boat on dry land like a lot of euro/uk boats. He consulted Robert Perry about removing them and Perry said it was OK and would not affect the seaworthiness of the boat. Important to note that Perry was not the designer...merely a consultant for the question at hand.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Three keels...OK, thanks, Cam. I'll just go start eating the coffee beans without adding any water now, I think I'm gonna lots more caffiene to understand why anyone would want three keels on a boat in the first place.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Well...when you have 30'+ tides like they do in England...a lot of 30' deep moorings/slips are bone dry at low tide. There are a lot of two keel boats there which serve as "jackstands" AND real keels. In this particular case...the boat was built with one real keel and 2 "Jackstands" welded to to the hull!! 
A true bilge keel boat also has the advantage of a shallower draft than the same boat with a single keel...as the boat heels, the windward keel exerts more downward force as it is lifted.







Note the anchor chain and the dink. Makes cleaning the bottom and painting pretty easy!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam, I understand having bilge keels so the boat can sit. But once you have added the drag of two more keels--tripling the drag that you would have with a single keel /vs/ three-- why not JUST use bilge keels, and get rid of the useless drag from that third keel in the middle? That's what I don't get, using three when there's nothing to be gained by having three instead of two.

Sitting in the north, I can see that jackstands might be useful. Globetrotting...an awful lot of drag too much of the time. Dunno, there must be some reason he wanted that particular boat design.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Hellosailor,

They are not exactly all equal, the keels.

The side ones are thiner and much lighter. They do not NORMALLY have any lead or weight inside.

They are just stands shaped as a keel, and frequentely very thin. They have almost no big effect on boat self righting.

The midle one is sometime a Hybrid, and can't be removed as its part of ther hull, it is the bottom of the boat.

Hope its visible in bellow photo.










And the people with these boats don't care about drag or performance. They are happy they can sail, otherwise, have to stay home and watch boats on sailnet or TV!!

These boats are designed for tide areas. Its a compromise. Just like a Macgreggor is.

Helped??


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

*BIG NEWS:*
Ken Barnes has justed posted a rather complete account of his "adventure" on his wesite. I must admit...I feel better about the guy now. Not good...just better! Read on...
http://www.kensolo.com/kenstatus.htm


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Well, I will say one thing: Whether you like the guy or do not, whether you think he showed good seamanship or not, ther is NO WAY anyone that readys that post (and has owned a boat or spent much time at sea) can say it does not break your heart to read about him cutting her lifeline. 

- CD


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Yes, the loss of the boat can be sad... God forbid...I can't imagine.

However... jammed wheel, dodger jamming it, broken shifter, batteries flying around, too much crap on deck, it looks like some stuff was very well thought, but the practicality of things was not the best. Like securing batteries, water tight hatches, dodgers!!! biminis?? 

Seems like the boat was prepared for a cruise, but a small coastal one, not a solo non stop.

If you look at his boat (forget the type, the keels all that), and look at other boats attempting this, I think he had too much crap on deck!!! that's what I see, a weak rig, no emergency rudder, maybe the boat was too heavy...

A lot was learnt here, I did.

Now he's broke, and "moraly" down and alone, so to get some money, publicity seems at hand....


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> *BIG NEWS:*
> Ken Barnes has justed posted a rather complete account of his "adventure" on his wesite. I must admit...I feel better about the guy now. Not good...just better! Read on...
> http://www.kensolo.com/kenstatus.htm


Hmmmmm....

Has he been reading this forum?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

T34C said:


> Hmmmmm....
> 
> Has he been reading this forum?


T,

I thought exactly that!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Ohhh, that is freaky. So did I! In all honesty, I find it amazing the number of people that say they read sailnet but do not get on or respond.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I found parts of it very heart felt, and quite honest.

Other parts had my BS meter going off. I agree with Cam- it helps, some.

Ken PLEASE LOG IN. We would love to hear from you.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

G- What does " Por Mares Nunca Antes Navegados" mean???
Its been driving me crazy...short trip.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

" Por Mares Nunca Antes Navegados" 

Loosely translated means: I wish I had bought a Catalina.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

In the 1500's, Portugal's most famous poet, Luis Vaz De Camões, embarked on the Caravelas, to India to write about the famous Portuguese sea routes and discoveries, and feats. He wrote about the good hope cape, etc. About the brave Portuguese.

He came back and wrote the "Os Lusiadas" (from LUSITANOS, another name for the Portuguese), and the story tells he was in a shipwreck and still saved his writings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camoes

In the first verses of this book he says:

Por Mares Nunca Antes Navegados menas : * By seas never before sailed.*

This and the sailing makes me proud of being Portuguese, because we will never again be like we were before.

If you like poetry, this is all about being brave and sailing!!!

Its called OS LUSIADAS

First verses:

As armas e os barões assinalados, (the weapons and the noted barons)
Que da ocidental praia Lusitana, (that from the occidental Lusitan beach (Portugal)
Por mares nunca de antes navegados, (Thru seas never before sailed)
Passaram ainda além da Taprobana, (passed the Taprobana)
Em perigos e guerras esforçados, (In dangers and wars were strained)
Mais do que prometia a força humana, (more than could the human effort)
E entre gente remota edificaram (and amonsgt foreign and far away land built)
Novo Reino, que tanto sublimaram; ( a new Kingdom they respected)

From Wikipedia:

Os Lusíadas are named from the fabled hero Lusus, who is said to have come with Ulysses to what is now Portugal and called it Lusitania. Os Lusíadas tells the story of Vasco da Gama and the Portuguese heroes who sailed around the Cape of Good Hope and opened a new route to the Indies. It is a humanist epic in its association of pagan mythology with a Christian outlook, its conflicting feelings about war and empire, its love of home and desire of adventure, and its appreciation of pleasure and the demands of a heroic outlook.

Os Lusíadas is considered a major epic poem of modern times on account of its grandeur and universality. The poem adapts the classical spirit of Homer's and Virgil's epics. Camões' ambition was to create a national epic that would rival those of his two classical precursors. The poem tells the achievements of Portugal since its independence, in the 12th century, until the moment when the Portuguese kingdom is united to the one of Spain, keeping its formal independence, but being ruled by the same king, Filipe the first of Portugal and the second of Spain, in 1580. The poem, therefore, marks the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity.

Camões begun composing his Os Lusiadas in 1550; he completed his masterpiece by 1570. He finished most of it in the period between 1555 and 1558. He published the work in October 1571. More editions followed in 1572. The poem, for Camões, was a glorification of the Portuguese people. In the 15th century, Portugal had reached its Golden Age. The poem itself narrates the history of Portugal at its apex, focusing on Vasco da Gama's trip to establish a maritime contract with the Indies. Vasco da Gama represents the Portuguese nation, the hero of the poem.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I obviously need to brush up on my Portuguese. I thought it meant "I sail a MacGregor clone"


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Here in English you can read his poems

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/lus/index.htm


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

His boat is NOT a Macgregor. Hmph. Jeanunea. Not MacGregor.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I take it you are being nice to me Giu... no comment about what I said??? I thought for sure I would get something. HAHA! Just kidding with you. I could not resist.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

T34C said:


> I obviously need to brush up on my Portuguese. I thought it meant "I sail a MacGregor clone"


Ha ha ha, very funny!!!

Now, because you can *ONLY* speak one language, I found it for you in English!!

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/lus/index.htm

Now go and exercise your brain !!!! And find out that the Portuguese were already sailing Macs in the 1500's!!! 

Please, seriously read some and let me know.

Its one of the few things that we are proud off.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> " Por Mares Nunca Antes Navegados"
> 
> Loosely translated means: I wish I had bought a Catalina.


You guys are two attcking me, gotta give me time here. Now, here is the counterattack

See that is what happens when you only speak one language.

You are right about the Catalina, but it actually says:

"Poor he, that a Catalina bought, because a real man boat he find couln't!!!!!"


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

CD- I was at least giving him credit for not sailing some french..... thing. 

Thanks G- I will read it.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

G- I hope you don't mind if I "borrow" it.
I was suffering signature envy.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

T34C said:


> G- I hope you don't mind if I "borrow" it.
> I was suffering signature envy.


As the Japanese said:

My God we woke up a sleeping Bear!!!

You just woke up the wrath of CD!!!  

Yes, please use my signature sentence.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Only to honor the great Portuguese history and accomplishments.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

He hasn't seen it yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Only a matter of time. Note that I quoted you since you were so kind to provide the translation!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

T34C said:


> Only a matter of time. Note that I quoted you since you were so kind to provide the translation!


Nahhhh, what you really doing is dividing the blame with me.....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

You poor Guys. Giu is the schoolyard bully, T34, don't let him jeprodize your good judgement!!!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I'm glad you said good "judgement" because good taste is not something I get accused of often!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Who???? Meeeeee???? bully???? Now that's unfare!!

I'm on the other side of the World, just explaining T what my signature meant, and growing his brain with some "black ball man" history from the 1500's.

You started it!!!

"" Por Mares Nunca Antes Navegados" 

Loosely translated means: I wish I had bought a Catalina."

See!!!

Everyone see, he started it!!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giu,

I started it. I agree. Unlike the French (as you put it) I don't mind using my rifle (Even if it is a cheap shot!!~). I take all the blame. You are right... I just couldn't resist, sorry. I raise the white flag (at least until the opportunity presents itself again).

Go ahead. Forgive me. Turn your back.

- CD

Turn you back yet? Huh? Better keep my hands in my pocket then.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Just reloading.... just reloading......

The fight is not over till our last man drops!!!


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I just love to throw fuel on the fire... then run and hide!!!!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Giu,

I get the feeling you are not going to forgive me? Well, just for that, I am going to go home. Everyone here hates me and no one is nice (sniff). Even T34 is not being nice and taking cheap shots. Only Cam will take my back (And Jeff_H). Jeff knows an awesome boat. I think I will post a thread to settle all arguments.

Hold on...


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I think we're going to get banned by Cam!!!

Hey, wait a minute, T..... new target....tayana's!!!!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Giu,
> 
> I get the feeling you are not going to forgive me? Well, just for that, I am going to go home. Everyone here hates me and no one is nice (sniff). Even T34 is not being nice and taking cheap shots. Only Cam will take my back (And Jeff_H). Jeff knows an awesome boat. I think I will post a thread to settle all arguments.
> 
> Hold on...


ehehehe

don't worry, the thread is already going!!!!  

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/buying-boat/27788-catalina-not-catalina.html


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Giu, I believe your signature line means, "By seas never before sailed."


----------



## JimHawkins (Aug 25, 2006)

*meanwhile back in the Southern Ocean...*

I'm confused as to why Ken lost both his masts. Would rolling the boat break a mast that had no sail on it? Do the missing masts tell us anything about what sails he really was using?

Also, his scuttling procedure seems inadequate to me. Might the hull trap air and remain afloat for quite some time?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Jim...in the link above..he reports he had his staysail up. If the main mast came down as a result of that ruring the roll, he could have taken the mizzen with it since many/most ketches have a triatic stay running between the two masts. Other possibilities include the dingy which broke loose bring down the mast. Guess we will never know on that. 
I don't think a steel boat that is open to the world with a hatch and companionway in a large seaway has any chance of staying afloat due to trapped air. Needs more flotation than what little could be trapped. Not like the upside down catamaran off oregon a few weeks back. Just my opinion. If anyone runs into it...I'll change my opinion!! <g>


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

FYI. From the photo's of the boat it doesn't appear to have had a triatic stay. (difficust to tell with the background of the photo) The photo's just prior to rescue show the main still stacked on the boom with the mast gone a few feet above it, the staysail loosely hanging over the bow with the rigging and the mizzen completely gone, mast, boom, rigging, etc...


----------



## Jim H (Feb 18, 2006)

I rather enjoyed this line from a 'Lectronic Latitude article yesterday about Ken Barnes:

Now, ironically, he has become an accidental celebrity - even Oprah and Leno are seeking interviews - not for completing his around-the-world attempt, but for becoming stranded in the Southern Ocean aboard his dismasted 44-ft ketch Privateer - a fact that has probably inspired Monday-morning quarterbacking from every blowhard on the planet.​
The entire article is at http://www.infoasis.com/~latitude38/LectronicLat/2007/0107/Jan12/Jan12.html#anchor484254

They claim to have interviewed him and have the full story, and it should be in the February issue of Latitude 38.

Jim H


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Like I said before:

"Now he's broke, and "moraly" down and alone, so to get some money, publicity seems at hand...."


----------



## Jim H (Feb 18, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> Like I said before:
> 
> "Now he's broke, and "moraly" down and alone, so to get some money, publicity seems at hand...."


In fairness, you should know that Latitude 38 is a free publication given away to us left coast sailors once a month. It's not a branch of a deep-pocket media conglomerate that pays big $$$ for interviews.

Overall, I think it's bad karma to diss other sailors. What goes around comes around. Look out, or I'll start shooting other cliches. 

Jim H


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I'll take that, but you took it out of context. I didn't say that magazine was paying him...and defenately did not diss other sailors..thanks for the bad karma, I'll send you some. Thank you, really...

Go back and read what I posted.



signing out!!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Watch the spin develope on this one....soon it will be the "heroic" Barnes vs. all the "armchair" sailors second guessing the actions of a "real" sailor who sacrificed everything to live his dream. I love the media!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I'm not saying anything more...get accused of things.....


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I'm saying less than a year on the book. 

Not to "dis" (what ever the hell that means) anyone, but for any sailor NOT to look at, and study both the success and failures of others is both short sided and dumb. 
Sorry, never been one to beat around the bush.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

After his initial explanation of what happened, he retracted that explanation and gave a different explanation. When he found himself on an international stage, with the spotlight on him, and the whole world was waiting to hear from him, he should have gotten his story straight before he started to speak. When he gave conflicting statements, he invited skepticism and second guessing. 

The press isn't looking for the truth. They're looking for the most interesting slant that they can put on the story. There are two obvious slants to this story. Either he was a skilled sailor who was overwhelmed by forces more powerful than he, or he was a doofus who was in over his head. It remains to be seen which slant the media will put on this story, but his first, now retracted explanation, didn't help his cause.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

"Either he was a skilled sailor who was overwhelmed by forces more powerful than he, or he was a doofus..." LOL. I guess that pretty well sums it up.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

Sailormon6 said:


> Either he was a skilled sailor who was overwhelmed by forces more powerful than he, or he was a doofus who was in over his head.


I'm sure they are saying it was overwhelming forces. Like I said earlier in this thread even the woman that cuts my hair knew about the event. She had seen it on a talk show somewhere and obviously thought that he was a brave sailor caught in unusual circumstances in the southern ocean.

I don't think they ever call you are a doofus who is in over your head. Unless you are the President.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Sailormon6 said:


> Giu, I believe your signature line means, "By seas never before sailed."


Yes Sir.. that's what it means...from an 1571 book of poems named "Os Lusiadas", by Luis Camões, where the feats of the Portuguese were narrated.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I told you guys to quit armchair sailing, didn't I.... didn't I ...Didn't I. He read this thread as the choice of words is too close.
pigslo


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Off the sailing angle somewhat.
I must admit that I am disgruntled by all this, "you have to live your life" stuff as if there were some deep significance to it. Most of us have dreams and we pursue them, generally in a reasonable and responsible manner. And one man's dream may be another man's folly.
If your dream is to be a research scientist and find a cure for cancer you pursue that dream in a certain way. If your dream is to solo around the world you pursue that in a certain way. If we find the would be scientist, with some level of experience, experimenting on the neighbor's pets in his basement we would tend to call that unacceptable. I guess I would question the manner of Mr. Barnes pursuit of his dream. There are certainly safer alternatives to be found within the same dream.

That being said, I am digruntled because his statement implies that the rest of society is not living their life or their dream. I'd say that is rather arrogant. I think that thought process comes from too many 8th grade readings-"most men lead lives of quiet desperation". I might have thought that at one time-no more. I'm reminded of the story of Tim Russert's dad in, Big Russ and Me where Russert describes how his dad went off to war, returned home, and worked two jobs-one driving a garbage truck, to take care of his family. I suspect, if asked, Big Russ would say that he either lived his dream, was too busy working for dreams, but that he was immensely satisfied with his life and how it turned out.

In Mr. Barnes words, and I'm only reading between the lines-perhaps ineptly, I sense a search for something, probably spirituality, and a belief that it was to be found at sea. That is one of the reasons I called him immature. One does not need to go to sea to find contact with a higher power-although a good typhoon will sure give you religion! The answer isn't out there-like all answers it lies somewhere between our heart and our head. If we use the latter, leavened by the former, we all can find a spirituality that will lend dignity, meaning, and worth to our lives.

I believe that what Mr. Barnes was engaged in was adventuring. Adventuring is fun, stimulating, and exciting. It is not life. Life demands the consequences be answered. Life is tough, hard work and if you do it right it's rewards are far greater than the relatively transitory thrills of adventuring. Most who single-hand do so in a manner that exhilirates them, but also allows them to return safely to the more important things in their lives. If they are spiritual individuals they will find fulfillment in both areas. I find myself drawn towards those who endeavor to be fulfilled in every area of their life-even finding it in weeding the garden or shovelling the walk. After all, it's all taking place in my head and my heart and matters only to me-my Labrador neither sees nor cares.


----------



## Curt (May 29, 2006)

I have been reading this thread since it started. I never ad much to the forum because I spend most of my time reading and trying to learn more, (you can know to much). 

Today I just thought I would say what a disappointment this thread has become, I never read one that revealed so much dog piling on one person.
First you guys started out hoping for the sailors well been and safe rescue but that sure didn't last. 

This guy Ken as he has admitted may have done some things wrong but he still has not stopped learning, he is alive and has made it through something nobody on this forum would want to endure. 

Maybe is not the know all genie some of you seem to be but wouldn't you be surprised to find he learned much of what he knew from reading much of your advice right here on this forum. A real confidence builder as long as you do not forget the pecking order. 

I like the forum, many have been very friendly to me and have offered much advice and knowledge. Just as with any culture clubs though if one stands out its mob rule and who cares how the person feels as long as the mobs ego gets stroked?

I don't think Ken is a victim of the sea but it seems clear he has become one on this forum by way of the rat pack with tenure crowd.

There are some who have not posted this way and to you I commend you for your civil manner. 

As for the others, I sure hope nobody has to endure your verbal ***** fest after having your assistance being pulled from the drink, I suspect many would throw themselves back overboard rather than endure it.

Fortunately the sailors that did rescue him showed some compassion for a man who be it his fault or not had just lost his boat and delayed his dreams.
It would be interesting to see how you all dealt with that. 

That is all. Off rant.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Curt...glad you posted and you're entitled to your opinion. Certainly there has been a lot of piling on but in my view he has deserved every lick of it and then some. I am truly glad his life was saved but remain disturbed about his whole approach to the voyage, his poor decision making, his passivity both in normal conditions and after the dismasting and his LACK of accepting any responsibility for what happened. In his own words the disaster happened because of "wind strength, wave and angle to the sea ". I see NO admission or discussion of what HE did wrong in any of his interviews or posts on line. His position seems to be that the gods of wind and sea were aligned against him and it was just fate. 
You said: 
* This guy Ken as he has admitted may have done some things wrong but he still has not stopped learning

*He has done no such thing and all he has learned is how to tell a good story!


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

Started reading a thread about ken on Cruisers Forum. Started with a statement from him that I had read earlier. The thread starts out very complementary. I found it late last night and did not read all of the posts. About a third of the way through, but my guess is that the opinions are deteriorating on the way down the list. Will finish this evening and see.

Lets face it, it is always easier to sit in front of the fire and second guess. Much more time to make those decisions than when your up to your ass in alligators.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, let's see..

He removed some of the ballast in the boat _(granted it was 800 lbs and reviewed by a naval architect)_;

added 900 lbs. of batteries, two wind generators and a gen set to the boat, but didn't _properly_ secure the batteries;

doesn't seem to have done a proper shakedown cruise to catch problems before getting someplace that they'd really matter-from his website logs;



> Hauling down the mainsail while it was plastered against the rigging was a challenge made even more so by the fact that the line I tied to the top slide of the sail to help get it down in conditions just such as this had snagged on something and the sail stopped its decent half way down.


did not seem to know the boat or the equipment on the boat-from his website logs;



> Well after trying for a while, in my muttled condition, to figure out which way to turn the autopilot to head downwind I finally started to get things sorted out, in my head, now for the boat.


doesn't seem to have the common sense God gave an ant;



> Having 120 pounds of propane on board and not knowing if any of the propane supply lines had been compromised in the rollover I did not think it wise to pursue attempting to restore power to the autopilot at that time.


*Umm... last I checked, if you close the valves at the tanks... it doesn't really matter if the lines are broken or not... and if you're sailing in heavy weather, why would you be sailing with the propane tank valves open???*

seems to have vastly overloaded said boat _(his website lists the boat at 50000 lbs, the specs say 39000 lbs)_;

apparently had no emergency tiller-and couldn't steer the boat because the wheel was bent;

tried sailing same said boat into some of the most difficult sailing waters in the world;

got into trouble and then expected that people would risk their lives to come get him and his four bags of luggage;



> As the POLAR PESCA 1"s crew loaded the last of my 4 bags into the inflatable I went below one last time


 and then he blamed all of the problems on the wind and waves, without admitting that his lack of heavy weather sailing techniques may have been the root cause of the problem.

Yes, IMHO he deserves to get roasted....


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Curt, I think you're taking us too seriously. We're just chatting about an event of current interest in which we have a special interest. As windmagic pointed out, people are talking about it in barber shops and on tv talk shows, and in living rooms, and wherever people gather together and chat. If you could listen in on their discussions, you'd hear the same variety of opinions that you've read on this forum. Some people think he's courageous, and some think he's a doofus, some haven't yet formed opinions, and some have opinions somewhere in between. 

When you undertake to do something that is newsworthy, such as singlehandedly sailing a small boat around Cape Horn, you have to understand that people are going to talk about you. If you succeed, people will shower you with praise. That's one of the reasons why some people undertake such a challenge as this. They want to accomplish something as they pass through this life that's important and memorable. That's a good thing. Through the ages, a lot of important and memorable things have been achieved for just that reason. But, the unvarnished truth is that Ken failed to make it to Cape Horn. The natural consequence of failure is that people will analyze his effort and try to understand why it happened. It's too late to complain about that, because he has already made himself the subject of public discussion. What he needs to do now is to get his account of the voyage clear in his own mind, and not give his critics any more ammunition. 

Some of the greatest and most memorable achievements in history were failures. Ernest Shackleton failed in his effort to reach the South Pole, but, in doing so, he achieved one of the greatest small boat voyages of all time.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

I agree with Sailormon6 on this one.

You could get in a boat and sail to Cape Horn without anyone ever knowing about it. Just sit down with your family and close friends, tell them where you are going, and tell them not to go around telling everybody about it. Word might slip out, but still nobody would really care. But telling everyone you are doing it, even setting up a website, etc, is a whole different level, that is going out of your way to make sure everyone knows what is going on and getting them interested. And this whole thread is just a continuation of the interest that Ken Barnes himself generated. If he didn't want to be a topic of public discussion he didn't have to make himself a topic of public discussion. You know ... when Larry King calls and asks you to be on the show, you can say no. 

Edit .. and I would like to add, if this was any other sport, say drag racing or something, and the car had exploded, drag racers would be talking about it. They'd be warning new drag racers not to make the same mistakes, trying to figure out how the car could have been saved, being glad the driver wasn't killed, trying to analyze what went right and what went wrong, etc. It would be an opportunity to learn something and even for the old folks to say they told you so, that's just how it is. People here are obviously going to be especially interested in something like this.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Curt- Let me first say, glad you're here and glad you voiced your thoughts. If you feel there is injustice then you should raise your concerns. To do otherwise is like complaining about an election that you didn't vote in. While you would have the right to do so, no one is likely to listen.

What you refer to as "dog piling", "rat pack", and "mob rule" is something that would be more accuratly described as CONCENSUS. We are all posting our opinions on a forum that represents the freest form of communication in the history of man. I think everyone has been very civil throughout this thread and most of the others on this site. I find it hard to beleive that it is even possible for a "mob rule", "pecking order" to exist when you consider that everyone who views or post here comes from different parts of the world with diverse backgrounds and doesn't even know the actual name of most of the others posting here! We all "come here" to learn, discuss, and even be entertained.

As for Mr. Barns: _"First you guys started out hoping for the sailors well being and safe rescue but that sure didn't last long." _He WAS rescued. Ours, and many others, prays were answered by the rescue of a fellow sailor, which is how he was viewed. As for his becoming a victim on this forum, he is only a victim of his own actions. If he didn't want to be in the public eye then he shouldn't have posted his every move in the public and he should stop doing interviews.

_"I sure hope nobody has to endure your verbal ***** fest after having your assistance...many would throw themselves back overboard rather than endure it."_ That would certainly be their option, and I suspect they would do it with more forethought and skill than Mr. Barns demonstrated when he threw himself into the Southern Ocean.

_"Fortunately the sailors that did rescue him showed some compassion for a man who be it his fault or not had just lost his boat and delayed his dreams."_ That sir is called the consequence of ones own actions and is something that we all, at the very least should, deal with. I too dream of living on my boat and sailing around the world one day, but I know I am not prepared for such an undertaking yet and so I too delay my dream everyday because I know better, and he should too.

_"...he still has not stopped learning"_ I sincerly hope you are right.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Wind...I think you are right too! We had a lot of discussion about the VERY well prepared catamaran crew that were lost off the coast of Oregon a few weeks ago and other extended discussions on the Bumfuzzler crew as they worked their way sccessfully around the world. There has been very little comment on Donna Lange, who was in the same waters at the same time as Ken and did it very well and is safe in port. Funny but he news media didn't find her story newsworthy even though it was a much smaller boat and she hasn't pushed her Epirb. Good news is not news!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Look, I'm the stupid "foreigner" here, and even I could understand what has been said here. 
I see a lot of mis-interpretation of what has been said and written. SD, T and Cam make very intersting valid points.

I am seeing it as someting ill prepared (its not the fact that he had 200 batterires, the radar and Epirbs, that makes the boat prepared) the boat needs to be riged and set up on its exterior, which IT WAS NOT!!!!! With biminis , and canvas dodgers, and dingies attached to hatches, no ruuder backup.... it goes on and on...

I hope I don't get mis-interpreted again...I even had a guy giving me a bad Karma.....which *I WOULD NEVER GIVE TO ANOTHER SAILOR THAT ACTUALLY SAILS!!!!!!*.


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

One point I don't understand. If one is sailing ESE at say 100 and a southern hemisphere depression is centered to the SW, and the predominant waves are on the port quarter at 305 and the wind is on the starboard quarter so 235 how does one broach and round up under staysail alone from a wind gust? 
A staysail is not going to turn you to windward. One might have both wind and waves produce some turning abeam.
However one would expect the wind to be at most N turning W but he gives it as 235 SW.
That is highly unlikely unless he was not in fact under the influence of a depression, yet the winds were 35-45 knots which suggests he was.
That suggests the wind was what one would expect NW and his course therefore S if it was on his stb qtr. 
That seems unlikely. If he was heading SE the wind and the wind and waves were NW that should be a stable course.
I suspect the wind was N and on his port qtr and the swells building more more W. The waves would tend to screw one to starboard, if the staysail was to starboard this would not correct it much and one could go beam on. If the wind were N one would have to have the mizzen up to balance.
I guess a gust could turn you more downwind which would be accentuated by the swells putting you beam on. It sounds to me that there was some confusion as to directions. In the northern hemisphere one may have a SW with an approaching depression but not in the southern.I don't know where he got the idea that a southern depression generally lasts a day, 3-4 might be more like it.
One can make mistakes in sheltered waters but they are more likely if you are tired and have been alone at sea for a couple of months.
This isn't a criticism of him, although I think he was foolhardy being there in the first place rather an attempt to work out how a gust caused a broach. Apologies I had to edit this after reconsulting his account.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

sailaway21 said:


> Off the sailing angle somewhat.
> I must admit that I am disgruntled by all this, "you have to live your life" stuff as if there were some deep significance to it. Most of us have dreams and we pursue them, generally in a reasonable and responsible manner. And one man's dream may be another man's folly.
> If your dream is to be a research scientist and find a cure for cancer you pursue that dream in a certain way. If your dream is to solo around the world you pursue that in a certain way. If we find the would be scientist, with some level of experience, experimenting on the neighbor's pets in his basement we would tend to call that unacceptable. I guess I would question the manner of Mr. Barnes pursuit of his dream. There are certainly safer alternatives to be found within the same dream.


This is all very thought provoking, Sailaway21, thank you for posting it.

I agree with what you said above in-so-much as my limited experience allows. Not having very much experience I am not able to say whether Ken Barnes had enough experience to undertake this journey or not, I don't have that clear of a perspective on it. I do think it can be argued that experience is relative, that nobody can be completely prepared for the southern ocean and Cape Horn, and of course there is always going to be someone who is more experienced than you are. If the measure of right is the result, then no he wasn't experienced enough to undertake the journey, but then maybe no amount of experience would have been enough. Consensus is that he was ill prepared, and I agree with that.

I can think of a lot of reasons someone might take risks that others would feel are inappropriate. The one that tops the list is that none of us is getting any younger, and that goes for Mr. Barnes too. Would he be able to undertake such a journey if he practiced the art of sailing for another 5 years, another 10 years ? He spent the early part of his life raising a family and creating a business, and he is getting older, there is only so much time to do these things that you want to do in life. Maybe in his mind this was the best time to try, that is, maybe in his mind he was making a trade off between the risk of not being well enough prepared and being too old to physically undertake the journey.



sailaway21 said:


> That being said, I am digruntled because his statement implies that the rest of society is not living their life or their dream. I'd say that is rather arrogant. I think that thought process comes from too many 8th grade readings-"most men lead lives of quiet desperation". I might have thought that at one time-no more. I'm reminded of the story of Tim Russert's dad in, Big Russ and Me where Russert describes how his dad went off to war, returned home, and worked two jobs-one driving a garbage truck, to take care of his family. I suspect, if asked, Big Russ would say that he either lived his dream, was too busy working for dreams, but that he was immensely satisfied with his life and how it turned out.


I agree that everyone has their own dreams, whether everyone acts on them or not - I don't think so. Yes, you can have the dream of providing a life for your family, raising good children, and work a garbage truck to see it come true, that's chasing your dream, working to make it become a reality. My family knows a girl that works at Hardees who takes orders at the window, the window girl. She has mental disabilities and that's all she ever wanted to be is the window girl, before that she cleaned houses and swept the floor at Hardees. Dreams don't have to be big to be meaningful. But not everyone does that. There are plenty of people around who sit and look at the stars wishing things would change for them, but not doing a thing about it. I feel like I chase most of my dreams, but even I have had plenty of times in my life where I was discouraged, muddled up, lost, and not making any progress. There are plenty of people who never get up and try, for whatever reason, and a lot of them just sit back on the sofa, click on the remote, and give up.



sailaway21 said:


> In Mr. Barnes words, and I'm only reading between the lines-perhaps ineptly, I sense a search for something, probably spirituality, and a belief that it was to be found at sea. That is one of the reasons I called him immature. One does not need to go to sea to find contact with a higher power-although a good typhoon will sure give you religion! The answer isn't out there-like all answers it lies somewhere between our heart and our head. If we use the latter, leavened by the former, we all can find a spirituality that will lend dignity, meaning, and worth to our lives.


All I can say about this is that I myself was a little lost before I found sailing. And that doesn't mean sailing saved me or anything, far from it, I have had a good life and had a good one when I began sailing. But I was in that kind of middle ground between dreams, when you've accomplished a lot of things in your life and are kind of idle while you look around for new inspiration, it's a cyclical thing. I found my inspiration in sailing, nothing in the past 10 years has so invigorated me as sailing on a boat. Why ? I have no idea, why does anyone get excited about anything ... but for whatever reason thoughts of far off ports and having the stars above me, and even being challenged mentally and physically has gained a place in my heart. Is it religion ? I don't think so, but it is certainly spiritual, as spiritual as anyone feels when they chase after their heart's desire. For me it has meaning.

I wouldn't say Ken Barnes is immature, that's presuming a whole lot more about him than I think any of us knows, even from his writing, though his actions might be more telling. Taking risks in and of itself does not make a person immature, that is just the personality makeup of some people. You can't start and build a business from scratch without being the kind of person who takes risks, some people are just more comfortable taking bigger chances than others, mostly because following their intuition and figuring things out as they go has worked for them in the past. That's entrepreneurship, a respected American trait.

I think he just perceived the risk and experience as being less dangerous than it turned out to be for him, and over-estimated his own ability to figure things out as he went along.



sailaway21 said:


> I believe that what Mr. Barnes was engaged in was adventuring. Adventuring is fun, stimulating, and exciting. It is not life. Life demands the consequences be answered. Life is tough, hard work and if you do it right it's rewards are far greater than the relatively transitory thrills of adventuring. Most who single-hand do so in a manner that exhilirates them, but also allows them to return safely to the more important things in their lives. If they are spiritual individuals they will find fulfillment in both areas. I find myself drawn towards those who endeavor to be fulfilled in every area of their life-even finding it in weeding the garden or shovelling the walk. After all, it's all taking place in my head and my heart and matters only to me-my Labrador neither sees nor cares.


Not all of us are looking to depart this earth in peace. For some of us living life in a state of disharmony is okay, even desired, and conflict is what drives us as we learn directly from that thing that has a Will to fight back and to change us. And the thrill can be the thing that makes us feel we are living our lives to the fullest and that we are respecting the gift of life that God gave us. Extending our lives so that we might enjoy the peace and harmony of the Universe isn't the goal of all of us, some of us must push against the boundaries to feel that we are growing as individuals. Personally I think contentment is highly over-rated, especially given that the easiest way to find contentment is to give up on dreaming altogether. It's ironic that through endless strife many people find contentment that they weren't even looking for, you just open your eyes one day and realize you have lived a full life and gathered together a bit of wisdom along the way.

I have a lot of respect for your post, sailaway21, it was engaging and really said something.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Does anyone else wonder why Ken had 14 batteries on board but did not have a piece of plywood large enough to cover a hatch? Although I can think of many other flat things on any boat that could be used to stop water coming in through a hatch.


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

Chaunclm....The bottom line is this guy was not in sailing,repairing or improvising mode.Whether it was from lack of imagination we will never know ,but lack of will for sure.Enough blows to the body and the head will fall,some can take more than others,and some already had to many to begin with.You be the judge.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yeah, but it really seems like this guy threw in the towel before the bell even rang.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I don't _judge _any of what has happened...I just don't understand it at all. From his web site he says:
"After rounding Cape Horn, come back up between 40' and 45' s. latitude to avoid the worst of the weather (remember this is not a race). I will need to head a little further south to round New Zealand then up through the South Pacific. Around the west side of the Hawaiian Islands over the pacific high and back down the coast to Long Beach."
http://www.kensolo.com/TheJourney.htm

Which makes no sense to me. Down the Pacific, round the Horn, ignore the whole Atlantic and Pacific coasts in order to...circle the Antarctic and get to NZ in order to reach Hawaii and then come home?? What's the point in doing all those sea miles, running opposite the usual wx, skipping all the sites...what, just to set a new record time for circumnavigating the back way? Dunno, just can't see it.

"If I was told how much I was going to need to know about... I might have decided to walk around the block instead of sail around the world."

Sounds kinda like an impulse buy and then he just couldn't say no to himself.

"She is a Maurice Griffiths designed 44' staysail ketch built in Gozo, Malta by Terry Erskine steel yachts in 1993. " And not a home-built boat, that impression apparently is wrong.

"I was sailing in 35-45 kt winds on my starboard quarter on a course just south of east with the center of the low pressure system to my southwest and still aways away. The swells were averaging 20-25 feet and coming from 3 different directions but primarily from the northwest." I haven't been in that kind of wx offshore with an autopilot doing the helm by itself, but it sounds like a confusing enough sea state that relying on an autopilot is almost INVITING a roll. Heck, it could have just been dumb luck and a rogue wave for that matter.

"The steering wheel was completely bent over the deckhouse and steering the boat was not possible also the shift lever was broken off. ...The worst of the low is still on its way and I can't steer the boat. I can't even take the wheel off because the dodger was collapsed over the wheel and would have to be unbolted and sorted out first. Going back below I started to asses the damage there. The first thing I noticed was the floorboards that secured one of the battery banks had been broken through and that battery bank was scattered and useless. "

Sounds like the boat definitely had some construction issues, or maybe just the compounded bad luck to have the rig come down hard on the steering. With no rig, no hatch cover, no steering, the floors breaking up AND the wx degenerating...I think that fits the textbook definition of "having a bad day".

"I had already made the decision to scuttle the boat. My investment in the attempt was well over $250,000. I estimated the cost of repairing the damage to the boat in excess of $100,000. My wallet was empty and the time available to sail her back home would soon be limited as I would have to return to some sort of work in the near future. I was not about to leave her floating to endanger anyone else. The decision was not easy however it was clear what the correct course of action was. "

Well, it seems like he decided to cut his losses and not endanger anyone else, and cutting the losses and walking away was more to the point that the question of salvage and endangerment. Writing off $150,000 as against paying a salvage claim for perhaps $100,000? Means he only took a net $50,000 loss then. (Only! I can't help thinking, some Chilean fisherman would have been glad to salvage the hull.)

Oddly there's no further mention of his injuries, which had been reported at the time to include a gash "to the bone" on his leg. I'd be more worried about that than anything else on the boat.

From the details, it almost sounds like an "Airplane" movie, or a Marx Bros. comedy, where someone says "Is there anything else that can go wrong?" and of course, something promptly does.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

"Donna, Thank you very much for your offer of assistance during my recent trouble. I couldn't be pulling for your success more if I had a rope attached to you boat. I think about you often and am there with you in spirit every minute. Believe me when I say you would rather complete your trip in relative obscurity than be thrust in the spotlight for all the second guessers that are sitting in comfortable chairs at home. I hope to someday meet you and give you a big hug to celebrate you great success.
Ken Barnes"

As written to Donna Lange

http://www.donnalange.com/statusupdate.html


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

I have a defense now that everyone from the top to the bottom is using.I might of screwed up,made the wrong decisions on eveything,but at least i did it.Yup....I pounded back the whole bottle,only hit 3 cars ,had a chance of making it home if i hadn`t run over the curb and blown the tire.I tried man....don`t see you guys doing that...you just sit at home sipping on a cooler.Anyone can do that....bunch of airmchair quarterbacks.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Well said, dman.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Sorry to dig up such an old thread, but I just finished reading a book written by a guy who solo circumnavigated, leaving from San Diego in.... 1973!!!! It would appear that the entire primis of Mr. Barnes trip was screwed-up since someone had already done it some 35 years before. 

It's no wonder Mr. Barnes had such trouble, it appears he can't read!


----------



## Wayne25 (Jul 26, 2006)

Was it a good book? Author and title?


----------

