# Sinking of Rule 62



## billyruffn

I received this morning via email the sad news of the sinking of the sailboat Rule 62 on a reef in the northern Bahamas. As you will read below, three of the four crew members have been rescued, a fourth is missing. The email was from a friend participating in the Caribbean 1500 rally, as was Rule 62. Here are the preliminary details relayed from a boat that's still at sea:



> 11/15/ Monday- Pray for Laura's Rescue
> With this morning's report we were shocked to hear about the sinking of "Rule 62" a 45' Jeanneau in the cruising class. Around 9pm last night they attempted to enter a narrow cut into the Bahama's in the midst of a "rage." If I understand correctly it means the current is going in one direction and wind and surge in another creating a lot of turbulence. It's unclear if a large wave knocked them down or if it was making contact with a reef. All 4 crew members were thrown overboard.
> 
> We do not know if they were wearing any floatation at the time. Three crew members including the husband and wife owners made it onto a reef, the fourth crew member, Laura, is missing. An active search and rescue mission is underway by the Coast Guard and our hope and prayer is that Laura managed to stay afloat or make it onto a reef and will be spotted in the daylight. The rescued crew was taken to Nassau for treatment. The boat is considered a loss as it wrecked upon the reef. We've had heavy northerly swells this entire trip and it most likely was a factor, along with fatigue. We also are unclear as to whether they were originally bound for Bermuda, as some of the fleet did have that as destination, or whether they diverted because of weather or illness. Details are sketchy still, but we urge all our friends to continue to hope for a good outcome.


All boats in the Carib 1500 carry transponders, so you can see where Rule 62 went ashore at 

Having made the trip from the east coast to the Caribbean in November twice and experienced gale force winds on both trips, I know the passage south is no walk in the park. This year the start of the Carib 1500 was delayed a week until Nov 8 due to weather associated with hurricane Tomas. The hurricane and the low pressure systems that came off the coast last week produced large seas from the north and sustained winds in the 20-30 knot range during much of the first 2/3rds of the trip. Our friends' boat experienced wind gusts above 50 knots in squalls associated with frontal passage.

I know you all will join us in praying for the missing crew member. The loss of Rule 62 is evidence to us all that offshore sailing is serious business, and that even when you prepare yourself and your boat well, tragedy can strike at a moment's notice.


----------



## bljones

Awwwww, crap.

This reinforces my decision to add jacklines and tethers to my inventory.


----------



## capitalistnyc

Our prayers go out to the crew and all involved in the rescue.


----------



## smackdaddy

Wow - that's some sobering news. Looking at their track, they pushed pretty hard to the SW as the neared Lanyard Cay. I wonder if this indicates the track of the boat after the reef strike (with no one on board) - or if it indicated something had gone wrong (e.g. - broken rudder, etc.) as they tried to enter through the cut.


----------



## Vasco

Lets hope they find her. A rage has been running there for a day or two. Very dangerous to try and get through the cuts in that sort of weather. here's a pic from yesterday at Guana, a cay a few mile north of Lynard Cay.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler

bljones said:


> This reinforces my decision to add jacklines and tethers to my inventory.


Not the time for self-admiration!


----------



## bljones

Not self-admiration, more like "That could be me and I don't want it to be."


----------



## rockDAWG

I will thinking of you Laura, a safe return no less. Good luck.


----------



## Vasco

Here's the press release from Caribbean 1500:



Boat Positions
Daily Updates
Photo Album
CRA Home
21st Annual Caribbean 1500 Rally
NEWS
Monday, November 15

Cruising Rally Association announces crew member search and rescue mission is continuing for sailing vessel Rule 62, crew member, Laura Zekoll.

For additional information please contact: Rick Palm….207.354.0628

November 15, 2010…Cruising Rally Association (CRA), Hampton, VA…Steve Black, owner of Cruising Rally Association, announced today that crew member, Laura Zekoll from Atlanta, GA is the subject of a search and rescue mission by the US Coast Guard and the Bahamian Defense Force. 

The news of the search was received by CRA mid-day on Sunday, November 14, 2010 from boat owner, Richard Ross. The emergency contact information for Laura Zekoll, was communicated to the Coast Guard who notified her contact that a search was in process. The notice of the search was shared with the fleet on Monday morning, during the radio check-in at 07:00 hours AST (Atlantic Standard Time). 

The owners of sailing vessel Rule 62, Richard and Debra Ross, also from Atlanta, GA, communicated earlier that they were going to leave the fleet and divert to the Bahamas. During the Saturday 19:00 hours AST radio check-in, Richard reported that they were nearing the Bahamas. According to the satellite transponder provided by the CRA to each vessel in the fleet, Rule 62 stopped moving at 20:56 hours AST Saturday, November 13.

Black said, “with great sadness, we report that Rule 62, a Jeanneau 46DS, was swamped while attempting entry into the Bahamas. Richard and crew Laura Zekoll were washed overboard. Another crew member and Debra launched the life raft, which subsequently overturned in swells.” The boat is currently on a reef in the Bahamas. Boat owners Richard and Debra Ross along with one crew member were airlifted to safety after their emergency signal was received by the Coast Guard. The search for Laura Zekoll is still continuing. 

The sailing vessel Rule 62, is part of a fleet of 71 sailing vessels, the majority of the fleet is still at sea. The fleet departed Hampton, VA on November 8, 2010 in route to the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands. This is the 21st year of the annual passage.


----------



## kenhoneycutt

A friend of mine is on the boat "Special Delivery" (Taswell 58) in the 1500. From the emails his wife has forwarded they've had a pretty rough time with 50 knot winds and some 20 foot seas. She was pretty shook up when she got the email in the OP. Sounds like the reef around Lynard Cay is difficult to navigate in broad daylight with calm seas much less at night with heavy swells.
Hope they find Laura safe and sound.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

Just read that on the Carib1500 site. Hope they've found her.

Anybody know why they diverted? I've been watching the progress of Cat 1 boat from our marina and a Catalina 34 in Cat 7, that went inside part of the way and is lagging the fleet, so I noticed over the weekend that Rule 62 had headed for the Bahamas rather than continuing toward Tortola.

I figured they'd be enjoying a nice rum drink within a few hours from the last time I checked. Unbelieveable how quick things become life and death.

Best wishes to everyone in the fleet for a safe completion of your journey.


----------



## Cruisingdad

First of all, all of our thoughts go out to them and their family. Hopefully the good Lord will be looking out for them/her.

THe VHF down here was reporting huge swells and rough seas in the Atlantic due to the frontal passages, etc. I was sitting there thinking to my self when I heard it how glad I wa not over there. No doubt those folks are getting a really hard time of it. Sure hope they can find the crew and in good health.

Brian


----------



## Harborless

I hope for a safe recovery of the missing lady. The pic of the swells was pretty sobering. Plenty of good boats have had their last moments above water on Bahamian reefs.


----------



## btrayfors

No word, yet. I'm monitoring the radio nets.

The Caribbean 1500 was delayed in its departure from Hampton, VA due to threatening weather. Hurricane Tomas couldn't make up his mind which way to go. When after some time it finally moved off to the East of Eleuthra, the main event got started.

It was a judgment call and a short window. A friend of mine on a well-found 42' sloop (not in the event but headed the same way) holed up for 2 days due to equipment problems, then missed the window and decided not to go. Good call.

Those that did go followed a path close to the coast, well inside the Gulf Stream, since the prevailing strong winds were from the northerly quadrant, kicking up quite a sea. A few sought other ways and ports, but most of the fleet continued southwards, then southeast towards the Eastern Caribbean. There was a separate group which from the beginning headed to the Bahamas. Rule 62 was not one of these, but was in Cruising Class 7 headed for Tortola.

Despite the rough weather, most of the fleet seems to have done quite well, and they're nearing arrival in Tortola. To my knowledge, Rule 62's decision a few days back to divert to the Bahamas is unexplained. I guess we'll find out eventually.

For the record, Rule 62 is a Jeanneau 45DS built in 2008. She has a deep draft, I believe 7.5'. Her owners are Richard and Debra Ross of Atlanta. The missing crewmember, Laura Zekoll, is a successful founder and CEO of a computer company in Atlanta.

The maritime nets are still putting out the call for anyone in the area, but that's doubtful. Wish I could post the chart, but can't get pix to work on this Board...damn. The grounding site is 2/3 mile south of the North Bar Channel at the north end of Lynyard Cay in the Abacos -- not far south of Marsh Harbour. Nobody in their right mind would intentionally be sailing close to that coast in rough weather, so it's doubtful if anyone would by chance spot a MOB.

Let's hope that the Coast Guard and BASRA are on the job and doing all they can.

Bill

You can view the chart here: 2010 Caribbean 1500 Rally - Page 3 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## Vasco

I'll try and post the chart.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Rick/Bill,

I am a bit confused: Were they aiming for N Bar Channel, missed it, and hit Lennard Key, or did they wreck north of the Key and the wreck drifted south? Or maybe you don't know?

Brian


----------



## Vasco

Brian,

Don't really know, all I know is they were trying to get in. Along that stretch North Bar Channel is the widest and easiest approach. It is essentially straight in, no dekes or anything. It's 1/4 mile wide but again should not be attempted in a rage. The condition of the various cuts is always discussed in the morning cruisers net there. That's how important it is.


----------



## TAK

Looking at a close up of the tracking by Rule 62, it appears that they were headed due west for an inlet.. that as they approached perhaps (?) the swells pushed them off and in to the reef..

<TRACKERCLASS7>
<TRACKERCLASS7>


----------



## btrayfors

Yeah, everything is pure speculation at this point. Their reported position on the reef some 4,400 ft (2/3 of a nautical mile) south of the middle of North Bar Channel is quite a ways off. Don't know how to explain that, really. Maybe a navigational error? GPS datum error? Don't know what charting system they were using.

The raster chart I posted agrees very well with the smaller scale but presumably more reliable NOAA raster chart of the area, and with all other charts of the area from the same provider.

Guess we'll find out some day. Still no news of Laura, and that's the important missing piece.


Bill


----------



## btrayfors

TAK said:


> Looking at a close up of the tracking by Rule 62, it appears that they were headed due west for an inlet.. that as they approached perhaps (?) the swells pushed them off and in to the reef..
> 
> <TRACKERCLASS7>
> <TRACKERCLASS7>


TAK,

You're right. Their track clearly shows them headed for the North Bar Channel. Then, when they're still quite a ways out, they suddenly turn SW and head straight for the grounding point on Lynyard Cay. One might speculate that some catastrophic event occurred BEFORE they reached the channel, and the boat more or less became the playtoy of prevailing NE winds and heavy seas until she grounded 2/3 of a mile south of the Channel.

Again, I can't post the damned image...why is this Board so difficult?....but if you zoom in on the last position of Rule 62 on the Caribbean 1500 tracking website you'll see it.

Bill

Bill


----------



## HDChopper

Lost member & rescue crew's are on the "prayer chain" ...

My sis stands in good with the man upstairs and asked her to help out .... I say the words tho.


----------



## billyruffn

btrayfors said:


> Yeah, everything is pure speculation at this point. Their reported position on the reef some 4,400 ft (2/3 of a nautical mile) south of the middle of North Bar Channel is quite a ways off. Don't know how to explain that, really. Maybe a navigational error? GPS datum error? Don't know what charting system they were using.


My guess (and it's only that) was that the boat was swamped trying to enter the channel to the north and was driven south from the channel and onto the beach/reef by the swell/breaking waves. There is a transponder on each boat that has independent battery power and it so the current position shown on the Carib 1500 website is probably where the boat came to rest.

Here's the most recent data from Rule 62s transponder:



> Description:
> Richard & Debra Ross, Jeanneau 45DS
> 
> Latest position: 26.37812 -76.980324
> N26° 22' 41.2" W76° 58' 49.2"
> 2010-11-15 15:54:57 UTC -4h
> 
> Positions available: 46, Marker:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last speed: 0.0kn = 0.0km/h = 0.0mph
> 
> Over all average: 4.6kn = 8.5km/h = 5.3mph
> 
> Distance to finish: 831.9nm = 1540.6km = 957.3mi
> 
> Distance to start: 637.6nm = 1180.8km = 733.7mi


Given that the time stamp on the position is less than an hour old, it's safe to assume the transponder is still operating and that the boat is currently at rest (Last speed: 0.0 kts) on the reef / beach.


----------



## btrayfors

Right. That's virtually the same position shown at 0757Z this morning.

It was reported on CruisersForum that the boat is in fact on the beach. A life preserver was found south of that position, but Laura hasn't yet been located.

Given the ship's track with the abrupt turn to the SW before entering the Channel, I'd have to agree with the swamping theory. Swamping and, perhaps, a number of other related catastrophic events.

Bill


----------



## imagine2frolic

My worst fear is losing some one overboard for what ever reason. Being thrown over the lifelines myself. It's an awful feeling stuck in my gut until today.......*i2f*


----------



## btrayfors

Apparently the Rule 62 WAS swamped. Here's the relevant paragraph from the CRA website:

Quote 
Black said, “with great sadness, we report that Rule 62, a Jeanneau 46DS, was swamped while attempting entry into the Bahamas. Richard and crew Laura Zekoll were washed overboard and recovered. The life raft was launched. Richard, Debra, Laura, and a fourth crew member, David Sheppard from Ellsworth, Maine entered the life raft with life jackets on and attempted to row it to safety. The life raft subsequently overturned in swells. Richard, Debra, and David were separated from Laura and washed up on the beach. The search for Laura Zekoll is still continuing.” Unquote

Sad, sad, sad.


----------



## bcalfee

To clarify, the transmitters on the C1500 boats send out a location every 4 hours, so the "track" is really a line between dots. The track to the current location does not show their route.

Also, the C1500 is not posting all information available. They show us as "withdrawn", when in reality, our boat was severely damaged when entering Oregon Inlet Tuesday afternoon. We are very luckily to be alive. The news of Rule 62 is extremely horrifying to us as we somehow survived a daytime ordeal in an inlet in big seas. Now we are on the hard awaiting repairs... no loss of life.

sv Sunrise, C1500 cruising class 7


----------



## btrayfors

Bill,

Thanks for that clarification. So sorry for your mishap in the Oregon Inlet. Glad you're OK and, hey, HR's are pretty tough. It'll bounce back 

While the tracks shown on the CRA's website aren't exact, you can turn on the "waypoints", showing "fixes" at specific times. A lot can be inferred from these. For example, one can surmise that you entered Oregon Inlet then turned north into harbor, even though the "track" shows you passing overland.

By contrast, Rule 62's track and waypoints indicate a direct course for the North Bar Channel right up until 20:04:46 on Saturday the 13th. The next waypoint, some 8 hours later, shows the location aground on Lynyard Cay.

Guess we won't know the full story until the owner and his crew recover and tell what really happened. 

Sure hope Laura is gonna be found OK.

Bill


----------



## RichH

Lynyard Cay doesnt have a 'beach' on its ocean-side as its mostly coquina and sharp rotted/eroded and 'undercut' ancient coral-rock with lots of reefs immediately offshore. From that location it may be that they were attempting to pass through Tilloo Cut which even in 'moderate' conditions can be an 'absolute royal *****' on an accompanying strong easterly swell. 

My heart goes out to these sailors, I hope and pray that Laura is found OK. I know that most of the Bahamians on Elbow and Lynyard Cay will be out there looking, they're that kind of people.


----------



## xxuxx

*Laura Zekoll*

OMG....I was one of the last people to speak with her before they departed Hampton, Blue Water Marina. She came up to us and introduced herself to us as we were 2 of only a few women departing on this 1500 mile voyage. She was an articulate, upbeat, friendly, engaging woman. We are an all woman boat delayed in our departure in the 1500, waiting on new crew due to the departure delay. Our prayers are with her. We leave next week.
I agree with one posters theory of what happened. "Rule 62" was on course for the inlet when something happened, perhaps a large wave swamping them, resulting in a 2/3 mile drift to the reef. I have surfed off that beach and it can get really big. Rule 62 is from AA and states: don't take yourself too seriously!
I hope and pray for her with all my heart and soul.


----------



## lynandcheli

*Laura Zekoll*

Thank you for all of this information. Laura is a friend of mine and I have been sailing with her at Lake Lanier here in Atlanta. She is an amazing woman of incredible courage having dealt with some very tough things in her life.

I will pass on to my friends all of the prayers and things said on this site and will forward this link, as this is the best information I have found to date.

Thank you and please keep any updates coming as I am using this site as my source of info for our community here in Atlanta.


----------



## Cruisingdad

I know it has to be a difficult tome for friends and family, so again, our thoughts are with you.

Brian


----------



## lynandcheli

*Vigil for Laura Zekoll*

There is a vigil tonight for Laura Zekoll at St Mark's in Atlanta at 7PM for anyone in the area interested to attend. Prayers are much appreciated.


----------



## xxuxx

*Laura Zekoll*

You have our prayers for Laura!!!!! 
Everyday until she is found!


----------



## lynandcheli

Thanks all again for the information. Looks like Fox News and the AJC have both picked up the story, but it conflicts with what I have read in the past. These stories state that they were delivering the boat to the Bahamas, not so much being a part of a race. Perhaps they were using the race as a way to get down to the Bahamas with a fleet for safety??? Confused and hope to be able to get the story from the sources (Ross's) sometime soon. Will keep you updated with what I hear. Here are some links:

Atlanta Woman Goes Missing on Sailing Trip

Boat capsizes in Bahamas, Atlanta woman missing | ajc.com


----------



## btrayfors

Rule 62 was an entrant in the Caribbean 1500 Rally, in Cruising Class 7. They were headed from Hampton VA to Tortola in the British Virgin Islands.

For some as yet unknown reason, when about halfway there they decided to divert to the southwest to the Bahamas.

The Caribbean 1500 tracking website is:

http://www.carib1500.com/trackerhome1500rally2010.htm]<trackerhome1500rally2010

(ignore the last "]"....don't know why this Board wants to modify URLs and won't let you post them correctly)


Bill


----------



## lynandcheli

Yes, that's what I have been reading over the past day, which is why I was very confused by the "delivering a boat to the Bahamas" story her family seems to be telling the news agencies.


----------



## btrayfors

My suspicion is that the news folks got it wrong, like they often do. For example, the boat did not fetch up on "Acado Island" or whatever they said. It's the Abacos anyway...a large group of islands in the NE Bahamas. And the island they hit is *Lynyard Cay*, located a ways south of Marsh Harbour.

See also the discussion on CruisersForum, where a chart of the site is posted.

B


----------



## lynandcheli

Maybe it's the news agencies that have gotten it wrong. They have the island as Avaco and not Abaco, so that may be an indication... hope to find out soon, but again thanks for the clarification. Clearly, they were part of the Caribbean 1500 Rally.

Here is the story the Atlanta news has to date:

A search and rescue mission was ongoing Monday night near the Bahamas for an Atlanta woman. The vessel Laura Zekoll was on capsized late Saturday.

Zekoll left one week ago to help an Atlantan couple move their vessel to the Bahamas.

"I think she's out there somewhere. We need to find her," said Zekoll's sister, Angie Cushwa.

Friends and family said that on the water Zekoll is in her element. So a job to move a sailing vessel to the Bahamas was like being paid to have fun.

The 46-year-old Atlanta woman was part of a crew that launched a week ago Monday.

The ship ran into a reef, off the coast of the Bahamas Saturday.

"Laura's vessel had a very bad accident. They disbanded and got on a life boat. Unfortunately the lifeboat could not sustain them," said Cushwa.

All four people on the life raft fell off the lifeboat, and into the water.

"It was dark, it was at least 8 or 9 o'clock at night. Thankfully three of the crew members made it to land," said Cushwa.

Zekoll is still missing.

"We are in heavy prayer right now that she will be found," Cushwa said.

The shipwreck happened in a place called Avaco Island, which is part of the Bahamas. A transponder on the boat pinpointed the site. There are a number of tiny islands nearby.

"I just hope and pray my sister is on one of these islands and that someone will find her. And that she will be alive and OK and we can just bring her home," Cushwa said.

Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bahamian Defense Force are now looking for Zekoll.

"Laura is a great swimmer. She has got a very tough character. And we really just pray people keep searching for her. And find her," said Cushwa.

Richard and Debra Ross, the owners of the vessel, who are from Atlanta along with the other crew member were airlifted to safety after their emergency signal was received by the coast guard.


----------



## btrayfors

The grounding was on Lynyard Cay not "Avaco Island". Lynyard Cay is located just to the east of *Great Abaco Island*. These are located in an area called the "Abacos"....lots of other islands in that group.

B


----------



## Silvio

My prayers are with Laura and her family and friends.


----------



## MacGyverRI

lynandcheli said:


> Yes, that's what I have been reading over the past day, which is why I was very confused by the "delivering a boat to the Bahamas" story her family seems to be telling the news agencies.


Possibly because life insurance policies won't pay if you're "racing" or putting yourself "in harms way" in any form, it cancels the policy (read the fine print). That's only a guess from an old Pro/Semi Pro Drag Racer who had "track insurance". Military people also have the same special policies.


----------



## Ajax_MD

News reports indicated that all four of them were in PFD's, (hopefully Type I's) so I'm hopeful.

U.S. Navy sailors and Marines have been found after falling overboard, days afterwards with nothing but air slapped into their clothing to sustain them.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Here is a pic of the map Btrayfors was trying to load... IIRC...










Brian


----------



## rockDAWG

I really don't care what happened and where the sailboat is located. Just wanted to find the the missing person "Laura" to be alive. From all the indication, she is a strong and smart woman. Against all odds, She will live and tell her story.

Hope everyone down is there is looking for her.


----------



## TAK

Update noon: Steve Black, owner of Cruising Rally Association, has been notified by the Bahamas Air Sea Rescue Association (BASRA) today that “the conditions are not favorable for finding Laura Zekoll alive.” The search and rescue mission involving the US Coast Guard, the Bahamas Defense Force, BASRA, and local efforts since Saturday night has resulted in “no findings.” The US Coast Guard has suspended its activity. The BDF will suspend its activity today. BASRA will continue aerial surveys of the vessel and area


----------



## Harborless

That is very disconcerting news TAK. I, along with all the others here, wished her a safe rescue and swift recovery. 
Socrates once said: 
* "Now it's time to leave, I to die and you to live. Which of us goes to the better thing, however, is unclear to everyone except god."*


----------



## [email protected]

Thanks for the update - I still have some slight hope, but when I found out that they located a 4th matching lifevest a mile south of the survivors, I became very worried that things were unlikely to have a positive outcome. This is so sad - Laura is an amazing woman. She has battled many physical limitations in the past and done incredible things despite her 'handicap'. This is a very sad time.


----------



## rockDAWG

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for the update - I still have some slight hope, but when I found out that they located a 4th matching lifevest a mile south of the survivors, I became very worried that things were unlikely to have a positive outcome. This is so sad - Laura is an amazing woman. She has battled many physical limitations in the past and done incredible things despite her 'handicap'. This is a very sad time.


Let's hope for the best.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler

TAK said:


> The US Coast Guard has suspended its activity. The BDF will suspend its activity today. BASRA will continue aerial surveys of the vessel and area


For some reason they took this news off of the site. There is no Tuesday update on there right now.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's another story with some details I'd not seen elsewhere and some more information on Laura.

Atlanta Woman Goes Missing on Sailing Trip
(Sorry - already posted by Lynand)

Damn this sucks.


----------



## MARC2012

In spite of the odds let's hope for the best.marc


----------



## rockDAWG

Pamlicotraveler said:


> For some reason they took this news off of the site. There is no Tuesday update on there right now.


It seems to me they called off the SAR too early. I hope it was just an error of reporting.


----------



## [email protected]

Agreed - this does suck.

Laura is a survivor, there in no doubt about that, but she lost most of the use of one of her arms in a motorcycle accident many years ago. I fear this may have been a factor. It is one of the things that makes her so amazing... there are no boundaries to what she can do regardless of her physical setbacks. She became a pilot, a skipper, hot air balloon navigator, etc. etc. Also, she has a very successful and sustainable IT business - tough in today's market. Amazing woman with a great heart. Still keeping hope, but this does suck.


----------



## blt2ski

Hopefully the call off is an error, but if the weather is nasty, the call off may be as much to do with lack of visibility or other unknown to us sitting in an office etc. None the less, lets hope she survived on some rock, washed up where she can not be seen......

I am also wondering what model the boat really is, a 46DS does not exist in Jeanneaus lineup. Maybe a 45DS? not that it really matters at this point in time. Just another wrong fact in what will be a tragedy I am afraid. 

marty


----------



## rockDAWG

Let hope that she still has her life vest, she can survive in the tropic.


----------



## billyruffn

*One degree of separation...*

I know we all are still praying for Laura in spite of the suspension of the search.

Spooky happening: my wife came to me this morning to say that Dave Sheppard, the other crew member on Rule 62, was a high school class mate. She last communicated with Dave via email in later October. In that email he talked about getting ready for a winter in Maine and cutting wood to stay in shape. He asked about our sailing plans and ended his email with , "Man, I wish I were going south!"

I guess you have to be careful what you wish for.

How's that for six degrees of separation....I guess this shows you how small the sailing world is and how fragile our lives really are.


----------



## Bene505

She's in my prayers. Here's hoping she makes it to a beach and signals a passing aircraft.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## jrd22

Our thoughts are with the family, hoping that she is found safe on the beach.


----------



## Harborless

I think at this point the conclusion to this terrible story is clear. Even in the sub-tropical waters of the Bahamas the temperature during this time of year is in the upper 70's. With our bodies maintaining a constant temperature of around 99.8 F it is a sad fact that the November waters would have been slowly sucking the heat out of her body from the moment she entered the water. As yet another night approaches it is almost a certainty that she has not made it. I do not say this to be a wise-guy, nor to be callous or bring about needless despair. I just think that the people involved both directly and indirectly should start preparing ways to remember this woman and mourn her as she ought to be mourned. 
The ocean has no mercy. It is governed by the laws of nature and while we can attempt to tame it and manipulate it we should never forget what awesome power it possesses. Let us find solace in the fact that she is in good company, and that she was lucky enough to have been able go doing what she loved.
I wish her family and friends well and offer my deepest condolences. Fair winds Laura.


----------



## [email protected]

Below is a recent story from the AJC. Last night at the vigil the family stated that they believed that the USCG might resume the search for Laura for 2 more days. I hope this is true. We will know later this morning. If you could have heard the stories about Laura' tenacity in the face of the toughest odds, you would have some hope that if there is any chance that she could be alive, she would be fighting for it. I miss her and wish now that it hadn't been so long since we last sailed together...

*Atlanta woman, lost at sea, known for indefatigable spirit*



By Katie Leslie

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 
Despite the seemingly insurmountable odds, friends and family of Laura Zekoll are hoping the Atlanta woman lost at sea last weekend will sail again.
Enlarge photo 
 
Courtesy of Toni Ralston Friends are holding onto hope that Laura Zekoll, an experienced sailor, will be found alive after her boat capsized off the Bahamas last weekend. Here, Zekoll basks in the sun during a 2007 boating outing.

*Related*


Ga. woman missing in Bahamas
Photos: Vigil for missing boater
*After all, it wouldn't be the first time Zekoll, 46, has overcome tremendous adversity.*

At age 16, she severed her right arm in a motorcycle accident, eventually learning to use her reattached limb to play softball, fly airplanes, dance the Two Step and sail. She battled and won against alcohol addiction in her 20s, and has been sober for two decades. She founded a successful computer company in the mid-90s, which thrives today, and she was active in several charitable organizations.
"She said there is so much to do in this lifetime -- let's do it," said Toni Ralston, Zekoll's friend and sailing partner. "I have learned so much about life and living from her."
Zekoll has been missing since Saturday night, when the boat she shared with three others capsized off Lynyard Cay in the Bahamas' Abacos Islands. Zekoll was sailing on a 45-foot craft, the Rule 62, with owners Richard and Debra Ross, of Georgia, and David Sheppard, of Maine. The four were among 65 boats participating in a rally sponsored by the Cruising Rally Association, which left Hampton, Va. on Nov. 8 en route to Tortola in the British Virgin Islands.
Reports from the crews of other boats told of high seas and challenging conditions. "A friend of mine is on the boat "Special Delivery" ... From the emails his wife has forwarded they've had a pretty rough time with 50 knot winds and some 20 foot seas," wrote one participant in a discussion thread on www.sailnet.com dedicated to the Rule 62's fate.
Ross's crew diverted from the course and turned westerly toward the the Bahamas because Zekoll and Debra Ross were seasick, according to Julie Palm, a spokeswoman from the Cruising Rally Association.
Authorities are still investigating what caused the ship to capsize, but Palm said the boat hit a reef . According to the Cruising Rally Association, all four on board managed to get on a raft with life jackets on and tried to row to safety, but the life raft overturned in heavy swells.
The Rosses and Sheppard were separated from Zekoll and washed ashore. The three were airlifted to safety after the U.S. Coast Guard received their emergency signal, launching a search for Zekoll that the coast guard and the Royal Bahamian Defense Force authorities called off Tuesday morning.
"We're all still numb. And I think we're all still trying to be hopeful because [her death] hasn't been confirmed," said Deana Hilton, of Saint Mark United Methodist Church in Atlanta, where Zekoll is a member. On Tuesday, friends gathered to pray for her at the Atlanta church.
Friends say Zekoll didn't know her crew-mates well, but had been selected by Richard Ross after they met and he learned of their mutual interest in sailing. She was known to embark on such adventures at least once a year and had sailed near Belize and the British Virgin Islands, friends said.
"This was her living her dream to take this trip," said Daniel Cohn, whose company partners with Zekoll's firm on business projects. "She has boundless energy."
Three years ago, Zekoll and friends Ralston and Meredith Jordan sailed from West Palm Beach to Grand Bahama Island, a 17-hour overnight trip. On the water, watching the sun set and rise, is where Zekoll felt the most free, Ralston said.
As they await word of their friend, those close to her are focusing on happy memories.
Ralston broke her arm a few years ago, and said Zekoll was quick to make her laugh about her misfortune.
"She looked at me and said, 'Between the two of us we have two good arms,' " Ralston said. "She asked me, 'Do you want to learn to tie a shoe with one hand?' '"
Zekoll was the founder and CEO of Advantage Computer Age Inc., an IT consulting and staffing firm whose clients include Home Depot, General Electric and Popeyes chicken.
She was active on behalf of various charities, including the American Cancer Society and the AIDS Survival Project. In 2008, Zekoll was among those who organized a hike on a North Georgia trail in honor of Meredith Emerson, an Atlanta woman killed by Gary Michael Hilton on Blood Mountain earlier that year.
Above all, friends described her as an avid outdoor enthusiast. She has hiked more than half of the Appalachian Trail, hikes Stone Mountain several times a week and participates in such groups as the Women's Outdoor Network and the Decatur Women's Sports League.
Anne Barr, who coached Zekoll in the softball league, said Zekoll excels at the sport despite her disability. Following her teenage injury, Zekoll never regained control of her right hand. Nevertheless, she played second base this year, catching the ball in her gloved left hand, then dropping the mitt and effortlessly throwing the ball with the same hand, Barr said.
"You wouldn't know she was disabled unless you watched close," Barr said. "She was just as good as everybody else. She just had to work harder."
Barr said she and hundreds of Zekoll's friends are devastated by the news, but they're holding onto hope.
"If anyone was put in a situation to fight, she'd be the one to survive this thing," Barr said. "We're praying our heads off. I believe in miracles."
- Staff writer Larry Hartstein contributed to this article.


----------



## [email protected]

Here is a video clip from the recent news story which tells more detail.

Meredith Jordan, a very good friend and excellent sailor, was planning to be on this trip, but had to be replaced as crew when the storm delayed their departure for a week. Meredith is speaking in this video clip and she is coordinating a lot of the search and rescue communications with the family and friends.

Apparently, the boat was hit by a giant wave as they approached the cut and they were dismasted and the boat swamped. The boat subsequently hit the reef and was grounded. I agree with some of the other posts here and wonder why they could not wait until daylight to find a better passage into Marsh Harbor. As an experienced sailor, I know how horrible it is to be seasick and to be sailing long stretches of high seas with no respite. It's exhausting on many levels - physically and emotionally. As you can see on the trajectory, there was a point where they turned to starboard and headed straight toward the cut until the final moments, when I think they were dismasted and lost all power. I can't imagine how tough it must have been to make the decision to abandon the grounded boat and get back into the water to row to shore. I am sure that they were being pounded by the waves and I can imagine the noise, chaos and fear they all must have been experiencing. There are always two sides to every story, but this is a trajedy without a doubt.

Vigil Held for Atlanta Woman Missing from Sailboat


----------



## smackdaddy

[email protected] said:


> Ross's crew diverted from the course and turned westerly toward the the Bahamas because Zekoll and Debra Ross were seasick, according to Julie Palm, a spokeswoman from the Cruising Rally Association.
> Authorities are still investigating what caused the ship to capsize, but Palm said the boat hit a reef . According to the Cruising Rally Association, all four on board managed to get on a raft with life jackets on and tried to row to safety, but the life raft overturned in heavy swells.


I have a couple of "lessons learned" questions...but have put them in the HWS thread here out of respect for the people in this thread:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship/48237-heavy-weather-sailing-35.html#post667593


----------



## gclimbusa

*I also think she is alive.*

*I agree with the family that she is still alive.* If she was injured or dead, she would have been found ashore, as the currents quickly carried the rest of the crew and the raft to shore (1.3 miles).

I have read that she was the strongest swimmer of the group, and that she was wearing a life-vest at the time the raft was overturned. I have also read that the Jeanneau 45 DS is still on the reef.

If it were me, (and I am a strong swimmer), in the water, at night, wearing a life vest, separated from my crew, I would swim for the boat. The number one rule that the Coast Guard emphasizes is: "Always stay with the boat".

According to the KML file and media reports[/URL], "Rule 62" hit the reef just before 9 PM EST. (Pitch dark) "...20:56 hours AST Saturday, November 13."

The boat is not sunk, apparently. It is awash on the reef (from reports).

Reports are that they are searching by plane.

They need a chopper, over the boat. 3 days on a swamped but not sunk vessel is very survivable.

The authorities completely screwed up the Meredith Emerson case in Atlanta by wildly underestimating the strength and resourcefulness of Meredith..........they should not make the same exact mistake with Laura Zekoll.

Helicopter, or even a strong swimmer properly attired (rescue diver), should check the boat.

That is my very strong opinion.


----------



## rockDAWG

Thanks for the update. As for the what happened on Rule 62, I will be very patient to wait for the captain or the crews to speak their account for this tragic event. It must be very hard. My thoughts are with them and their families. I hope for miracle. They will find Laura OK. 

Very very sad. But this does not hamper my desires to sail the open seas. Hope we can learn from their experiences, and renew our respect and admiration of the awesome power of nature. 

Peace!!!


----------



## gclimbusa

*Want to add*

Thanks, Ditto me, my desire is not hampered.

I want to add that although it was fully night when the vessel hit the reef and swamped, there was a nearly full moon, no clouds, according to reports from other vessels at Marsh Harbor at the time.

The foundered but unsunk yacht awash on the reef would be visible to a swimmer in the water, in my opinion.

Prayers for Laura Zekoll and her family.


----------



## billyruffn

We got an email from Dave Sheppard this morning. He didn't say much. I think they're all still in shock and recovering from the wounds received coming across the reef and climbing ashore over the coral and limestone.

I think rockDAWG is correct about waiting for the skipper and crew to speak. There will be plenty of time for the discussion of lessons learned.


----------



## Georgewr9f

What I remember from sitting in Marsh Harbor some years ago, this inlet is notorious and should never be approached in any significant weather from North or East. In fact, the daily Cruisers' Net on 7.168Mhz every morning gives the conditions of these inlets. Conditions such as these, called "rage" exist in significant swells from the N to E and ebbing current. A night attempt to negotiate this cut adds to the degree of risk. The ebbing current may reach several knots and the waves become huge and square. I cannot imagine anyone landing an inflatable past the reef in these conditions. The fact that three crew survived is very fortunate. I am deeply saddened for the loss of life. 
Georgewr9f


----------



## bljones

whoa. That is seriously offside, dude.


----------



## tgrimmett

rainbowtroutaa,
I would caution you not to speculate the captain's ability or the 'fishiness' of the story. I'm sure more concrete details will be available when we hear from the crew and those that rescued them. It is easy to doubt the ability of the captain and crew in these situations, from the comfort of our homes. I, along with my wife and two young children, did the Carib 1500 four years ago, and I can't overstate the draining fatigue that a short-handed crew experiences. We had another adult join us, but he had to be medivac'ed off when we were 300 miles offshore, leaving just my wife and I to stand watches. 8 days later, we rolled into Tortola utterly exhausted, in no state to make logical decisions. I was in fact hallucinating as we approached the marina, the sleep-deprivation was so severe. On Rule 62, I understand both Laura and Debra were seasick. That would mean the two others would be standing all watches. Like us, I'm sure they were exhausted and rationale decision-making at these times is tough to achieve. The fatigue could have been exacerbated by trying to care for the two sick crew and not having time to prepare sufficient meals.

Like others have said, it is amazing that any of them survived, given the conditions, so let's at least be joyful for that bit of good news.

Lastly, I'd like to suggest that while we are waiting for more news about Laura and the details of the accident, you might consider making a donation to BASRA, the search and rescue team that is still searching. They are a good outfit and as a volunteer organization, need all the support they can get. SEe more at: BASRA: Bahamas Air Sea Rescue Association.

-Tom
Thalia - The Grimmett's Sailing Adventure!


----------



## billyruffn

rainbowtroutaa said:


> Something is FISHY here?


I fear we have a troll here....I propose that we all ignore this jerk. Perhaps the moderators could cut him off/out.


----------



## Georgewr9f

ditto


----------



## MacGyverRI

rainbowtroutaa said:


> Gawd I didn't mean to piss you soggy sods off. I'm just miffed that your coastal gaurds didn't pluck them by cage out of the wreck.


FYI, They aren't in the USA and the BASRA (read the website tgrimmett posted) only has 2 boats, is volunteer and also has to "rent" planes for rescues.


----------



## bljones

rainbowtroutaa said:


> Gawd I didn't mean to piss you soggy sods off. I'm just miffed that your coastal gaurds didn't pluck them by cage out of the wreck. One of you mentioned that they had a mate rescued by sea due to having taken ill. I am delighted that the remaining crew survived. It's all about a matter of opinion here and I merely voiced mine as many already have. I guess if we can send a craft into space, hit a target with a missle from across the sea, surely we can rescue our dissressed sailors 1.3 miles off shore at night. We can do better , can't we?


Seeya.


----------



## zboss

I hate to say this... sound like an ass... but has anyone checked under the boat?


----------



## curiouslurker

Hey everyone. I live in Atlanta and many of my friends personally know Laura Zekoll and I have been praying and trying to follow the story. Are there any more updates? Are the search teams still active?

Thanks.


----------



## RTB

Sorry, but nothing new. You might keep an eye on this site. Surely if there is news, it will be posted here. Cruising Rally Association | Event Tracker

Ralph


----------



## tgrimmett

As of Tuesday, the US Coast Guard and the Bahamas Defense Force had apparently stopped their search, but BASRA was still continuing to search. I have not heard any news on who is searching since then.

Has anyone heard if any local Bahamians have taken pictures of the boat on the reef? At least part of it must be intact as it's transponder is still sending updates on it's position. I have searched the web and found nothing. It looks from what I can tell that the island maybe partial inhabited and there's plans for a larger development there (Lynyard Cay), so someone, besides the USCG, must have gotten close to it. It is also not far from the populated area of Marsh Harbour and Hope Town. From the photo gallery, you can get a good aerial view of the windward side of the island, where apparently in the mid-section the wreck is now located.

This is very frustrating not hearing more news or seeing photos. If anyone get's more detailed information, please post. Thanks.
-Tom
Thalia - The Grimmett's Sailing Adventure!


----------



## billyruffn

tgrimmett said:


> As of Tuesday, the US Coast Guard and the Bahamas Defense Force had apparently stopped their search, but BASRA was still continuing to search.


I'm wondering if it might be helpful if the thousands of people who've looked at this thread did something positive in response to this tragedy and made a donation to the Bahamas Air Sea Rescue Association (BASRA). Unlike the USCG, they are a privately funded organization. From their website:



> *The Bahamas Air Sea Rescue Association* is a dedicated non-profit voluntary organization committed to saving the lives of distressed seamen or airmen in the Bahamas. BASRA has one full time administrator Monday thru Fridays 0900 to 1700 who, in addition to administrative duties monitors the radios, and a Controller who monitors the radios at headquarters on weekends. Volunteer Control Teams continue coverage through the Police Control room in the evenings with volunteer Captains and Crews on duty at all times.


We have an example here of the Bahamian seamen and aviators helping U.S. sailors. Perhaps some of the U.S. sailors here could help BASRA continue it's lifesaving mission.

Their website is: BASRA: Bahamas Air Sea Rescue Association

The donation/support page is: BASRA: Bahamas Air Sea Rescue Association

I'm going to join and send them $40 for the year's membership, but I'm sure a donation of any amount would be appreciated. At the bottom of the donations form is a space where you can add a note/comment. Please let them know that you are responding from SailNet and that we very much appreciate their SAR efforts following the loss of sv Rule 62.

What goes around, comes around. Play it forward, shipmates!

PS. BASRA doesn't make it easy -- you have to print the form and send them a check. I guess PayPal hasn't hit the Bahamas yet.


----------



## tgrimmett

And, btw, BASRA is affiliated with SEARCH, an organization with a U.S. address to receive donations that are tax-deductible. It is here:

SEARCH AND RESCUE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION

And this is the contribution form:

Form

-Tom


----------



## [email protected]

Hey there, no news as of yet, but I know that the family and Meredith Jordan are heading down to the Bahamas tomorrow. I am not sure of their plans or what it means from a search standpoint, but I will post anything that I hear. I have been scouring the internet for photos of the grounded boat or any news, but am in the same 'boat' as the rest of you. I wish I could head down there myself and rent a center console to search the area around the boat and island... I chartered from The Moorings in Marsh Harbor a few years ago and didn't have much wind that week, so we rented a 26' Paramount to visit the islands. Can't believe that I have been in the same waters where my friend might have perished. This is so damn sad. Thinking all the time about what I would have done differently. It's so hard to second guess not knowing how damaging and unsafe the waves were crashing against the grounded boat. Sad sad sad. There is a moonlight hike (early evening) this Sunday at Stone Mountain to honor Laura - see below:

The Women's Outdoor Network is planning a moonlight hike on Sunday to honor fallen member Laura Zekoll, who has been missing since a boating accident last weekend in the Bahamas. 
Zekoll (photo) was active in the lesbian outdoors group as well as the Decatur Women's Sports League and the now-defunct AIDS Survival Project. Friends and family joined a vigil Tuesday at Saint Mark United Methodist Church in Midtown, where Zekoll was a member.
WON announced the Stone Mountain hike on Wednesday. It begins at 4:30 p.m. at the base of the walk-up trail.
Join other WON members for a moonlight hike up Stone Mountain in honor of WON member Laura Zekoll. As with so many other Moonlight Ramble hikes led by Laura, the group will meet at the base of the walk up trail around the low walls near the restrooms (if you're not familiar with the park, you will receive a map upon entry). Sunset/moonrise is at 5:30pm and the group will relax at the top of the mountain, and share snacks and thoughts.​


----------



## btrayfors

*Why No Photos or Onsite Reports Yet?*

I am in disbelief that *nearly one week * after the Rule 62 came to grief at the north end of Lynyard Cay we still have:

1. no photos at all;
2. no onsite reports at all; and
3. no explanation directly from the captain or crew.

A cruising boat passing the area yesterday enroute to Marsh Harbour reported NO VISIBLE ACTIVITY in the area of the incident.

What gives?????

BASRA?
BDF?
USCG?
Capt. Ross?
Dave?

Very strange, indeed!

Bill


----------



## [email protected]

I completely agree. Someone mentioned potential legal implications, but I am very frustrated and hate hearing that there was no visible activity in the area.


----------



## rainbowtroutaa

I was wondering just how long it would take you all to realize that something was not right with this situation. Maybe now, those of you with boats or who have the capability to go out to this location , will help Merideth Jorden and Laura Zekoll's family when they arrive on Saturday. Perhaps lynmidas you can post Merideth Jorden's contact information and anyone in the local area willing to volunteer and help Laura's family and frends can contact her. I think that any support from her fellow seamen would at least aleaviate the horrible pain of the unknown that must be embarking on these people and all those concerned I Atlanta Georgia and beyond. If anything, closure I this tragedy will help begin the process to heal.


----------



## Runaway07

*Tragedy*

I was in the Bahamas Rally Class this year and my crew met the crew of Rule 62 at the docks with Debra giving one of our crew a hair cut before we left. I have done 3 Caribbean 1500's and 1 Atlantic Cup with The Cruising Rally Association. The staff that Steve Black has assembled over the years are some of the finest sailors and truly nice people you will ever meet. They will always take the time to provide advice and valuable insight. If they had been consulted as to Rule 62's plans they would have talked them into a safer course of action. It is a shame that this has any reflection on them.

Anyone who has been out to sea and been in bad weather knows the dangers we face. You have to expect the worst and then be pleasantly surprised if conditions turn out to be better. I have cruised the Abacos and Marsh Harbor and they are dangerous cuts if there is any north or east waves or swells. Wind against current is a deadly combination.

We need to learn as much as possible from events like these. My sincere condolences go out to the crew, family and friends of Laura Zekoll. With time we will come to understand what really happened. May this be a lesson to us all.

Bill


----------



## [email protected]

This was sent via email to Laura's family and friends:

November 19, 2010
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
Friends, 
<o> </o>
It is with a heavy heart that I relay this information to you. On Saturday November 13, 2010 our <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1ersonName w:st="on">Laura Zekoll</st1ersonName> was on a sailing trip that took a turn for the worst. While heading into the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Bahamas</st1lace></st1:country-region> the 4 member sailboat encountered terrible weather, the boat was capsized and all 4 members were thrown overboard. 3 crew members made it safely to shore, our <st1ersonName w:st="on">Laura Zekoll</st1ersonName> did not. We are in constant contact with the Coast Guard as well as the Bahamian government as there is currently an on-going search for Laura. In an effort to aid with rescue operations and bring Laura home, Angie Cushwa (Laura's sister) as well as family and friends will journey to the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Bahamas</st1lace></st1:country-region> on Saturday November 20, 2010. Donation and/or contributions are being asked to help fund the rescue mission.
<o> </o>
Donations can be made at any Wells Fargo Bank to account #1689977989/route #061000227 or Wells Fargo customers may donate online at www.wellsfargo.com. 
<o> </o>
Please check facebook under: <st1ersonName w:st="on">Laura Zekoll</st1ersonName> for status and daily updates. 
<o> </o>
We appreciate each of your for your kind words, thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.
<o> </o>
Warm Regards, 
Angie Cushwa


----------



## Vasco

The conditions at North bar cut are still very rough. Following is from Barometer Bob:
Passage conditions: (Updated by 9 AM)
Friday, November 19, 2010

Sea of Abaco conditions: Troy at Dive Guana reports NE winds at 15, whitecapping in the middle
Whale Cay Passage: Nippers reports a 4’ swell and "plenty of chop"
North Man-O-War: Susan at Penrod Point reports 4-6’ seas, breaking, "rough"
South Man-O-War - Brother Moses reports: nothing heard
Tiloo Cut: Nothing heard. 
Little Harbour or North Bar: "very rough"

Please remember that we are just trying to help out with these reports. You are the captain of your vessel so the decision will be yours alone.
Updates thanks to jill p


----------



## [email protected]

Thanks for the updates on the conditions, Rick and Jill. Not the best weather to be out there and certainly there is no need for additional risk to be taken in these treacherous waters.

If anyone wants to contact the family directly, it looks like Facebook might be the best way, but it doesn't look as if there is any activity on the page yet:

"Please check facebook under: <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







Laura Zekoll</st1ersonName> for status and daily updates." 
<O


----------



## [email protected]

I am having trouble pasting in these fields today...

"Please check facebook under: Laura Zekoll for status and daily updates."


----------



## MacGyverRI

You may not have enough posts to put up a link, I'll try it

Facebook page; Bring Laura Zekoll Home

Facebook link | Bring Laura Zekoll Home


----------



## billyruffn

btrayfors said:


> I am in disbelief that *nearly one week * after the Rule 62 came to grief at the north end of Lynyard Cay we still have:
> 
> 1. no photos at all;
> 2. no onsite reports at all; and
> 3. no explanation directly from the captain or crew.
> 
> A cruising boat passing the area yesterday enroute to Marsh Harbour reported NO VISIBLE ACTIVITY in the area of the incident.
> 
> What gives?????
> 
> BASRA?
> BDF?
> USCG?
> Capt. Ross?
> Dave?
> 
> Very strange, indeed!
> 
> Bill


Bill,

I think it's unrealistic to expect BASRA, the BDF or the USCG to go take pictures of the lost boat, and post them on the internet to satisfy our curiosity. Who's going to go out to do an "on site report" for us? As for explanations, my guess is that Capt. Ross is still in dealing with the loss and may awaiting to see what an official inquiry may require of him. Dave is grieving and recovering from his injuries. Ask youself, if you were in their shoes, what would you be doing this week? I doubt it would be posting on SailNet.

Respectfully,
Scott


----------



## btrayfors

Scott,

I take your points. However, consider this:

1. The USCG routinely posts or makes available to the media videos of rescues at sea;

2. My contacts with BASRA, and others, generally have good up-to-the-minute information on SAR activities. So far, nothing.

3. There's a 5,000 ft airstrip just south of Marsh Harbour. While conditions may not be favorable for a search by water, there's no reason not to do low-level passes -- with photos -- over the area, either by fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft. USCG. BASRA. BDF. Media. Family, using chartered aircraft. Friends and colleagues...perhaps paid for by Laura's own very successful company. The cognizant insurance company. Etc., etc.

4. Sometimes, the US Navy undertakes difficult SAR missions for practice and training. Their equipment and access to imaging and other assets far exceeds that available to civilian agencies. This was a U.S. documented vessel, i.e., a United States ship. Maybe they could be enticed????

While its a very long shot, Laura could well be alive and stranded somewhere. Or could have been for the better part of the last seven days when what happened?? USCG gave up after two days? 

I repeat, why in heaven's name after the seventh day don't we have ANY reliable information from primary sources (SAR teams or the Captain/crew themselves)??? Even the most elementary information, e.g., WHERE IS THE BOAT? It's been 'reported' variously that the boat is "stuck on a reef" and that the boat is "on the beach". Which is it? 

Again, Scott, I understand your arguments and to a certain extent believe as you do. However, this incident feels decidedly different from others and we don't know why.

Bill


----------



## Chuteman

*It's Curious*

Agree, it is very surprising that no photos of any kind have surfaced - especially when we are flooded with useless ones of every 2 bit hollywood, sports, music. tv characters.

Reports were mixed on the boat being on the reef then beach - but no specifics

Looking at a local tourism map Lynyard Cay looks to be a little ways out - maybe someone with a real chart can provide the distance from South Abaco itself.

The weather remains unstable & the winds are still honking ENE

Wishing safe travels for the family & friends plus more answers for them soon.


----------



## ardoin

Richard and Deb were my next-slip-neighbors as they prepared their boat to take down to the Caribbean. Happy to hear Richard and Deb are okay and send my prays out for Laura.


----------



## mistermizu

Another query: looking at the track of Rule 62 further out, it appears that having decided to make for the Bahamas, they initially set a course for North Eleuthera island and possibly Nassau, and it wasn't until they had come within about 60 nm of the island chain that they changed course and actually started to track west *north* west for Great Abaco. I don't know the Bahamas, but from sailing in the eastern Caribbean I know that the Atlantic coasts are all lee shores, and best avoided. My instinct would be to head between islands, anchor in the lee, and wait for daybreak. Does anyone with experience sailing those waters have an explanation as to why this course change to Great Abaco might make sense?


----------



## sailingmum

*Sadly reflecting on Laura & PLB*

I first heard about this tragedy from boat I will be joining soon that was in Marsh Harbor at the time. They said that the local VHF had been continually saying no boats should navigatate the cuts due to the severe conditions. Another friend read somewhere on the net that Rule 62's autopilot had failed. As much as we want answers now, we will have to wait. There will be a maritime inquiry and I am sure the owners/skpper and remaining crew are still in shock as well as overwelming grief at Laura missing, and are probably praying for a miracle that Laura is alive, waiting for help somewhere. I know I am. 
If two crew were suffering from seasickness, and 2 crew were responsible for hand steering, it's possible all were completely exhausted and badly stressed, therefore making decision to either ignore warnings, or never heard them. 
I hope I never find myself in this same situation. I know it's extremely difficult to stay offshore when crew and boat are disabled. Highly confusing seas are very frightening and stress scrambles your brain. 
I feel deeply shaken by this story. I've had a bit of a knee jerk reaction as well. 
As I am about to depart for offshore sailing in Bahamas and Caribbean this winter for 4 months, with a number of long offshore passages, I decided today to buy ARC Personal Locator Beacon. I hope I will never need it and I don't know if Laura had one or not. The battery is only good for 35 hrs, and it will be in addition to my find me spot, which can't be counted on but is water proof and will serve as back up if I get separated from my boat.



HTML:







mistermizu said:


> Another query: looking at the track of Rule 62 further out, it appears that having decided to make for the Bahamas, they initially set a course for North Eleuthera island and possibly Nassau, and it wasn't until they had come within about 60 nm of the island chain that they changed course and actually started to track west *north* west for Great Abaco. I don't know the Bahamas, but from sailing in the eastern Caribbean I know that the Atlantic coasts are all lee shores, and best avoided. My instinct would be to head between islands, anchor in the lee, and wait for daybreak. Does anyone with experience sailing those waters have an explanation as to why this course change to Great Abaco might make sense?


----------



## RichH

mistermizu said:


> Another query: looking at the track of Rule 62 further out, it appears that having decided to make for the Bahamas, they initially set a course for North Eleuthera island and possibly Nassau, and it wasn't until they had come within about 60 nm of the island chain that they changed course and actually started to track west *north* west for Great Abaco. I don't know the Bahamas, but from sailing in the eastern Caribbean I know that the Atlantic coasts are all lee shores, and best avoided. My instinct would be to head between islands, anchor in the lee, and wait for daybreak. Does anyone with experience sailing those waters have an explanation as to why this course change to Great Abaco might make sense?


All the cuts on the eastern & northeastern side of the Abacos are notoriously 'snotty' and dangerous when the seas are 'up' and with any easterly component of more than moderate swell. To me, entering any of these unmarked cuts, especially at night, in conditions other than a millpond is .... . 
Ive found also that only a charplotter loaded with the latest Explorer Charts is about the only accurate non-paper means to pilot through the Abacos -- many of the other nav. sources are waaaay 'too far off'.

The closest 'safe entrance' during such a blow would be to round the north side of Eleuthera Is. and then enter from the west into the lee-sheltered waters near Spanish Wells or Royal Island .... about another ~8-10 hours south from Lynyard Cay.

The channel that they supposedly attempted just to the north side of Lynyard is quite shallow 9-13 ft. and one can expect any easterly swell to 'standup quite proud' in that particular cut. I usually pass through the south side of Lynyard at Little Harbor but youre going to get quite 'crossed seas' when entering if the swells are from the NE. I simply wont run these cuts anytime there is anything like a 'rage' going on.


----------



## sailingdog

I'd point out that the Bahama banks tend to be really dangerous in heavier conditions. The combination of very shallow waters in the banks and the very deep waters nearby can result in very, very dangerous conditions very quickly.

For instance, in the Exumas, Exuma Sound is almost a mile deep half a mile from shore, but as you go west out of Exuma Sound, you often end up in waters that are less than 20' deep....if the wind is from the east and of any strength, you can see some really hellacious waves forming there. This is pretty common in many areas of the Bahamas.










Trying to enter any of these types of areas in heavy weather is really ill advised.


----------



## xxuxx

*It's the Captain's Fault!!!!!!!!*



ardoin said:


> Richard and Deb were my next-slip-neighbors as they prepared their boat to take down to the Caribbean. Happy to hear Richard and Deb are okay and send my prays out for Laura.


I am losing sleep and cannot help but thinking about Laura Zekoll! It doesn't matter if they lost their autopilot, if that even happened, it doesn't matter that they were seasick. What matters is that they all were together after the vessel grounded on a reef. They were in that liferaft Together! Mr and Mrs Ross are OK, Dave Shepard is OK, Laura is Not ok!!! What ever happened to the buddy system? Why didn't David look out for Laura? The captain protected his wife, yet Laura was left to fen for herself. NOT KOOL!
As a surfer, I have been in 10-15 foot wave faces. They are terrifiying in a wipeout but at least one has the solace of a surfboard attached to ones ankle and most importantly a buudy to look after you and make sure you surface after a wipeout! Just 2 yrs ago we took a liferaft in the surf, big surf, head high surf out in Hatteras, where I spend my summers. The waves either went under us or pushed us but didn't flip us. My point is, that the surf that night must have been horrndously huge and the wave and the liferaft centered, resulting in a flip and discharge of its passengers. At this point Ross looks after himself and his wife but why didn't he or Dave, the other able bodied crewmate look after Laura? Instead the 3 grabbed for the liferaft and rode it in when the next set wave white water (which would be about 8 dfeet high) into the shore, about a mile away, thus leaving Laura to fen for herself. Why is the wife OK and Laura not OK? Laura was younger stronger and a better swimmer. Yes, it is now time to point fingers!! It's been a week.


----------



## [email protected]

Please look for a post from the members and friends of the family around 1-2pm today.


----------



## Minnewaska

Its awful to think that Laura is very unlikely to be alive. As the six degrees of separation typically prove, there are fewer in our case. Laura was a close friend of one of my wife's colleagues. We've heard nothing more than the same rumors and resultant conjecture flying around here.

We are fixated on the story, due to our empathy for those close to Laura and because we have thought about sailing the Caribbean 1500 in the next couple of years. We've always considered this race/flotilla to be a safer way to transit and want to learn from what went wrong.

I find it to be in very poor taste to attempt to draw conclusions about the events at this point.


----------



## blt2ski

Reading an article about this race/cruise in Yachting Monthly? any way a european mag. This race/cruise is a VERY safe way of doing what these folks were doing. Same with the ARC, some 250plus boats this year. So for minnewaska, why question it? other than you have a friend that was on a boat that perished. Now comes the "WHY?"

It appears like many of us, you are having some of the same questions, ie the "WHY?" as am I. Look back about 2 yrs ago to a boat doing a race to Mexico with a college crew that lost a keel, one death. The speculation went on for about a year, until the CG did a report, as did a few others. 

If no answers do not come up in the next week to month, trust me, the speculation will be even more rampant than now. I doubt you will hear the real answer here, than in the news. Frankly, I have yet to see any news reports, which to me is rather strange. at least the other boat I talked about I did upon occasion. 

If family and friends of Laura continue to read and post, make sure you have a stiff upper lip if you will, because there will be some speculation, from the other three's fault, to Laura's to who knows what. It will go in full circle until the facts are found out.

Marty


----------



## rainbowtroutaa

*Speak your truth*

Way to go xxuxx . Let this stream serve as a forum for all where it may be safe to say what you need to say and not be judged by doing so. Two days ago I spoke out with similar gestures and by a small few I was threatened with their ignorance to be silenced. What if Laura was your daughter or friend? There needs to be some forum to vent so let it be here and don't judge those doing so. May I also suggest that you all make a donation to Laura zekoll's family fund , perhaps all 71 sailboats that participated in the carribean1500 can donate $100 each and help support the rescue mission ( see previous message from lynmidas) as they charter a boat and seek additional volunteers today in the Bahamas. I did via their wells Fargo account.


----------



## billyruffn

*You're out of line, lady!*

XXUXX,

I think either you're tired from losing sleep and aren't thinking/writing clearly or you're stepping over a line. What we have in your last post are rhetorical questions followed by what appear to be assertions of fact. Unless you have information that the rest of us do not (and I seriously doubt you do), what you have presented is speculation followed by uninformed opinion. To wit, with my comments in bold:



xxuxx said:


> I am losing sleep and cannot help but thinking about Laura Zekoll! It doesn't matter if they lost their autopilot, if that even happened, it doesn't matter that they were seasick. _*Permit me a rhetorical question: How do you know that it doesn't matter? How do you know what the condition of the crew may have been as they approached the coast?*_ What matters is that they all were together after the vessel grounded on a reef. They were in that liferaft Together! Mr and Mrs Ross are OK, Dave Shepard is OK, Laura is Not ok!!! _*Speculation again*_ What ever happened to the buddy system? Why didn't David look out for Laura? _*Do you know what happened the moments after the capsize? Do you know that Dave didn't look after her? You do not! Ergo, speculation once again.*_ The captain protected his wife, yet Laura was left to fen *(sic)* for herself. NOT KOOL! _*Speculation followed by opinion, shouted at that*_





> My point is, that the surf that night must have been horrndously hugeand the wave and the liferaft centered, resulting in a flip and discharge of its passengers. _*Speculation*_ At this point Ross looks after himself and his wife but why didn't he or Dave, the other able bodied crewmate look after Laura? _*Speculation, followed by, given the state of your knowledge of the situation, an unkind insinuation. (And as an aside, let me add that from everything I've read here about Laura, she sounds like a woman very capable of taking care of hereself.) *_





> Instead the 3 grabbed for the liferaft and rode it in when the next set wave white water (which would be about 8 dfeet high) into the shore, about a mile away, thus leaving Laura to fen *(sic)* for herself. _*XXOXX, this is truly offensive speculation -- do you have a shed of evidence that this is true? Careful, this is a public forum and the insinuation you make here is bordering on libel.*_ Why is the wife OK and Laura not OK? Laura was younger stronger and a better swimmer. Yes, it is now time to point fingers!! It's been a week. _*Seculation (on Laura's condition at the time) followed by an opinion.*_


If it's time to point fingers, permit me to point one in your direction: what you have said is uninformed by the facts, most probably extremely unkind to the people involved, and IMHO has no place in a forum like this. XXOXX, chill! Get some sleep. Come back when you have something better to offer.


----------



## bljones

rainbowtroutaa said:


> There needs to be some forum to vent so let it be here


No, you don't need to vent, and no, it doens't have to be here. Please take your hysteria anywhere else but here. This thread is not a forum for juvenile anonymous venting, this is a thread to provide information and receive information and informed opinion.


----------



## Faster

I agree that this is NOT the place (or the time) for fault finding in this tragic episode. None of us sitting at our PCs were there.. few of us likely have the experience and background to _*truly*_ be able to understand the mindset of those involved, nor the actual conditions and/or reasons at the time of the incident.

It is disrespectful, speculative, and of no service to anyone involved to take this (blame) tack at this point. There's simply not enough information or evidence to make any meaningful conclusions about any of it.. the whys, or the whatifs.

I'd hate to muzzle anyone... so lets keep this civil, on topic, supportive and respectful of the people and families involved.


----------



## Belisana

I joined just to post in response to those putting down the captain and crew. The seas were bad enough to disable a sailboat and overturn a liferaft. When Laura was sadly separated from the crew, they probably could not even see her for waves (which were probably steep, short-period waves) or hear her for the sound of the water. In the dark, without knowing which direction to even go, letting go of the liferaft to search blindly would probably have been futile if not fatal. I have no doubt that if the captain (or another crew member) thought that they had even a remote chance of rescuing Laura, they would have done so.

Thoughts and prayers to the family, friends, and the crew.


----------



## rainbowtroutaa

Belisana said:


> I joined just to post in response to those putting down the captain and crew. The seas were bad enough to disable a sailboat and overturn a liferaft. When Laura was sadly separated from the crew, they probably could not even see her for waves (which were probably steep, short-period waves) or hear her for the sound of the water. In the dark, without knowing which direction to even go, letting go of the liferaft to search blindly would probably have been futile if not fatal. I have no doubt that if the captain (or another crew member) thought that they had even a remote chance of rescuing Laura, they would have done so.
> 
> Thoughts and prayers to the family, friends, and the crew.


local reports stated that there was a full moon and clear skies during the night of the incedent. most were hopeful that Laura would still be able to see the main boat and swim back to it if possible.


----------



## Vasco

I have refrained from and will continue to refrain from making any comments regarding what happened on that boat as none of us knows the circumstances. I will say that trying to run that cut, or for that matter, most cuts in the Bahamas during a rage is just plain foolhardy. I cannot envision any circumstance which would fall on the side of running a cut during a rage.


----------



## Belisana

rainbowtroutaa said:


> local reports stated that there was a full moon and clear skies during the night of the incedent. most were hopeful that Laura would still be able to see the main boat and swim back to it if possible.


I read that. Even with a full moon, the sea at night is pitch black. Clear skies do not mean calm waters. In a sailboat at night, when a wave rises higher than you are, it is like a wall of blackness. I can only imagine the perspective from the water.


----------



## bljones

rainbowtroutaa said:


> Put your money where your mouth is and make a donation. Perhaps you would get more out of this if you did read the informed information within my SPIRITED opinion. Obviously you rather result to name calling. We all can see who is the immature person here. I happen to know Laura personally so if anything, my opinion does matter more than yours ever will.


I call 'em as i see 'em. I have read your posts. Thank you for reaffirming my opinion.


----------



## rainbowtroutaa

agreed, a wall of water is not transparent from any angle. I have experienced such an event and with the added undertow , i didnt know which way was up. I for one, from now on will always sail with a PFD which includes a location becon. I think that everyone should consider this as a manadatory safety precaution going forward.


----------



## MC1

One of the stages of dealing with loss is rage and anger and we're seeing a little of that in this thread. With those who know Laura chiming in to confirm what a wonderful human being she is - it seems if we have lost her, the heartfelt anger is understandable. Even so, asserting blame and lashing out at others will not take away the pain and I doubt a good person would have wanted this done on her behalf. So, be angry but also respectful and fair to others at the same time. This (or anywhere on the Internet) is not a place to vent in the form of unsubstantiated accusations - this is a public forum and as always, people can be held accountable for written words if they're found to be defamatory.


----------



## [email protected]

Hi All,
*I am writing to you on the behalf of Meredith Jordan and Laura Zekoll's family.* We have a very important request of the boating and sailing community.
Meredith Jordan, family and friends are going to the Abacos today and need some assistance while there. I am acting as their land based liaison to communicate your responses. You can post them on this site or send them to me at [email protected].
Here is what is needed:
1.  They can use any help from fellow boaters who would like to be part of the search for Laura and are willing to help with reasonable fuel costs, etc. This is only if the conditions are safe as no one wants additional risks to be taken related to Laura.
2. The family wants to hire a local captain and powerboat in the area for the search - preferably 24 feet or larger due to the conditions (center console is fine). Any recommendations?
3. A member recommended that the family consider hiring a plane for a search and/or asking about the possibility of a training exercise from the authorities. Does anyone have a recommendation of a pilot/plane, etc. ?
4. Any other recommendations?
5. Please post this to any other sites/forums that I may not have access to.
Your posts, thoughts and prayers are extremely appreciated by the family.
I look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your posts and recommendations to date.
Lyn


----------



## btrayfors

Good.

Seems to me a place to start is with the Bahamas Air Sea Rescue Association (BASRA)....contact them, tell them of your plans, and ask for recommendations for hiring a boat/captain and a plane.

You might also wish to contact Carolyn and Nick Wardle in Nassau. They are the Bahamas Cruising Station for the Seven Seas Cruising Association (SSCA), and have excellent access to BASRA.
Seven Seas Cruising Association
Tel:+242 362 1574, Fax:+242 362 2044
[email protected]

Also, if you haven't already contacted the USCG SAR Center handling this incident, now would be a good time to do that in order to find out anything they have -- surely, during their search they at least located the boat -- and seek their recommendations for a private search.

Others may have specific experience which would be helpful. Hope they will chime in.

RE: location, it would appear that the onboard transponder was working as late as 0400 yesterday (Friday the 19th), showing this location:
*Latest position:*
26.378132 -76.980263
N26° 22' 41.3" W76° 58' 48.9"
2010-11-19 08:20:49 UTC -4h

Since as yet we have NO DIRECT INFORMATION FROM THE CAPTAIN, HIS WIFE, OR THE OTHER CREW MEMBER, we don't know the sequence of events. Presumably, they could provide some helpful information. For example, was the boat capsized and disabled by wave action BEFORE it hit the reef? WHERE was the capsize in the dingy/liferaft in relation to the boat???? Is it possible that waves and currents could have washed Laura a long way from the boat? Is there any truth or significance to the report that a life preserver (from the boat???) was found onshore about a mile south of the boat???? Anything at all which could tell searchers/rescuers more about the possible locations to look for Laura. A thorough debriefing could turn up clues which could be helpful in the search.

Bill


----------



## Vasco

Lyn,

Go to this site and post.
Forum - Abaco's Community Message Board


----------



## chrisncate

Best wishes and luck to all those close to Laura, our thoughts and prayers go out to you.

Chris and Cate


----------



## rainbowtroutaa

The Golden Compass has arrived.... good luck Atlanta Crew


----------



## billyruffn

A couple of videos showing the force of breaking waves.... these end well.

YouTube - GIANT WAVE VS. BOAT

YouTube - Svaneke havn - sindsyg indsejlning


----------



## bljones

Folks, i understand the frustration, anger and pain. But wild theories and unfounded accusations don't help anyone. Until we have more info, we. just. don't. know. Throwing a hissy fit and badmouthing anyone involved in this tragedy adds nothing productive.


----------



## steelboat

rainbowtroutaa said:


> local reports stated that there was a full moon and clear skies during the night of the incedent. most were hopeful that Laura would still be able to see the main boat and swim back to it if possible.


Pretty unusual to have 2 full moons 8 days apart, since around here the moon is full tomorrow, Nov. 21. Just sayin'.

Best, Bob S/V Restless


----------



## btrayfors

steelboat said:


> Pretty unusual to have 2 full moons 8 days apart, since around here the moon is full tomorrow, Nov. 21. Just sayin'.
> 
> Best, Bob S/V Restless


Yes, Bob. Exactly.

On Saturday the 13th of November 2010 the moon was in it's first quarter, meaning that about half of the moon was visible.

From the position of Latitude 62 at the time of the grounding, the moon would have been near it's transit time of 7:18PM AST and would have been 53 degrees 34 minutes above the horizon in a due south direction. So they would have had the moon off their port beam most of the way in towards Lynyard Cay.

Bill


----------



## Minnewaska

[email protected] said:


> The family wants to hire a local captain and powerboat in the area for the search - preferably 24 feet or larger due to the conditions (center console is fine). Any recommendations?
> 
> Does anyone have a recommendation of a pilot/plane, etc. ?


You may want to contact the local FBO, which is one of the only professional FBOs in the out islands. They may know a private pilot willing to help. Welcome to Cherokee Air and Cherokee Aviation

I also seem to recall that the Abaco Beach Resort rents center console boats of that size.

The local community will probably be willing to help.


----------



## rainbowtroutaa

gclimbusa said:


> Thanks, Ditto me, my desire is not hampered.
> 
> I want to add that although it was fully night when the vessel hit the reef and swamped, there was a nearly full moon, no clouds, according to reports from other vessels at Marsh Harbor at the time.
> 
> The foundered but unsunk yacht awash on the reef would be visible to a swimmer in the water, in my opinion.
> 
> Prayers for Laura Zekoll and her family.


I guess the locals haven't a clue bill....


----------



## [email protected]

Hi there - thank you for the posts so far - I will forward them tonight. 

The family's flight from Miami to Marsh Harbour was cancelled, so they are having to overnight in Miami. They will immediately be going to the site once they arrive around 9am in the morning. 

The biggest need at this point is to see if there are any locals who know the waters well and can help in the search.

Likewise, other cruisers willing to be a part of the search would be much appreciated. 

Please continue with your thoughts and recommendations. I love sailors and this site - it is very reassuring to be a part of this community.

Thanks again to all.
Lyn


----------



## smackdaddy

xxuxx, you and trout need to get a room. Maybe with a little extra padding.

It's one thing to ask questions about what happened and think it through. It's another to blather on about conspiracies and unsubstantiated crap.

Go to your backyard...or, better yet, *FightClub* to vent. We'll be happy to help you through your rage.


----------



## [email protected]

Thought you might be interested:

Posted on the Facebook page "Bring Laura Zekoll Home" by Zorrest Millman before their flight was cancelled:

Angie just called me from Miami during her lay over on her way to the Bahamas in her search for Laura. She asked me to post this update. They're leaving Miami at 3:30 pm & will arrive at 4:43 pm on Marsh Island today, Sat., Nov. 20th. Everything is on schedule as planned. They'll meet Brent Bass, a Waden/Volunteer upon arrival on Marsh Island. She was directed to him by the US Embassy. He has lived on Marsh Island his entire life, is a diver, & knows the island & area very well! **Angie asked that everyone pray that he'll be able to get off work Sun. & Mon. to assist in their recovery efforts to find Laura!!** She'll keep us updated! Praying!


----------



## tdw

Come on good people...we have a probable tragedy here. There will be plenty of time to apportion blame when it all becomes clearer. For now I urge you all to keep it civil. A bit of consideration for the feelings of those directly effected by this is not too much to ask for, is it now ?


----------



## mistermizu

RichH said:


> The closest 'safe entrance' during such a blow would be to round the north side of Eleuthera Is. and then enter from the west into the lee-sheltered waters near Spanish Wells or Royal Island .... about another ~8-10 hours south from Lynyard Cay.


Useful. Thanks.


----------



## mistermizu

By the way, is S/Y Nancy Ellen really still out there, about half way, tabbing along at just over 2 kts, or is that a transponder glitch?


----------



## btrayfors

mistermizu said:


> By the way, is S/Y Nancy Ellen really still out there, about half way, tabbing along at just over 2 kts, or is that a transponder glitch?


Good question.

Looks to me like she's out there all right. She went down the ditch and left from Moorhead City about a week ago.

Winds in her area look to be very light and variable, and are likely to remain so for the next few days. The Nancy Ellen is a Catalina 34.

From her track, it appears that she's following a more traditional route, i.e., getting her easting done as far as 65W and is likely to hang a right on I65 and head due south for the islands. But she needs to make considerable southing before picking up the easterly trades, if the predictions are correct.

Bill


----------



## Valiente

Sorry to hear of this. Purely by chance I met a guy who'd been in this race today at my club, and who himself heard a fair bit of the radio chatter about this boat prior to the incident. But given the heat of the discussion here, I'll take a pass on relaying what was said to me, as I doubt it would help.


----------



## [email protected]

*SEARCH PARTY FORMING FOR LAURA ZEEKOL IN THE ABACOS*
Can anyone on this site please post to other applicable forums, as a new user I am blocked out from posting and this is time sensitive. Your help is much appreciated!!
*A search party is forming to find Laura Zekoll who was lost at Lynyard Cay last week-end during the grounding of Rule 62.*
*If you know of anyone who is willing to help, please find Meredith Jordan at The Conch Inn. *
*Anyone willing to help this family and the sailing friends Laura Zeekol would be much appreciated.*
*You can also reach me at **[email protected]** to relay any information.* 
Thank you so much to so many of you who have helped. Pierre, of sv Echappee, your info is invaluable - we hope to get on Pattie Toler's Cruisers Net 8:15am broadcast this morning.


----------



## Maxboatspeed

Laura - I hope you're ok. RIP. 

Hearing about this upsets me. A lot.

I feel like talking about safety ideas.
Instead - RIP Laura.
I hope people can learn to live by Laura's death.

The oceans take lives. Why? Think about that, and live.
Respectfully,
Max


----------



## smackdaddy

Valiente said:


> Sorry to hear of this. Purely by chance I met a guy who'd been in this race today at my club, and who himself heard a fair bit of the radio chatter about this boat prior to the incident. But given the heat of the discussion here, I'll take a pass on relaying what was said to me, as I doubt it would help.


Hey val, good to see you around dude.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

btrayfors said:


> Good question.
> 
> Looks to me like she's out there all right. She went down the ditch and left from Moorhead City about a week ago.
> 
> Winds in her area look to be very light and variable, and are likely to remain so for the next few days. The Nancy Ellen is a Catalina 34.
> 
> From her track, it appears that she's following a more traditional route, i.e., getting her easting done as far as 65W and is likely to hang a right on I65 and head due south for the islands. But she needs to make considerable southing before picking up the easterly trades, if the predictions are correct.
> 
> Bill


I've been watching Mary Ellen since the start. They started about a week behind the rest of the fleet. Still they have been out there a while moving pretty slow. Looks like the main flet got tons of wind and Nancy Ellen is getting less than they would like.

I hope to follow in their wake one of these days.


----------



## Valiente

smackdaddy said:


> Hey val, good to see you around dude.


Thanks. This thread got referenced on Anything-sailing.com and as I only have so much time to blog about sailing (as opposed to fixing my boat), I decided to come here for the first time in months because of the bizarre coincidence of hearing about this incident in the afternoon and then reading about it six hours later.

I have my own ideas about this, but it's apparent that no one but the crew of the capsized boat have all the information, and it's quite possible they themselves don't entirely understand the process that led to their lost companion. So it's premature, I think, to speculate.


----------



## Faster

Valiente said:


> Thanks. This thread got referenced on Anything-sailing.com and as I only have so much time to blog about sailing (as opposed to fixing my boat), I decided to come here for the first time in months because of the bizarre coincidence of hearing about this incident in the afternoon and then reading about it six hours later.
> 
> I have my own ideas about this, but it's apparent that no one but the crew of the capsized boat have all the information, and it's quite possible they themselves don't entirely understand the process that led to their lost companion. So it's premature, I think, to speculate.


Val - great to see you here again, however briefly. Hopefully your own preparations are continuing apace.


----------



## Mimsy

What strikes me as sad is how quick other sailors are (not all but some) to cast blame. Who here hasn't made a decision while sailing that in hindsight wasn't the best course of action? Some of us realize that "there but for the grace of God go I".

I truly hope that Laura is found and soon.


----------



## tdw

Always good to see the Master of Alchemy paying a visit.

Valiente, it was good common sense of you not to post what was said. Later on perhaps, but not just yet.


----------



## Valiente

I'm in no rush, A. (had no idea you were a mod here, by the way).

This is one of those situations where all the "advice" in the world isn't going to change the outcome, and who knows which one of the well-tempered old salts here might make a decision, perhaps influenced by fatigue, special circumstances or God knows what, he may later live to regret.


----------



## tdw

Valiente said:


> I'm in no rush, A. (had no idea you were a mod here, by the way).
> 
> This is one of those situations where all the "advice" in the world isn't going to change the outcome, and who knows which one of the well-tempered old salts here might make a decision, perhaps influenced by fatigue, special circumstances or God knows what, he may later live to regret.


and all that power has had no effect on me whatsoever....bwahaha...

I thoroughly agree with you. Steelers are inherently sensible beings of course. 

One of these days the truth will out. The skipper may well have committed a tragic error of judgement but it would not have been his intention nor his belief that anyone would die. Culpable or not he must be under a crushing psychological weight right now.


----------



## [email protected]

Hi All,

I and Laura's friends and family cannot thank you enough. The information has been extremely helpful, is being used and is making a difference. The word is getting out.

Thanks again and keep the recommendations coming if you think of anything else. It is much appreciated!

All my best and I thought you might like to see that the news picked it up as well:

Private Search for Atlanta Boater Begins in Bahamas - 11Alive.com | WXIA | Atlanta, GA

Lyn


----------



## smackdaddy

Valiente said:


> Thanks. This thread got referenced on Anything-sailing.com and as I only have so much time to blog about sailing (as opposed to fixing my boat), I decided to come here for the first time in months because of the bizarre coincidence of hearing about this incident in the afternoon and then reading about it six hours later.
> 
> I have my own ideas about this, but it's apparent that no one but the crew of the capsized boat have all the information, and it's quite possible they themselves don't entirely understand the process that led to their lost companion. So it's premature, I think, to speculate.


Heh-heh. Yeah, I don't hang out there as much as I used to. I have gotten my habit down to about 4 forums now, so I'm getting better.

Any big deliveries lately?


----------



## ftldiver

I have to wonder if this captain ever entered abaco before....

AFAIK, North MOW channel is the all weather entrance to abacos, there are some turns but its also somewhat sheltered from the E winds. Rarely do waves break there... but doesn't look as good on a chart... at night. but thats would be where I would have gone in... or just heaveto

of course 20/20 hindsight is always better.



prayers to her family!


----------



## rockDAWG

Mimsy said:


> What strikes me as sad is how quick other sailors are (not all but some) to cast blame. Who here hasn't made a decision while sailing that in hindsight wasn't the best course of action? Some of us realize that "there but for the grace of God go I".
> 
> I truly hope that Laura is found and soon.


Well said. We must remain strong and focused. Casting a doubt on the captain and crews is uncalled for. If Laura could speak to us, she would say the same. It is no doubt a tragic accident. Let us learn for this in the name of Laura. 
Be kind to all human kind.


----------



## Schnook00

I just joined this site, after following the posts here. I wanted to say thank you for the updates. I met Laura in Atlanta and shes a wonderful person. My heart goes out to her friends and family. Me, having limited sailing knowledge but having a law enforcement mind, have many questions about what happened. So, I am appreciating peeking in here to hear those more lknowledgeable. Praying for her miracle, a safe return home.


----------



## ejquick

*Pictures of Oceanside Lynyard Cay*

I've attached a couple of pictures of the very rugged oceanside coastline of Lynyard Cay near where Rule 62 was last reported on the transponder.

The inside of Lynyard cay is beautiful and fairly protected with sandy beaches. A favorite anchorage in settled conditions.

These pictures were taken in January 2009.


----------



## LandLocked66c

I'm glad all the shouting and non-sense has stopped. 

Still No news then?


----------



## mdbee

Ok, I don't understand this...

A sailboat runs aground, three people make it to shore, one is missing. This is the Bahamas - not exactly a lost island in the South Pacific. I would imagine there are officials, rescue teams, even helpful locals and other sailors available to search for the missing woman. Friends have to fly down from the States, a week later to do a search? Am I missing something?


----------



## MARC2012

Wondered about the boat name,There are many rule 62's.marc


----------



## speciald

AA Rule #62: Don't take yourself too damn seriously!


----------



## CaptOrganized

Does anyone else think it seems a bit odd that the search undertaken by District 7 Coast Guard is not mentioned on their site? Many others of seemingly lesser nature are. Can't post link yet but "d7publicaffairs.com" search ought to get you to their list of searches with articles.


----------



## ejquick

*Not responding to private messages*

To those who have sent me private messages -- I can not respond because I have not met minimum posts for this forurm. I'm not ignoring you -- sorry.


----------



## SVAuspicious

mdbee said:


> I would imagine there are officials, rescue teams, even helpful locals and other sailors available to search for the missing woman. Friends have to fly down from the States, a week later to do a search? Am I missing something?


Bahamas Search and Rescue, local law enforcement, and USCG did search extensively. If I recall correctly the last of the official search was ended three days after the grounding. I suspect that family and close friends decided to conduct their own search as a combination of a belief that the search didn't go on long enough and a desire to "see for themselves" before accepting the inevitable.

I might well have done the same if someone close to me was lost.


----------



## btrayfors

Yeah, me too. And wouldn't have waited a week to get there.

Report on Abacos Net this morning on Channel 68 VHF was that "they didn't find anything yesterday". 

Still no mention of the exact position of the boat (on a reef? on shore? broken up and gone?) or its condition. No pix.

Bill


----------



## sailordave

MARC2012 said:


> Wondered about the boat name,There are many rule 62's.marc


_Rule_ #_62_ - No more than two weddings a weekend.

From the wedding crasher's rulebook. 

FWIW, I was on a boat that TRIED to leave for the islands the same time as the C1500. We were a day late and missed our weather window and did not go. I was NOT looking fwd to 35ktGust/seas to 27' in the Gulf Stream. And I'm a somewhat experienced offshore racer. Thank you, no.
I'll not make assumptions here about what happened but I am very curious to hear what the thought process/decision making steps were on board that led to the grounding. Hopefully we can ALL learn from this tragedy.


----------



## ftldiver

SA had some pointed arguments, that made sense. (to me) on the decision process to enter a unlight unmarked channel at night during a 'rage'.

sure not going to rehash that here.

but I know I would not have chosen *that* channel in those weather conditions. since I have some 'local knowledge' on north bar channel.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Apparently family and friends who were searching are returning home from the Abacos today.


----------



## scottbr

From the Facebook page

Zorrest Pennell Millman
I just got off the phone with Mike. (Mike is Angie's husband. Angie is Laura's sister & only sibling.) With great sadness, a heavy heart, & tear-filled eyes, I want to share with you that Laura is gone, but, only her physical body is gone. Her bright spirit will live on in the lives of those she touched so specially!

Zorrest Pennell Millman Angie, her parents, & Laura's friends found no sign of Laura in their search for her in the Bahamas. They've been there searching since Sun. Even though it was appearing that this would be the outcome, the finality of the news is heartbreak...ing! My family & I are lifting up my dear, sweet friend, Angie, her family, & Laura's friends in prayer! They're all scheduled to arrive back in Atlanta at 5:40 pm. A memorial service will be held, but, there are no details yet. Prayers for all of you who are touched by this loss!


Zorrest Pennell Millman
Angie just called me from the Bahamas. She is getting ready to board her plane to come back home to Atlanta. She asked me to post this message from her - Laura's sister, Angie, their parents, & Laura's best friends, along with Volunteer/Warden Brent Bass did an extensive, exhaustive, & massive search for Laura by both boat and on land by foot. We, the family & friends of Laura will be forever grateful to Brent Bass! He helped our family do everything humanly possible to help us locate Laura. He is a wonderful man! As a volunteer, he gave freely of his time & we love him dearly! Abaco Police Authorities have also been beyond caring and compassionate! We thank them dearly from the bottom of our hearts as well! The family sadly reports that we're returning home without Laura!


----------



## btrayfors

scottbr,

That is very sad and, I guess, what we expected after so long. It seems she was a wonderful lady.

One question remains, however: did they find the boat or its remains? There has been no mention of the boat. Was it, in fact, on a reef? On the shore? Broken up? Did someone search the boat or the site near it?

And, where exactly was the life preserver (vest?) found in relation to the boat's position?

While the answer(s) to these questions won't bring Laura back, they may help to fill in a few holes in this tragic story.

Bill


----------



## AE28

May She rest in piece.


----------



## scottbr

btrayfors said:


> scottbr,
> 
> That is very sad and, I guess, what we expected after so long. It seems she was a wonderful lady.
> 
> One question remains, however: did they find the boat or its remains? There has been no mention of the boat. Was it, in fact, on a reef? On the shore? Broken up? Did someone search the boat or the site near it?
> 
> And, where exactly was the life preserver (vest?) found in relation to the boat's position?
> 
> While the answer(s) to these questions won't bring Laura back, they may help to fill in a few holes in this tragic story.
> 
> Bill


Only info I've seen about the boat was from Cruisersforum. I assume the people referenced were related to the owners etc.

News from my local source:

"People were here last week taking what was wanted off the boat. Still no sign of Laura. Family and friends here now, and a search party has been formed to search all the shores and creeks, on the slim chance that she was washed in the inlet. People will also walk the ocean beaches (police did that last Sunday). So sad."


----------



## rainbowtroutaa

*Thank you for Sharing*

Keep sailing Laura and guide your fellow seamen to safe passage far away from the waters that rage along these shores on Lynard Cay. Although many waves of sadness tides roll far along the Atlantic shores and salt filled tears fall from weary eyes as they make their way to fill the sea. Let the wind embrace all those that were touched by your love of life and fill their sails with a breeze that will carry them through this storm. As days, months and years will soon pass, only the shells will begin to tell your story through whispers into the small ears of curious collectors.

Laura Z., thank you for sharing


----------



## skipgundlach

We're in Governors Harbour, Eleuthera...

We just met a boat which had just left Marsh Harbour recently. They've been to the boat, which landed on one of the very few sandy parts of the east side of Lynyard Cay.

Report on Rule 62 is that it's being prepared for shipment back to the states for repair. It has either (at the time they saw it, I don't recall completely from our conversation, which was fluid with another couple speaking separately on other matters) been or is being taken across the island for placement on some form of transport, thence to be shipped. Mast is already out, and keel removed. It appeared that the only notable damage was a couple of holes in the stern, not specified as to severity.

So, apparently the boat is salvageable. I'll ask another of my local contacts up there for more substantive info, if it's available...

L8R

Skip
__________________

Morgan 461 #2 
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC 
See our galleries at Web-Folio -- Your Portfolio on the Web ! 
Follow us at Flying Pig Log | Google Groups and/or 
TheFlyingPigLog : Morgan 461 Hull #2, Flying Pig

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to make it 
come true. You may have to work for it however." 
(and) 
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hands. 
You seek problems because you need their gifts." 
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)


----------



## Antares36

Rule 62 was salvaged 2 days ago from the Lynyard Key. The boat was Taken to Marsh Harbor and is at the port. There was extensive damage. I will get some pix to post.


----------



## s.runals

Does anyone know why Rule 62 changed course to the Bahamas


----------



## LandLocked66c

s.runals said:


> Does anyone know why Rule 62 changed course to the Bahamas


Yes, read the entire thread and you'll know what everyone else knows.


----------



## Minnewaska

s.runals said:


> Does anyone know why Rule 62 changed course to the Bahamas


No, no one here "knows". They only know what they've read or been told. Only the crew knows.


----------



## RTB

*Rule 62 are diverting to the Bahamas -- they should be in port in short order.* from the CRA site Cruising Rally Association | Event Tracker It doesn't say why...


----------



## chipsredsky

*Rule 62*

This was my first Atlantic crossing. I was helping a friend bring his Dickerson 36 to Tortola from Hampton, V.A. My friend met-up with many of the people getting ready for their annual "race" to Tortola (the Caribbean 1500). We could not enter the race because none of the three of us had open ocean experience and the boat was one foot too small. However, we were made to feel very welcome to "tag along" and join the celebration in Tortola were all the best sea stories are told at the end of the race.
The first four days were a nightmare for us. We left one day late and did not go as far south as we should have to avoid the bad weather. We found ourselves in 30 foot seas and 35 knot winds and alone. This is not an official account of the facts. My source is Sailor friends of Rule 62 that gave us the facts as they understood in Tortola at the end of the race.
Rule 62 was experiencing similar weather condition as I mention above. At some point the wife of the owner/Captain became so uncomfortable with the safety of the conditions that the decision was made to drop out of the race and sail to the nearest safe port in the Bahamas. As they neared the shallower waters around the Bahamas the sea conditions became unimaginable. The boat struck bottom at some point that led to the grounding on the reef. The boat did not sink and to our understanding was not in danger of sinking. But, the decision was made to abandon Rule 62 and get in the life raft. I was told that Laura did not have her PFD on properly. In the course of getting in the life raft and trying to get away from the boat, the life raft was capsized. I was told other details; however, this tragedy is in time of mourning and anything else is just speculation. Most of us can imagine what they all must have gone though. 
My thoughts and prayers will be with the friends and families involved for the rest of my life.


----------



## Valiente

Thanks for the account of what you have heard. I hope this rather harsh introduction to ocean sailing doesn't discourage you. Much of the time, it's pretty benign, or at least manageable. I think a series of events and decisions led to this, and many sailors would have had the same instincts given the circumstances.

Take comfort and perhaps even pride that you took out a reasonably modest boat into really harsh conditions and made port in one piece. You've had a bit of a fiery baptism, but it's not always like that.


----------



## RTB

chipsredsky said:


> At some point the wife of the owner/Captain became so uncomfortable with the safety of the conditions that the decision was made to drop out of the race and sail to the nearest safe port in the Bahamas. As they neared the shallower waters around the Bahamas the sea conditions became unimaginable. The boat struck bottom at some point that led to the grounding on the reef.


Thanks for sharing what seems a reasonable account. There have been a number of first-time posters at various forums replying to threads regarding Rule 62. This one, at CF seems unlikely * It is my understanding, and many were told at the candle light vigil, that Rule 62 was hit by a wave, rolled, and the mast went*

I suppose the whole TRUE story will eventually come out.


----------



## chipsredsky

Thank you Valiente, I am inspired by the fellowship and caring of the Sailing community I saw in Hampton before the race. The honor and pride I saw in the Sailors in Tortola after the race makes me feel proud to be a part of this group. No doubt that we were tested out there; truth be told, in a vessel and with a crew not as prepared as we should have been. I have been rattled by this experience. My wife tells me that I have been talking and yelling out in my sleep (I have not told her everything yet- such as no autopilot, owner not able to steer and the fire in the engine compartment that destroyed most of the electrical accessories 2 days into the journey). However, I will continue to sail the oceans and continue to take on new challenges. Thank you once again for you thoughtful remarks.


----------



## TakeFive

chipsredsky said:


> ...No doubt that we were tested out there; truth be told, in a vessel and with a crew not as prepared as we should have been. I have been rattled by this experience. My wife tells me that I have been talking and yelling out in my sleep (I have not told her everything yet- such as no autopilot, owner not able to steer and the fire in the engine compartment that destroyed most of the electrical accessories 2 days into the journey)...


Wow, you've obviously been through a seriously stressful situation. We could all learn a lot from your ordeal, when/if you're willing/able to share it with us. Whether you do or not, good luck working through it!


----------



## smackdaddy

RhythmDoctor said:


> Wow, you've obviously been through a seriously stressful situation. We could all learn a lot from your ordeal, when/if you're willing/able to share it with us. Whether you do or not, good luck working through it!


+1.

Hang in there chip.


----------



## JohnRPollard

chipsredsky said:


> ... I have been rattled by this experience. My wife tells me that I have been talking and yelling out in my sleep (I have not told her everything yet- such as no autopilot, owner not able to steer and the fire in the engine compartment that destroyed most of the electrical accessories 2 days into the journey). However, I will continue to sail the oceans and continue to take on new challenges. Thank you once again for you thoughtful remarks.


Chips,

Hang in there -- you went through a fairly trying experience for someone that was uninitiated to off-shore sailing.

Given how shaken you seem to be from the experience, I would suggest that you might find some value in picking up a copy of a book by respected sailing author John Rousmaniere called "After the Storm".


----------



## chipsredsky

*Thank you*

Thank you all for your support and advice. What happened to Rule 62 will leave a lifelong impression on me. We were fortunate and they were unfortunate. I know this is how life is and we should appreciate the good and weather the bad and try to smile through it all. We thought about dropping out and diverting to somewhere safe (especially after I felt a "pop" in the helm steering cable). The owner of our boat (Eole) and the other man are in their mid sixties. This was Neal's (owner) dream to get his boat to the B.V.I's. He was my slip mate for almost 10 years. I said over drinks in front of our boats one day; "let's do this Neal. I heard there's a race every year to the B.V.I's - let's join them". I am 46 and admire their life long experience and passion for sailing. They left a lot of decisions up to me. After all, I was the one in the U.S. Navy for twenty years and&#8230; I just got my masters license from the Coast Guard (this does not mean I am qualified to sail a small boat in the Atlantic - as I humbly know). My heart aches for the Captain of Rule 62. Believe me when I say I am privileged to have learned now what may have taken me too long to learn. I truly appreciate all of your remarks. I will read "after the storm" and never stop reading and learning about what it takes to be the best Sailor I can be. I found the best t-shirt in Trellis bay on the way to the airport. It says: "Say Calm and Sail On". I proudly wore this t-shirt home. Thanks again, Chip


----------



## skipgundlach

Antares36 said:


> Rule 62 was salvaged 2 days ago from the Lynyard Key. The boat was Taken to Marsh Harbor and is at the port. There was extensive damage. I will get some pix to post.


If I can figure out how to make multi-megabyte pix go to the web somewhere, I'll post a link, but I have pix of the boat as it's being readied to take across the island, rudder off, hot patched ply over large areas above the keel in the turn of the bilge, some bent railings and the like.

However, it appears it didn't roll on anything hard, as the wheels and davits are still fine, along with the outboard in its mount on the stern...

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at Web-Folio -- Your Portfolio on the Web !
Follow us at TheFlyingPigLog : Morgan 461 Hull #2, Flying Pig
and/or Flying Pig Log | Google Groups

"Believe me, my young friend, there is *nothing*-absolutely nothing-half so
much worth doing as simply messing, messing-about-in-boats; messing about in
boats-or *with* boats.

In or out of 'em, it doesn't matter. Nothing seems really to matter, that's
the charm of it.

Whether you get away, or whether you don't; whether you arrive at your
destination or whether you reach somewhere else, or whether you never get
anywhere at all, you're always busy, and you never do anything in
particular; and when you've done it there's always something else to do, and
you can do it if you like, but you'd much better not."


----------



## MacGyverRI

skipgundlach said:


> If I can figure out how to make multi-megabyte pix go to the web somewhere, I'll post a link, but I have pix of the boat as it's being readied to take across the island, rudder off, hot patched ply over large areas above the keel in the turn of the bilge, some bent railings and the like.


You can easily crop and change the dimensions in a photo prog. like photo-shop and that will decrease the file size w/o losing the picture.

You could also email it to me and I could post it here cropped for size w/ Photo-shop if you don't have a photo program.


----------



## Faster

skipgundlach said:


> If I can figure out how to make multi-megabyte pix go to the web somewhere,


Just join Photobucket.com and upload your pics, then paste the "IMG CODE" in your posts... and voila!


----------



## TakeFive

Faster said:


> Just join Photobucket.com and upload your pics, then paste the "IMG CODE" in your posts... and voila!


I prefer not to see huge pics posted on this site. They screw up the word wrap of people's messages, forcing us to scroll side to side to read an entire line of text. As a general rule, any picture wider than 800 pixels is a nuisance in my opinion.

However, PhotoBucket has resizing capabilities right online, so it's easy to reduce your pictures to a reasonable size before posting here. For those many people who have Microsoft Office, you can use the Microsoft Office Picture Manager application that installs with the other programs. You can select dozens of pictures on your hard drive together, and resize them all with one mouse click.


----------



## Antares36

*Rule 62 salvage*

I have talked with several BASARA personel and the big proplem was that there was apparently no VHF comunication befor they entered the pass or after. I have posted a few pix I hope they can be seen.


----------



## Antares36

FYI I got the pictures from "New Horizions" in a higher res and used Snagit to copy, crop and resize then saved them as jpeg for later use. Older guy here just trying to figure it out.


----------



## btrayfors

Will,

Thank you for providing the first OBJECTIVE information and data. And, only 3 weeks after the grounding!

Re: the BASRA info, many of us are still trying to understand exactly what happened and why. The failure to make contact via VHF is unfathomable...expecially since boats in Marsh Harbour were talking on VHF about the rage conditions.

About all I see in the pic is that there is a large plywood (?) patch midships on the port side. The rudder is missing. The outboard is still on the stern.

Was the boat swamped or rolled by big seas BEFORE it hit the reef? Before it reached the inlet? Was it dismasted when swamped or rolled? When did it lose the keel? When did it lose the rudder? When it was rolled? When it hit the reef? 

What explains the boat's position some 2/3 nm. south of the North Bar Channel? Was the keel found there?

That the keel was apparently found and is about to be reattached in the photo suggests that the salvors would be able to answer the question about when the keel came off.

I doubt we'll ever know for certain exactly what happened, since the only survivors haven't said a public word so far. Rather astonishing. 

Does it really matter any more? Well, not to Laura...rest her soul. But others might learn from this experience, but right now there's not enough information to know for sure what happened. Except, of course, that a monumental error in seamanship seems to be at the heart of the disaster.

Bill


----------



## Antares36

*Rule 69*

Bill,

It is unclear what happened as they transited the cut. It appears the boat broached. The keel was put back on in the harbor to keep the boat stable when moved. It spent a long time on the reef but I am not sure if the keel was broken off early on or later. You can see some bolts/Studs missing.

I will try to talk to the salvors and see what they can tell.

This is a learning experience for all now. I have made the same trip (1500) 11 times and each one had its wonderfull and worrysome moments. I would never second guess any decision to turn back or seek shelter.

Residents here were talking how this was the largest waves they had ever seen short of a hurricane. A most unfortunate set of circumstances.


----------



## LandLocked66c

So are the owners salvaging the boat, or is it in someone elses hands now?


----------



## Faster

Bill... I haven't gone back to check, but I thought someone posted a few pages back that salvors had removed the keel on site.... sorry, don't have time now to hunt for it...


----------



## Yorksailor

Bill,

This was not an "A most unfortunate set of circumstances."

A woman died because someone made a very bad decision and if the organizers did not warn the competitors of the lethal dangers that the Abacos pose as a lee shore in a gale then they too share in the responsibility.

Phil


----------



## rockDAWG

Yorksailor said:


> Bill,
> 
> This was not an "A most unfortunate set of circumstances."
> 
> A woman died because someone made a very bad decision and if the organizers did not warn the competitors of the lethal dangers that the Abacos pose as a lee shore in a gale then they too share in the responsibility.
> 
> Phil


I am not sure what did you mean by sharing the responsibility. Sharing the blame is one thing but legally responsible for Laura and her family suffering is another.

We all are adult here. If I were the one who perished in a voyage, I do not want my family to go after the captain or the crews. Every voyage has its risk. It is my call to join or not to join the captain; no one forces me to sail.

It is very unfortunate situation - wrong time, wrong place, wrong wind, wrong water, wrong stars, and wrong moon etc. My only hope is in time we will know what had happened, so the misfortune of Laura will improve our odd of survival in the open seas.

Peace on Earth.


----------



## LandLocked66c

rockDAWG said:


> I am not sure what did you mean by sharing the responsibility. Sharing the blame is one thing but legally responsible for Laura and her family suffering is another.
> 
> We all are adult here. If I were the one who perished in a voyage, I do not want my family to go after the captain or the crews. Every voyage has its risk. It is my call to join or not to join the captain; no one forces me to sail.
> 
> It is very unfortunate situation - wrong time, wrong place, wrong wind, wrong water, wrong stars, and wrong moon etc. My only hope is in time we will know what had happened, so the misfortune of Laura will improve our odd of survival in the open seas.
> 
> Peace on Earth.


Yep, well said... This blame thing is really interesting to me. Until this all washes out, I don't see the point of trying that route. We know absolutely nothing at this point.


----------



## btrayfors

We do know one thing for sure: for whatever reason(s) that the crew considered good, Rule 62 did in fact attempt to enter an Atlantic inlet -- North Bar Channel -- at night and in bad weather conditions....after many days of bad weather due to a hurricane, etc.

That fact alone should not be taken to mean "wrong time, wrong place, wrong wind, wrong water, wrong stars, and wrong moon etc."

No...this was a very bad decision -- whatever the reason(s) -- and should have been apparent long BEFORE the attempt was made. Clearly, whether due to fear, exhaustion, concerns for the sick, inexperience, bravado, or whatever, this was very ill-advised. It's a wonder...and a blessing...that three of the four actually survived.

In more than six decades of sailing/cruising I've made more mistakes than most. Happily, so far I've lived to sail on. *No one, but no one should take away from this event the idea that it was just circumstances that were unavoidable.*

Bill


----------



## TakeFive

btrayfors said:


> *No one, but no one should take away from this event the idea that it was just circumstances that were unavoidable.*


I agree that almost anything is avoidable - just stay home. And it is very possible that there may have been other ways to avoid this tragedy.

But I'd like to call you out on the same thing that you're accusing others of. What hard evidence do you have that this tragedy *was* avoidable?

My point is simple. Very little is known, so speculation either way is unproductive. And frustrated as everyone is, these people have no obligation to feed the curiosity of an Internet message board. Hopefully they are talking to the authorities that are conducting the real, legitimate invesitgation, and that we will get the appropriate fact-based information at some point so that we can learn from it.


----------



## btrayfors

Every experienced offshore sailor knows the "heave-to on the offshore tack" strategy when it is unsafe to approach land, or when you just need to stop and get some rest. I'm sure the Carib 1500 organizers covered this strategy. If they didn't, I'd be very surprised.

The "you weren't there so you can't know" argument is specious. I wasn't there for sure. But I've been there many times in similar circumstances, as have hundreds of other sailors. 

Stop the boat. Wait for better light. Wait for terrified crew to calm down. Wait for seas to subside or, if the wait seems like it's going to be very long, choose another route.

I'm not casting blame, here. What I'm doing is trying to draw some reasonable conclusions based on experience and what we know about the circumstances.

The one thing which really riles me -- gets my back up, if you will -- is the fashionable tendency these days to blame circumstances or lots of contributing factors for any mishap, rather than to take responsibility for ones own actions.

IMHO, this horrible happening was avoidable. A decision NOT to try to enter the Atlantic inlet could have, and most likely would have, avoided disaster. 

Bill


----------



## PalmettoSailor

btrayfors said:


> Every experienced offshore sailor knows the "heave-to on the offshore tack" strategy when it is unsafe to approach land, or when you just need to stop and get some rest. I'm sure the Carib 1500 organizers covered this strategy. If they didn't, I'd be very surprised.
> 
> The "you weren't there so you can't know" argument is specious. I wasn't there for sure. But I've been there many times in similar circumstances, as have hundreds of other sailors.
> 
> Stop the boat. Wait for better light. Wait for terrified crew to calm down. Wait for seas to subside or, if the wait seems like it's going to be very long, choose another route.
> 
> I'm not casting blame, here. What I'm doing is trying to draw some reasonable conclusions based on experience and what we know about the circumstances.
> 
> The one thing which really riles me -- gets my back up, if you will -- is the fashionable tendency these days to blame circumstances or lots of contributing factors for any mishap, rather than to take responsibility for ones own actions.
> 
> IMHO, this horrible happening was avoidable. A decision NOT to try to enter the Atlantic inlet could have, and most likely would have, avoided disaster.
> 
> Bill


I'd like to preface my remarks with the comment that Bill's earlier post did seem rather harsh to me on my first reading but I "know" Bill from being on this site for a while. That gave me the perspective to know that his intention was to help us less experienced folks draw important lessons from this tragedy.

I don't have offshore experience, but I am an experienced pilot and flight instructor and know from that experience that accidents like this one are not ever as simple as they seem. In times of stress and fatigue people that should know better all too often trap themselves into only being able to see the course of action they are on, and become unable to consider alternatives that might have broken the chain of events leading to tragedy. Laura Zekoll died as a result a long series of events and decisions not just one bad one.

I like to think I would have been able to tell my sick crew they'd have to suck it up a few more hours until daylight or that I'd have tried the radio to get some advice from shore which might have lead to a decsion to continue to the leeward side of the island. I like to think that if I failed at the above and had put the boat on a reef that I'd be able consider the alternatives and remain on the boat until it was absolutely imperative to leave or rescue resources were at hand. I "know" those are better options than the alternative but humans are fallible and under stress and fatigue the right decision often seems to elude even folks that should know better.


----------



## TakeFive

btrayfors said:


> ...The "you weren't there so you can't know" argument is specious. I wasn't there for sure. But I've been there many times in similar circumstances, as have hundreds of other sailors.
> 
> Stop the boat. Wait for better light. Wait for terrified crew to calm down. Wait for seas to subside or, if the wait seems like it's going to be very long, choose another route.
> 
> I'm not casting blame, here. What I'm doing is trying to draw some reasonable conclusions based on experience and what we know about the circumstances.
> 
> The one thing which really riles me -- gets my back up, if you will -- is the fashionable tendency these days to blame circumstances or lots of contributing factors for any mishap, rather than to take responsibility for ones own actions.
> 
> IMHO, this horrible happening was avoidable. A decision NOT to try to enter the Atlantic inlet could have, and most likely would have, avoided disaster.
> 
> Bill


Because of your experience your opinion is useful.

But it is still just an opinion.

The options that you listed are obvious to any well-rested sailor sitting comfortably in front of his computer. I'm not so sure how obvious they may be to a debilitated crew suffering from fatigue, seasickness, possible equipment failure, and severe weather conditions. You accuse others of "blaming the circumstances," while I see it as inevitable that the conditions that have been described could lead to fatally sub-optimal decisions by the crew.

But that's just my opinion. The facts may tell a different story.

[Edit: I re-read your previous messages and you already said similar things. So I'm a bit guilty of "talking in circles." I agree that better decisions would have led to a better outcome, and the captain bears ultimate responsibility for those decisions. But I am also sympathetic to the conditions that he was under.]


----------



## Yorksailor

Bill is right in his assessments... Professionalism is about making the right decision in difficult circumstances...if you can't do that you should not be out in the Atlantic with 'innocent' crew members.

It is important that Bill's view be read by less experienced people so they do not think that these were rogue circumstances or that attempting to bail out to a lee shore with dangerous entries is a viable alternative.

Phil


----------



## smackdaddy

midlifesailor said:


> I like to think I would have been able to tell my sick crew they'd have to suck it up a few more hours until daylight or that I'd have tried the radio to get some advice from shore which might have lead to a decsion to continue to the leeward side of the island.


I agree with what btray is saying. It is about decisions and responsibility.

But I also think the narrow focus on the decision to enter the inlet is wrong. For me, the take-away is mid's statement above.

It's when your wife, kids, friends, etc. are very sick and miserable, imploring you to get them out of this situation that you've gotten them into...that's when you _*and they*_ need to have an agreed plan of action prior to setting sail. Have you walked them through these kinds of scenarios that drive the decision, as horrible as it seems to everyone, to stay away from land? Are you prepared to be the hardass that everyone will absolutely hate for a time and make that call? That's what I've been thinking about for myself. It's an extremely difficult situation to be in.

There's absolutely proof that attempting to leave open water and enter that cut was a bad call (a wrecked boat, a lost crewmember, and many other boats in the same fleet that made it to their destination by sticking to open water). What led up to that call is only known to that crew. But putting myself into that situation, the above issue is the first decision point in that potential cascade failure. I want to figure out how to make that call confidently in that situation.


----------



## svHyLyte

It is rarely the sea that kills boats. It's the hard stuff around the edges.

Knowing how to snug a boat down to sit and weather conditions with as much comfort, or at least as little discomfort, as possible is a much over-looked skill. The ability to tell people they must wait, and endure, in the face of great discomfort is an unpleasent part of commanding a ship/boat. It is extremely hard to do when someone one loves/cares about is suffereing.

While some may never foregive or hate you for it, at least, they will be alive to do so. I once had to do this with my wife when she was deathly sea-sick and scared whitless. The first few hours were terrible but once she finally realized we weren't going to die and the yacht wasn't going the sink she calmed down and layed on the sole near the center of the boat where the motion was least uncomfortable. It was months before she would again go aboard but she finally did and has been my best sailing mate since.

The foregoing notwithstanding, I am profoundly saddened by the loss of this young woman and my sincerest condolences to her husband/family.

s/v HyLyte


----------



## AE28

btrayfors said:


> The "you weren't there so you can't know" argument is specious.
> Bill


I cannot agree with that and suggest we all put this thread on hold until some first hand knowledge can be posted.
Paul


----------



## Barquito

Because we don't have enough information, there is a possibility that the decisions made were not as unfortunate as it appears. Think of some possibilites: The boat had a knock-down or was rolled, lost VHF communication, power, and sails got shredded in the roll. Now they are on a lee shore with no ability to communicate, and limited ability to control the boat.

Do we have any information about the condition of the boat when they made the "decision" to head toward land?

[BTW, I think it is appropriate to discuss seamanship ideas related to this tragedy if it is in a respectful manner.]


----------



## Cruisingdad

For the most part, I have stayed out of this discussion. For me personally, I wanted to make sure the focus was on a safe return for Laura and our thoughts and wishes for her return. That appears to not have happened, against mine (and everyones) wishes. With the finality of such, I feel we can move on.

In my opinion, we can honor her memory, not by staying quiet, but by discussing how others might be saved in the future. That includes making assumptions on what happened that night and what we might do different. It will not bring Laura back, but it might save another life should anyone reading this thread be put in a similar situation... even if that situation is based upon hypothetical (but educated) assumptions. I feel the assumptions are imporatant because they portray different scenarios that might be played out in different circumstances.

With that in mind, I will now say what has been nagging me from the very beginning of this: Entering a foreign port at night... why did he do that? What could have compelled him to do that? To me, with all due respect, that is like offshore sailing 101. It goes down to what I feel are one of the very basic no-no's in cruising and passagemaking. I will enter my home port (Fort Myers Beach) at night, but only because I know it almost by heart and what to expect. But all of my other departures I plan on daylight approaches. That is why we do so many night passages - so we can arrive at daylight. Even on this last trip to Marathon, I slowed the boat down to make sure we did not arrive before 730 am.

I can only imagine that they were all absolutely drained and had terrible fatgiue. Sleep deprivation, sea sickness, the sea state, and the night (which puts me on edge in a blow) probably caused a momentary lapse in judgement. That was all it took. I differ from some things that I have read elsewhere on here because I really do feel that it only takes one bad decision to put boat and crew in peril... even if you did everything else right to that point and after it.

I will sit here and tell everyone that I have never entered a port I did not know VERY WELL at night - and even then I do it with extreme caution. To me, that is basic seamanship and offshore sailing. I will also honestly say that I was not in their shoes and did not experience what they did that night so I am very careful not to judge them too hard. It is a mistake that any of us might have made had we been in those exact same conditions... though most of us know better than to do it. For those that don't, now you do. And hopefully this basic rule will imprint itself heavily enough on each of us such that when YOU are faced in a similar situation and are not thinking clearly, you will still remember back to what happened to Rule 62 and the circumstances that brought her down.

I am sure there were other decisions made that night and many nights before that were poorly thought out... but that particular decision for me was the critical error. We all make mistakes - heck I do it all the time. But there are some mistakes that carry a catastrophic repercussion should they go awry, and in my opinion, knowing NOTHING else of what happened that night, that was the one.

But like others have said, I am not assessing blame or pointing fingers at the captain. Not at all. We simply do not know what mental state he was in and what he was dealing with. In times of complete exhaustion, we simply do not think straight and we might be prone to forget even the basics of what we know or should know. My thoughts go out to him and his crew because it will be very hard for them to find peace for a very long time, if ever. I suspect we may have lost some very good sailors (and very good people) that will never again set foot on the water and will never forget that terrible night. And that too is a tragedy.

Brian


----------



## imagine2frolic

I opened this thread about the 3rd post. My first thought was what happened to hove to before things got bad? These problems with sailing in snotty weather are a domino effect. Once they start falling it is inevitable it will get worse.

I believe Bill typed knowledge that needs to be known. I don't believe anything mean was meant. If you haven't been there, and experienced it one might think he was picking on the captain. Hove to is a very simple move, and if you don't know how. You better check it out next time you get on your vessel.

You can go from green water washing the deck to I think I will fix something to eat. When the deck dries if it's not raining you can add fuel to the boat if needed. I learned it in my sailing lessons, and it made my life easier to cope when single-handing the Baja Bash. Learn it the next time out!.......*i2f*


----------



## SVAuspicious

RhythmDoctor said:


> Because of your experience your opinion is useful.
> 
> But it is still just an opinion.
> 
> The options that you listed are obvious to any well-rested sailor sitting comfortably in front of his computer. I'm not so sure how obvious they may be to a debilitated crew suffering from fatigue, seasickness, possible equipment failure, and severe weather conditions.


I know Bill, but we mostly talk radio and not offshore sailing, so I can't speak to his specific experience.

I can speak to mine. I've been offshore with the flu and come in to a safe harbor. I've been offshore the only time in my life I was sea-sick and we kept going - it was the right choice. I've had sick crew a number of times; sometimes we drop them off, and sometimes we have to keep going.

Based on what we do know, it continues to appear to me that a series of unfortunate events followed a very bad decision to "get the heck out of here and go to the Bahamas." That decision seems to be the root cause.

Many other people might have made the same poor decision. That doesn't make it any less bad.

"When in doubt go out."


----------



## MC1

SVAuspicious said:


> "When in doubt go out."


For those of you seasoned offshore sailors trying to make an impression on the less experienced sailors on the board, I want you to know there are some of us paying attention and the knowledge transfer is appreciated and will be taken to heart. Hopefully the owners of Rule 62 and Laura's family and friends can also take heart in some good coming from this tragedy.

There's another tragedy that happened a while back where I live where a very experienced small aircraft pilot / flight school owner / FAA examiner hopped into a plane without checking the fuel level, flew about 15 minutes into a 30 minute flight, and died trying to land his out of fuel plane in a field. That one really bothers me to this day. Is there a common parallel with sailors that have a lot of experience and certainly "know better" choosing to disregard their own basic life saving knowledge?


----------



## TakeFive

As someone who has zero offshore experience, I want to express my sincere appreciation to those of you who are taking the time to share your experiences. Even though some of my messages posted above may come across as challenging your assumptions, I do not mean to appear unappreciative. Like everyone else here, I am trying to learn whatever I can from this tragedy in hopes it never gets repeated on any vessel that I am on.

Personally, I am reluctant to pin blame on the captain without more factual information. But even without those facts, making assumptions about different scenarios is useful for teaching purposes (but not for assessing blame on the captain).

Although I have no offshore experience, I have 25+ years working for a Fortune 100 industrial company, so I am very familiar with the mantra that all accidents are preventable. It is a goal that we should all strive for, but it is sometimes only achievable when zero mistakes are made. In a hazardous situation, one mistake may be all it takes to initiate a chain of events that leads to a fatality.


----------



## SVAuspicious

@RhythmDoctor:

I don't think I said the captain made a bad decision. Someone made a bad decision. Recreational boats with owners, family, and friends aboard have challenging dynamics. It can be tough. The role of decision-maker may shift and not always be obvious particularly in high stress conditions. 

We KNOW that a decision was made on Rule 62 to change destination from Tortola to Abaco. We don't know why for sure, or who for sure, made the decision. We can say with some surety it was a poor decision. Looking at the weather at the time and the forecast at the time, and based on reporting of conversations with the boat, a better decision (my opinion) would have been to move further offshore to get out of the Gulf Stream and heave to until conditions settle out. 

We can talk about what the best decision might have been, but the decision that was made was poor on the merits even if events had turned out differently.


----------



## imagine2frolic

These last 2 post is what it is about. Giving of our knowledge to help, and make people think. I am absolutely sure the loss of Laura will save someone else......._i2f_


----------



## LandLocked66c

No doubt about the lesson learned part, it's the speculation that makes me uncomfortable.

I don't like kicking people when they're down and it appears to me there is a whole lot more to this story. Hence the silence from the parties involved. 

Any sailing book you read, you will read about "hove to" and not entering ports you're unfamiliar with. I agree with Brian, that is the most basic of sailing rules. When this finally unfolds, I hope there isn't even more tragedy involved!


----------



## PalmettoSailor

MC1 said:


> There's another tragedy that happened a while back where I live where a very experienced small aircraft pilot / flight school owner / FAA examiner hopped into a plane without checking the fuel level, flew about 15 minutes into a 30 minute flight, and died trying to land his out of fuel plane in a field. That one really bothers me to this day. Is there a common parallel with sailors that have a lot of experience and certainly "know better" choosing to disregard their own basic life saving knowledge?


Two aquaintences of mine, both commerical pilots with hundreds of hours, have died in seperate airplane accidents in the past 10 years due to stall spin situations in clear weather.

You are taught stall avoidance from day one as a student pilot, so obviously, "knowing" the right thing and making yourself do the right thing when thrust into a dangerous and stressful situation is not so simple as it appears. I'm sure the same factors apply to sailors.


----------



## btrayfors

Finally, we seem to be getting somewhere.

Yes, it's all about decision making. And, Dave is right, we don't know for sure WHO made the decision(s), since in family and some other situations the actual decisionmaker might not be the one you would expect.

No matter.

The central point to take away is that *not all decisions are created equal.*

*Some matter hardly at all.* Beans or soup for dinner.

*Some matter more:* trim the sail to get a little more speed or not.

*Some matter quite a lot:* Divert to another port. Tuck in another reef. Heave-to to get some rest. Talk to others on the radio to get navigation info.

*Some matter so much that mere survival is dependent:* decision to enter an unknown inlet at night in rage conditions.

Experience and professionalism help to sort out the important decisions from those less important.

If you're headed for the rocks, your main just blew out, your crew is threatening mutiny, you've sprung a leak, and there's a fire in the galley, it's critical to know what's most important (the fire), and to act accordingly.

It's equally important to recognize when you're faced with *an absolute NO-NO decision*. No matter the circumstances.

Despite the long line of good, bad, questionable, and dangerous decisions which precede this, the absolute NO-NO decision is by far the most important and, in a very real sense, the only one which matters.

FWIW.

Bill


----------



## PalmettoSailor

SVAuspicious said:


> @RhythmDoctor:
> 
> I don't think I said the captain made a bad decision. Someone made a bad decision. Recreational boats with owners, family, and friends aboard have challenging dynamics. It can be tough. The role of decision-maker may shift and not always be obvious particularly in high stress conditions.
> 
> We KNOW that a decision was made on Rule 62 to change destination from Tortola to Abaco. We don't know why for sure, or who for sure, made the decision. We can say with some surety it was a poor decision. Looking at the weather at the time and the forecast at the time, and based on reporting of conversations with the boat, a better decision (my opinion) would have been to move further offshore to get out of the Gulf Stream and heave to until conditions settle out.
> 
> We can talk about what the best decision might have been, but the decision that was made was poor on the merits even if events had turned out differently.


This touches on the point I was making earlier. Making the decsion to divert was not a bad decsion in and of itself whatever the reason. Just like in aviation there were a chain of events that led to the tragedy. A different decsion at any link in the chain and you get a different result. Its like the holes in swiss cheese that happen to line up to let something get through. Deciding to enter an unfamilar harbor at night was certainly questionable but one has to wonder if the skipper had any clue how dangerous the conditions were in this entrance. Its reported, conditions were the worst locals had ever seen lacking a hurricane and one has to wonder if the crew of Rule 62 would be able to determine that in the darkness.

If they had not diverted, if they had hove to until daylight, if they had rasied someone on the radio before commiting to the entrance, if they had stayed with the boat after it hit the reef, etc, etc, etc, change any one of those links and the outcome would have been different.

For whatever reason, the skipper and crew of Rule 62 were unable to step back and rationally evaluate the other options that were available to them. The main lesson to be drawn from this is you have to force yourself to look at the course of action you are on, the consequences AND to consider the alterntive actions you could take instead. It seems the Skipper and perhaps the crew were so focused on getting out of the rough seas/off the boat/in sheltered water, that getting to shore ASAP became the only alternative they could see.


----------



## JohnRPollard

imagine2frolic said:


> ... My first thought was what happened to hove to before things got bad? ...Hove to is a very simple move, and if you don't know how. You better check it out next time you get on your vessel....
> 
> You can go from green water washing the deck to I think I will fix something to eat. When the deck dries if it's not raining you can add fuel to the boat if needed. .......


We know almost nothing about what happened, so we don't know why they didn't choose this tactic. Some boats don't heave-to very well, being difficult to balance. And there are a fair number of reports about the difficulty of heaving to in modern, flat bottomed boats, where folks have reported VERY uncomfortable motion and slamming. There is even a whole school of thought (I'm not a subscriber, btw) that eschews the passive, heave-to philosophy, preferring active storm tactics.

I can understand why folks want to analyze what went wrong, and I agree that doing so is helpful to other sailors who might face similar decisions. But at this point, I remain uncomfortable with the lack of available information. I see no real harm in discussing the hypotheticals, but as far as what actually happened aboard Rule 62 it's still too speculative for me.


----------



## svsirius

I have not jumped in to this one before now.. but to all of those who are defending that we don't know enough to form some conclusions.. listen to Bill Trayfors, S/V Auspicious etc. There is no reason to attempt what they did, Even if someone was having real medical difficulties you first get on the radio to local authorities to determine the best cause of action. Trust me there were other alternatives some of which were outlined earlier.

YOU NEVER NEVER ENTER A UNKNOWN, UNMARKED PASSAGE AT NIGHT -- NEVER!!!

Yes you might consider entering a well lit marked all weather channel at night under certain conditions but I would not do so unless it's pretty benign. It's amazing how different things look in the light.

There is no excuse, second guessing .. that was simply a failure of the captain which allowed that to occur. It is especially true of cuts between islands with an lee shore and current conditions which is very well documented to occur in the Bahamas.

Yes I feel horrible that this tragedy occurred but let's learn the lesson so it does not happen to you.


----------



## sailingdog

Granted, some boats don't heave-to very well, but entering an unfamiliar port, at night, in heavy weather, probably without local knowledge, when the water goes from two miles deep to 30' deep in the span of less than 12 miles... is asking for trouble IMHO. Any one of these issues would give me pause when entering a port, but having a combination of most, if not all of them, is a recipe for disaster.

If the winds had been from the east with any strength for any duration, the waves in that area would have been truly hellacious.

Just curious, but wouldn't it have made more sense for them to go into the Northeast Providence Channel and then hide in the lee of the islands instead?



JohnRPollard said:


> We know almost nothing about what happened, so we don't know why they didn't choose this tactic. Some boats don't heave-to very well, being difficult to balance. And there are a fair number of reports about the difficulty of heaving to in modern, flat bottomed boats, where folks have reported VERY uncomfortable motion and slamming. There is even a whole school of thought (I'm not a subscriber, btw) that eschews the passive, heave-to philosophy, preferring active storm tactics.
> 
> I can understand why folks want to analyze what went wrong, and I agree that doing so is helpful to other sailors who might face similar decisions. But at this point, I remain uncomfortable with the lack of available information. I see no real harm in discussing the hypotheticals, but as far as what actually happened aboard Rule 62 it's still too speculative for me.


----------



## billyruffn

sailingdog said:


> Just curious, but wouldn't it have made more sense for them to go into the Northeast Providence Channel and then hide in the lee of the islands instead?


You mean the 25 mile wide, deep water channel 40 miles south of the inlet?



> _I shall be telling this with a sigh__Somewhere ages and ages hence:__Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-__I took the one less traveled by,__And that has made all the difference._ 
> Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken


----------



## LandLocked66c

Can someone post some pics of the route and the general area they ended up in? Maybe highlight the channel they were attempting? I'm having a hard time putting the overall picture together. What do the other cruisers courses look like compared?


----------



## svs3

When I was young I took a NOLS (kinda like Outward Bound) course and within NOLS the following piece of advice is given: When faced with an emergency the first thing you should do is have a cigarette. This advice is said to have originated with Paul Petzoldt the founder of NOLS, a former Outward Bound instructor and world-class mountaineer. Another piece of advice I heard during Wilderness EMT course is: don't create more victims when attempting a rescue. Additionally, early on in my sailing career I crewed with a captain that before setting sail (or very early on on the trip in the case of MOB drills) did the following: 1) established a chain of command, 2) discussed how decisions would be made, 3) set forth a code of behaviour and expectations, 4) reviewed and drilled on emergency procedures. It is a model I have followed ever since. 

The crux of the first piece of advice is often the best thing to do when faced with an emergency is to stabilize the situation, then sit back and analysis the situation and evaluate the options with as cool a head as possible. It seems to at some point the captain and crew of Rule 62 should have taken a moment, collected themselves and developed a plan of action. When developing their plan and following the second piece of advice they would have ruled out the entering of an unfamiliar harbour at night in bad conditions because doing so did, in fact create more victims (the crew) and could have created even more victims should others have attempted a rescue in the conditions found in that inlet and on that night.

While no one here know exactly what happened, from my point of view, it hard for me to visualize the chain of bad decisions and mistakes that lead to this entirely avoidable situation that didn't have their genesis in the inexperience of the captain and crew. However, the possibility exists that the captain and crew of Rule 62 did everything right and a life was still lost.


----------



## billyruffn

LandLocked66c said:


> Can someone post some pics of the route and the general area they ended up in? Maybe highlight the channel they were attempting? I'm having a hard time putting the overall picture together. What do the other cruisers courses look like compared?[/quote
> 
> At the Carib1500 website, I can't seem to get the url to stick in this post. Go to Cruising Rally Association - Home of the Caribbean 1500 Offshore Sailing Rally, then positions, then Cruising Class 7.<TRACKERCLASS7><TRACKERCLASS7>


----------



## sailingdog

billyruffn said:


> You mean the 25 mile wide, deep water channel 40 miles south of the inlet?


Yeah, that one... I would guess that it is pretty safe in even really nasty conditions...since it is really deep and wide.


----------



## boomvangdc

There's a map here that shows where they diverted: Tragedy Strikes The Carib 1500: Loss Of Life and Boat | Daily Sailing News from North American Sailor. You can google Tilloo Cut to get a closeup of where they attempted to go in. I spent time in the Abacos last year and would not have attempted that cut in anything except calm seas in daylight. Would have been much safer to continue south or call for rescue, as others have noted.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Aha!










So where were they trying to enter?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Tilloo+Cut,+bahamas&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.22949,75.498047&ie=UTF8&hq=Tilloo+Cut,+bahamas&hnear=&ll=26.452132,-77.080078&spn=0.43033,0.583649&z=10&output=embed
View Larger Map


----------



## billyruffn

boomvangdc said:


> You can google Tilloo Cut to get a closeup of where they attempted to go in.


I believe the inlet they attempted to run is actually 7 miles or so south of Tilloo Cut. Zoom in the Carib1500 track and you'll see it clearly.


----------



## btrayfors

I posted the chart of Lynyard Cay 2 weeks ago on Cruisers Forum, and Dad posted on page 5 of this thread. The red shipwreck symbol shows the location which was being broadcast by the Rule 62's onboard transponder.

Bill


----------



## Belisana

I have some offshore experience but it pales in comparison to many others on here. Without speculating any more about Rule 62, I can say that we made a bad decision to "come in" early as severe thunderstorms (the front edge of a tropical storm) were heading our way. To top it off, we entered a marina at the height of the wind/rough seas (still much milder than what Rule 62 had faced). We barely survived the ordeal unscathed and also without crashing into the dock and other boats. In hindsight, it was a bad decision, but at the time, it seemed like the thing to do. Once we got tied up, we realized that one of the greatest dangers to boats is land and that we should never have attempted what we did. Our boat (a Peterson 44) could have weathered the mild storm quite well - better than I could at that time.

Being the inexperienced of the two of us, I think my fear of staying "out" and weathering the storm - on top of a couple of nights at sea - led to my husband's decision to head in. I do wonder if similar factors played into what happened on Rule 62. Even heading in to that particular harbor rather than going approx 20 miles further south and getting in the lee of Abaco altogether via the NW Providence Channel. I am just speculating about what happened may have happened as we don't know. But bottom line from what we learned on our boat: land and boats don't mix in bad weather. 

Whatever happened on Rule 62, my heart goes out to the crew, family, and friends.


----------



## LandLocked66c

btrayfors said:


> I posted the chart of Lynyard Cay 2 weeks ago on Cruisers Forum, and Dad posted on page 5 of this thread. The red shipwreck symbol shows the location which was being broadcast by the Rule 62's onboard transponder.
> 
> Bill


Included it in my post above.


----------



## SVAuspicious

LandLocked66c said:


> Can someone post some pics of the route and the general area they ended up in? Maybe highlight the channel they were attempting?


A reasonable question. However, what I have been saying as have many others is that the issue of North Bar Channel is way downstream of the poor decision. At the point Rule 62 was bouncing around uncomfortably in the Gulf Stream they should (my opinion) have turned left instead of right. In less time than they spent to get to the North Bar they would have been out of the Gulf Stream and been able to heave to.

If you want to learn from this truly unfortunate sequence of events, look to the first decision to turn right. There is the issue.


----------



## JonEisberg

svsirius said:


> I have not jumped in to this one before now.. but to all of those who are defending that we don't know enough to form some conclusions.. listen to Bill Trayfors, S/V Auspicious etc. There is no reason to attempt what they did, Even if someone was having real medical difficulties you first get on the radio to local authorities to determine the best cause of action. Trust me there were other alternatives some of which were outlined earlier.
> 
> YOU NEVER NEVER ENTER A UNKNOWN, UNMARKED PASSAGE AT NIGHT -- NEVER!!!
> 
> There is no excuse, second guessing .. that was simply a failure of the captain which allowed that to occur. It is especially true of cuts between islands with an lee shore and current conditions which is very well documented to occur in the Bahamas.


Hello Jon,

C'mon, man - such old-fashioned "rules" went out the window with the advent of Loran, and then GPS&#8230; (grin)

I've followed this thread with interest, lots of good perspectives offered here. However, I'm planted firmly in the camp with those who've asserted that this tragedy was entirely avoidable - no matter what cascading series of circumstance occurred, everything stems from the unfathomably poor decision made that night to enter that cut&#8230;

Perhaps the greatest danger to any sailor - no matter how experienced - is the lack of a healthy respect for "knowing what you do not know"&#8230; First and foremost, such an awareness should always inform the thinking of anyone whenever they venture off in a small boat, knowing the limitations of your skill and/or experience is perhaps the greatest responsibility of any skipper&#8230; It's painfully apparent to me the master of RULE 62 had precious little experience running inlets of the sort found between Montauk and Canaveral, much less a Bahamian cut - otherwise, he simply would have KNOWN, beyond any doubt, that to attempt the North Bar Channel in such conditions was virtually suicidal&#8230;

More than anything else, what strikes me about this incident is that it a classic example of a "GPS-enabled" mishap&#8230; Quite simply, had the GPS aboard RULE 62 been disabled or inoperative that night, there is no way in hell the skipper would have been sufficiently emboldened to attempt that entry, treating it like the virtual equivalent of a video game&#8230; "Just keep the cursor in between those rocky things on the screen, and we'll be in smooth water before we know it, and drop our hook right on top of that little "anchor" symbol indicated behind Lynyard Cay&#8230;"

Monty and Sarah Lewis were one of the best things that ever happened to Bahamian Kroozing. Unfortunately, the precision of their Explorer Charts is also one of the worst things that's ever happened out there&#8230; I've witnessed this trend for years, yet it still boggles the mind - he amount of false confidence that many cruisers are displaying these days in the accuracy of electronic positioning and charting is frightening to a degree I'm still hard pressed to express&#8230;

For example, the professional pilots of Spanish Wells who guide cruisers through the Devil's Backbone passage to Harbour Island will not make that trip during a rage condition... Those guys who've been doing that trip for 60+ years, could probably do it blindfolded, but they will simply NOT attempt it in a rage... And yet, cruisers armed with a set of Explorer Charts waypoints, and their trusty plotters, will do so - especially when their schedule dictates it... WTF is wrong with that picture? Yeah, I know, even the Bumfuzzles "proved" that the Devil's Backbone could be transited in a rage and poor light, right? Last winter, I spent a few days at Samana Cay, which features one of the most challenging and dangerous reef passages in all of the Bahamas... Extremely tight, difficult to read in even the best light, you're in one of the most remote areas to be found down there - put a boat on that reef, or suffer a grounding that might damage a rudder or pop a couple of keel bolts, you could be well and truly screwed in that place... And yet, I awoke one morning to find a Nordhavn trawler that had come in during the night, through a break in the Columbus reef perhaps 3-4 times the beam of their vessel in width, relying on a chartplotter alone... UFB, some of these people are freakin' insane, the risks they're willing to undertake simply to avoid spending a few more hours outside...

I saw it to an even greater degree a couple of years ago in Belize. The charting there is not nearly as accurate nor complete as it has become in the Bahamas, so cruisers are relying to a considerable extent on lists of waypoints that get passed around like so many trading cards. One morning, I heard a net controller on the NW Caribbean Cruiser's Net provide some waypoints for Ranguana Pass to a boat that was coming over from Roatan, and wouldn't be arriving until after dark... Unbelievable - these waypoints should be considered the navigational equivalent of an STD, who knows where they originated, or where they've been? We all know how easily a couple of digits might have been transposed in copying somewhere along the line, such a mistake could easily spell the difference between deep water, and the reef... What's so hard about slowing down/standing off for the night, then making your approach with the sun behind you in the morning? The unwillingness on the part of some to tolerate even the slightest discomfort in the name of safety/proper seamanship, it's amazing...

As long as I'm on an electronic chartplotting rant, one more point&#8230; Not only in giving a false confidence regarding the accuracy of waypoints in the cut, etc, but also in making it more difficult to see the Big Picture in strategic terms... This is just my hunch, of course, but I'd venture that the master of RULE 62 was likely relying solely on electronic/computer navigation on his approach to the Bahamas... IMHO, there is no substitute for a large paper chart spread out in front of you for assessing your options, this in one area in which electronic charting is very weak for planning purposes, it's extremely difficult to grasp the bigger picture... The need for endless zooming/panning on a computer or plotter screen to obtain the same information that can be gleaned at a glance from a paper chart can really cloud the decision-making process, especially when you're being forced to consider an alternative plan, and then factor exhaustion into the equation... The greatest mystery to be about this whole deal, is why it wasn't so apparent to him how much safer the option to continue sailing just a bit further south to places like Sandy Point or Spanish Wells would have been, and I've got to believe such options might have been so much clearer to him had he had the proper scale paper chart spread out before him, and the luxury of studying it repeatedly at his leisure once the decision had been made to divert to the Bahamas...

Anyway, that's probably enough for one night, and my first post here, eh? (grin)

Best regards,

Jon


----------



## btrayfors

Well said, Jon. And, right on!

The incidence of GPS-assisted groundings seems to be increasing, and will continue to do so as skippers place infinite confidence in their spiffy chartplotters. It's a sad commentary on the times, and the state-of-the-art of seamanship.

Some years ago I wrote an article in Ocean Navigator about the likely GPS-assisted grounding of a 72-foot custom sloop in the British Virgin Islands. On a beautiful moonlit nite, this vessel -- with a professional crew returning from a round-the-world trip -- attempted to run the 1/4 mile wide passage between Neckar Island and Prickly Pear Island near North Sound, Virgin Gorda. They ran aground on the SE corner of Neckar Island, apparently unaware that the charts of the time used a datum other than the WGS-84, resulting in a 1/4-mile N/S error! After the rather soft grounding in almost calm conditions, a further series of errors in handling the grounding resulted in the total loss of the yacht.

Reminds me of a comment by a friend who lives and cruises in Maine every summer, all the way to Canada and back. He commented on the increasing numbers of yachts found way "down East" these days, saying "It's the Garmins". 

And so it is, together with all the little gremlins which lie within 

Bill


----------



## chef2sail

First of all God Bless Laura as well as her friends and family. Terrible to say I hope that her end was quick so there was minimal suffering.

I too have stayed out of comment to learn a few more of the details.

I have some offshore experience having transited the Atlantic twice in my 20s as well as some sailing in the Carribean, but I am no way a Carribean cruiser. My trips in the last few years have been mainly costal ones from the Chesapeake to Long Island or New England.

I defer to many on here with far more experience than I. There is no need for blame finding or fingerpointing just learning and the real lesson in Lauras death would be to learn the obvious errors so we do not repeat them.

I find a lot of wisdom in Btrays comments as I do Daves. The mistake started early in the game with the decision to stay in the Gulf Stream and ride the storm to safety and to a calm anchorage it appears. For what ever pressures and reason this decision seemed to be paramount to who ever made the decision to come in close to land. Their object was to come to a calm area. The major errors of transitting an unkown inlet/ passage at night no matter what the conditions proved fatal and put them in more danger than heaving to till light, or a dave said turning right and getting out of the stream, or as SD said going further south to a wide channel and getting in the lee of the islands. I beleive Jon is also correct in his assuming that one could have the balls to make this run because they had some electronic means of navigating their way through the cut. (I agree with Jon people are too confident in what they see on the chartplotters) In bad seas and weather by giving up one of their key senses ( sight) by not waiting for daylight was unfortunate and dangerous. You need all the senses and sense you have..sight, charts, electronics, to make passage in these cuts in good weather let alone a rage or even just adverse conditions. Doing this at night was just plain puzzling.

All of the people on this boat at least had some experience and were not novices by any means , so what drove them into the land must have been overwhelming. The ocean is a dangerous and unforgiving place at times and commands utmost respect. For sailors it is our "zen" or place of tranquility when out on the water, but the other lesson is that it is a ALL POWERFULL and if not treated with proper respect, the consquence is death or injury.

The learned lesson for us semi novices is HEAVE TO. Wait till you can SAFELY proceed with confidence and all you senses. ASK FOR HELP from local CG or authorities

It is also why a number of us who have at least a little experience in the effects of costal/ ocean tough weather conditions have cringed at some of the knuckleheads (who have posted on sailnet) who have made passages with new or new to them boats without proper experience on board, charts, or even thoroughly checked out boats letting their bravado in invincabilty rule them. We have seen how quickly the Ocean can swoop in and take its toll. No matter your experience, or conditions...it is all about planning and emphsizing Safety first that counts. In the case of Rule 62...from the get go to dash to the Bahamas started the "unsafe dominos" which ended in tragedy.

No judgement here...no fault...just lessons. God bless Laura and the surviving members of Rule 62. 

.


----------



## mistermizu

JohnRPollard said:


> There is even a whole school of thought (I'm not a subscriber, btw) that eschews the passive, heave-to philosophy, preferring active storm tactics.


I have heard *lying ahull* criticized as being too passive a storm tactic, and one which leaves you vulnerable, but would consider *heaving to* to fall into the active storm tactics category. Wonder what others think?


----------



## billyruffn

SVAuspicious said:


> A reasonable question. However, what I have been saying as have many others is that the issue of North Bar Channel is way downstream of the poor decision. At the point Rule 62 was bouncing around uncomfortably in the Gulf Stream they should (my opinion) have turned left instead of right. In less time than they spent to get to the North Bar they would have been out of the Gulf Stream and been able to heave to.
> 
> If you want to learn from this truly unfortunate sequence of events, look to the first decision to turn right. There is the issue.


Auspicious,

Google "Gulf Stream chart" -- second entry down shows four charts. Click on the third one from the left and you'll see that the Gulf Stream runs west of the Bahamas. Rule 62 went aground on the eastern shore of an Abaco off shore island. The Gulf Steam is not in play in this incident. Your comments about heaving to are well taken.


----------



## billyruffn

mistermizu said:


> I have heard *lying ahull* criticized as being too passive a storm tactic, and one which leaves you vulnerable, but would consider *heaving to* to fall into the active storm tactics category. Wonder what others think?


Mr. Mizu, 
"Lying ahull" is a very passive tactic -- basically, all sails are down, the tiller/wheel is lashed and you retire below. The boat does what the wind and sea will do with it. Think of it as putting your head in the sand.

"Heaving to" is a sailing tactic, albeit one where you don't need a lot of human input. When you heave to the jib is aback, the reefed main is barely drawing and the helm is set a lee so that the boat starts to come up into the wind and then is pushed off the wind by the backed jib -- in short, the forces of sails and tiller are acting in opposition to one another and the boat jogs along on a short zig-zag making something around a knot (or less) through the water. Heaving to is a notch up the activity scale from laying ahull. When hove to the boat should have its bow 50-60 degrees off the wind and it should stay there without much input from the crew. 
When lying ahull you can't be sure how the boat will present it self to the seas. In short, heaving to is a better tactic.

I've never lay ahull. I've hove two in gale force twice, once for about 4 hours and once for 12 hours -- both times with the desired effect. Everything calms down -- wind, noise, boat motion, stress on the rig / crew. When I heave to, I do not retire below. I maintain a watch in the cockpit to make sure the boat is doing what it's susposed to do and no big, bad freighters come over the horizon CBDR.


----------



## SVAuspicious

billyruffn said:


> Auspicious,
> 
> Google "Gulf Stream chart" -- second entry down shows four charts. Click on the third one from the left and you'll see that the Gulf Stream runs west of the Bahamas. Rule 62 went aground on the eastern shore of an Abaco off shore island. The Gulf Steam is not in play in this incident. Your comments about heaving to are well taken.


Well, if we are going to be pedantic (something I am myself prone to) what you are talking about is the Florida Current. *grin*

If I recall the Carib 1500 maps correctly, Rule 62 was North and East of Abaco and in the nominal Gulf Stream where it tips over (excuse me - veers more Easterly and starts to aim for Europe) when the recorded track and the reported SSB communications from the boat indicate Rule 62 made a significant course change and headed for Abaco.

So Rule 62 was subject to bumpy conditions. I maintain a better choice, regardless of decision-maker, would have been to head further offshore into more settled conditions and heave-to for as long as it took to rest. Heading Southwest, also out of the Gulf Stream, was a bad choice.


----------



## billyruffn

SVAuspicious said:


> Well, if we are going to be pedantic (something I am myself prone to) what you are talking about is the Florida Current. *grin*
> 
> If I recall the Carib 1500 maps correctly, Rule 62 was North and East of Abaco and in the nominal Gulf Stream where it tips over (excuse me - veers more Easterly and starts to aim for Europe) when the recorded track and the reported SSB communications from the boat indicate Rule 62 made a significant course change and headed for Abaco.
> 
> So Rule 62 was subject to bumpy conditions. I maintain a better choice, regardless of decision-maker, would have been to head further offshore into more settled conditions and heave-to for as long as it took to rest. Heading Southwest, also out of the Gulf Stream, was a bad choice.


OK, I suspose those with a myopic view of the world would call what runs west of the Bahamas the Florida Current  , but the "river in the ocean" that runs up the Carolinas coast and by Hatteras is known by those who've been north of Jacksonville as the Gulf Stream.  

From my reading of the Carib 1500 transponders, Rule 62 was clear of the major effects of the Gulf Stream within 36 hours (+ or - a few) of leaving Norfolk. I've made the trip from Norfolk to Tortola twice and the advantage of leaving from this far south (vs New England) is that you can be done with the Stream quickly. Normally, the C1500 fleet crosses the Stream north of Hatteras and is on the other side within the first 24 hours. Off Hatteras the Stream is usually no more than 60-80 miles wide. This year many boats went further south and crossed it south of Hatteras where it might be 80-100 miles across at most. They did this to avoid the worst of the weather thrown off by the low off New England, using both time and distance to their advantage.

From my reading of the track of Rule 62, she didn't make the decision to head for the Bahamas until she was near the latitude of Jacksonville at a position 200-300 miles east of the eastern wall of the Stream.

What came into play here was the wave patterns from the N and NW produced by the storms that had passed the latitude of Hatteras and/or come off the coast above Hatteras a few days before. Combine that with strong winds from the north and it makes for an uncomfortable ride. Last year we had a similar but much more moderate wind/wave combination in this area. Broad reaching in 25-30 may sound like a cake walk, but with a 10-12' swell hitting the boat on the port quarter, it's no fun -- it pushes the stern down hard on every wave requiring the helmsman to work hard. (Our autopilot would not keep up and the crew resorted to hand steering). BR has a similar underbody, but is a much heavier boat than Rule 62. With a stronger wind (one boat reported > 50 kt gusts) and larger wave train a lighter Rule 62 would not have had a comfortable ride. But the conditions they faced when their track leaves the pack and goes off to the SW toward the Bahamas had _nothing_ to do with the Gulf Stream.


----------



## souljour2000

This discussion is very informative,deliberate and informed discussion....this is why Sailnet may certainly be the premiere sailing website on the planet...I have flirted with other sites and will continue to but I get more of real-world sailing and experienced anecdotal reports here than anywhere else on the web...thanks Sailnet and thanks to the experienced sailors that log in to this forum and share their expertise...


----------



## HDChopper

+1..


----------



## Yorksailor

*Lying ahull...heaving-to or running off.*

My wife and I sail 4,000 miles a year, our navigation of the entire US and Canadian east coast, Bermuda, Bahamas and the Caribbean is almost complete. We heave-to, for various reasons at least once a week, however, in gale conditions we rarely heave-to and I doubt I would ever lie-ahull...just too passive.

We sailed through the last 3 gales; we were in 40-50 knot winds and 20 ft+ seas, heavily reefed (250 sq ft on a 30 ton boat) running off, with a preventer, wind on the quarter and making 4-5 knots out to sea.

We would heave-to on the safer tack if we had lots of sea room and if we both needed to rest.

The important thing is that we both know we are safer at sea than near the land and after sailing 20,000+ miles together (a third of our total sea miles) have confidence in each other and the boat.

In a situation as described very importantly by 'Belisana' I can imagine the pressures felt by an inexperienced skipper...Well done Belisana, that post should be mandatory reading for all inexperienced couples.

Another post that should be mandatory reading is Jon Eisberg's about undue reliance on GPS and Chart plotters in the Bahamas, or anywhere for that matter. Entering Spanish Waters in Curacao my plotter was off by 50-100 yards and in reality placed me in the Hyatt hotel's swimming pool! In the dark I would have been on the rocks!

As many write, we are speculating about some of what happened but the dialogue is important so that people can learn. The two post I quote above are two of the most important I have read on the forum!

Phil


----------



## speciald

Insurance company wants to "repair" not total Rule 62. Good luck with that!


----------



## billyruffn

Yorksailor said:


> *Lying ahull...heaving-to or running off.*
> 
> We would heave-to on the *safer tack* (emphasis added) if we had lots of sea room and if we both needed to rest.


Yorksailor makes an important point with regard to the "safer tack". Depending on your boat and the conditions, it's very likely that you will still be making way while hove-to. In a blow it's hard to totally stop the boat. Thus, you have a choice as to what direction you want to move, albeit very slowly, while you get some rest.

A long way off shore it probably doesn't make much difference (other than which tack moves you down / closer to your intended course, but when heaving-to closer to shore you need to be careful of the course you are making while hove-to. (The GPS crumb track is very helpful in this regard.) If you heave-to after dark off an unfamiliar harbor awaiting the morning to make an approach, you will have 9-12 hours of slowly going somewhere. The 10-20 miles you make in this situation matters -- make sure the tack you choose takes you away from any danger.

I've found that our boat will make progress in the general direction we want to go if we tack the boat before heaving-to, i.e. tack over, then tack back to back the jib.

Another minor point -- remember the weather you may be trying to avoid by heaving to is probably moving. You can use the tactic to avoid the worst of a storm, or to reduce its influence on you. E.g. you can heave-to to slow down to allow a system pass ahead of you, or instead of running off in a system that's coming from behind you (where all you're doing is prolonging the time you're in the heavy weather), heave-to and let the system pass by more quickly.


----------



## SVAuspicious

billyruffn said:


> OK, I suspose those with a myopic view of the world would call what runs west of the Bahamas the Florida Current  , but the "river in the ocean" that runs up the Carolinas coast and by Hatteras is known by those who've been north of Jacksonville as the Gulf Stream.


I agree with you on common usage. Frank Bohlen from UConn has said that oceanographers use somewhat different terminology than we do. I SAID it was pedantic. *grin*



billyruffn said:


> From my reading of the Carib 1500 transponders, Rule 62 was clear of the major effects of the Gulf Stream within 36 hours (+ or - a few) of leaving Norfolk.


You are absolutely correct. I fell into the trap Jon Eisberg warned of, fortunately sitting safely at the dock. As I zoomed in I ended up looking at the wrong track. My bad.

Regardless, and I do take your point about boat motion, I continue to believe that heaving to would have been a much better and safer choice. This goes back to the motivation to "do something" when waiting conditions out is both safer and more comfortable.

For Rule 62, already outside the Gulf Stream as you point out, heaving to should have been tried. It is very possible albeit speculation on my part that the skipper fell victim to the "cut and paste sailor" urban legend that boats with modern underbodies don't heave to. They do in my experience. Perhaps the skipper didn't think it was an option and made a poor choice to head for the Bahamas because he thought it was the only option to address (reported) seasickness by half the crew.


----------



## doublewide

Our sincere condolences go to Ms Zekoll's family and friends.

We were on passage to the BVI at the same time as the Caribbean 1500 fleet, and, though there were high winds and seas, we experienced a reasonably comfortable passage. We left Cape Fear Sunday night, and crossed the Stream during daylight hours on Monday, about a day ahead of the 1500 fleet. In the Stream, the motion of the boat was very uncomfortable with 20 kt winds from the NW at right angles to the Stream. Three of the four crew were seasick for the 12 hours or so that we were in the Stream, but once we put the Stream behind us the crew were again fit and able.

We prepared for seasickness by obtaining adequate rest before leaving. No partying. No alcohol. Several of us used transdermal Scopolomine patches, supplemented by Zofran (Ondansetron). You may ask your doctor to prescribe these medications for you before your next Gulf Stream crossing.

From our Gulf Stream exit, we sailed the rhumb line SE to Tortola in steady NW winds of 25 kt, gusting to 30, under Genoa alone most of the way, staying just ahead of the bad weather behind us. The wind was too dead astern for really fast sailing, but our course kept the big seas astern. Seas were 15 – 18 feet and, with a 14 second interval, they were very comfortable. They towered above us as they passed beneath the boat, but the autopilot handled them easily. I hate to contemplate how uncomfortable those same seas would have been had we decided to head SW to the Bahamas, taking them on our beam. We would probably have been seasick and the autopilot may not have been able to steer for us.

We have a well-found, well-prepared boat, designed for offshore passage making. The cockpit and helm are well protected by a full, removable, enclosure. During the passage, we stayed warm, dry, and rested. We didn't set any speed records but we had a very safe and comfortable 8 day passage to the BVI.

We can learn important lessons from other people's experiences, from things that went right as well as from things that went wrong. This thread about the shipwreck of Rule 62 contains a lot of good advice about seamanship and decision-making..

We may never know what decisions led to the shipwreck, and it may not be important that we know, but the event can serve as a reminder of this: when a mistake could have life-changing consequences, the decision is too important to make on the spur of the moment. A wise person has already thought out the problem. He decides in advance how he will react when faced with a potentially dangerous situation. Making the decision in advance, she will make a better, safer decision than she could make under conditions of stress or fear or temptation. 

We should make important decisions before the need to decide becomes urgent. Will I use methamphetamine? Will I accept a bribe? Will I drink and drive? Will I cheat on my spouse? In my surgical practice, how will I deal with a major arterial bleeder? When sailing, will I make a night landfall? What will be my storm tactics when sailing offshore? Before I enter the Gulf Stream, on my boat, what minimum wind and wave conditions must be met? Under what conditions would I ever abandon ship?

These are not problems to be solved on the spur of the moment, in the heat of passion, or when seasick and sleep deprived. Each of us should compile his own list of life's decisions with potentially serious consequences, and decide IN ADVANCE what he will do. Then stick with that decision. The rules we make for ourselves will keep us safe. This is important not only for individuals but also for crews, families, and organizations.


----------



## imagine2frolic

Only several hours farther south they would've been in the lee of all of the Abacos with an anchorage just around the corner. It would've been a smoother ride. Instead being beam on. Throwing out some warps would help keep the stern to the waves.

20 years ago when I bought my first boat. I read everything that was about survival. I had no internet, and no mentor, so it was Webb, Moitissier, Roths, and a host of others that were my mentors through their own problems, and getting through them.

Fear & discomfort can make problems seem larger than they are. So you hove to, and that's not working. You turn, and run with sea room. I have actually turn and run going from P.V. Mexico to Cabo. With a 30% headsail, and the engine running in reverse. The scrap of headsail kept the bow downwind while the motor slowed me down. You do what you have to do, but you stay away from rocks.......*i2f*


----------



## Echappee

*Trying to learn*

In the spirit of learning I will share the email weather messages received by the Carib1500 fleet in the days before Rule 62 accident, from 11/10 until 11/13, the day of the accident. What every captain would do with these forecasts is in my mind at the heart of the discussion... (And I do not know if Rule 62 was able to download the email messages.)
****
Subject: WX Weds 11-10-2010
Date: 10 Nov 2010 11:39:00 -0000
Route: Hampton, VA to Tortolla
Prepared: 0600edt Wed, November 10, 2010
Summary:
1) The big low has shifted more to the SE in the past 24 hrs to near 38-39N/65-66W with a 2nd low developing further E near 55W
a) both eventually merge into a strengthening low NE of Bermuda by Thu AM
2) Meanwhile, there is a ridge of high pressure extending S from Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico
3) With this low to the NE, the fleet should be in a N-NW to NW wind, mainly in the 20s thru much of the day today
a) Seas most likely near 10-12 kts
b) Buoy E of the GS near 34.7n/72.7w has a N-NW wind of 20-26 kts w/seas near 11 ft,
4) As this low strengthens during Thu, look out for a stronger N to N-NE wind to develop over the area
a) wind speeds to 25-35 kts, and
b) there is chance for a gust to 40 kts, mainly ahead of any showers
c) seas building to 15-18 fy
5) Think this rougher N-NE flow continues into Fri, then gradually subsides as you get more south over the weekend.
a) But still a very large swell
6) The boats may want to get more south, instead of any easting to limit the rough conditions, as it will be rougher to the E
Routing:
1) Best to stay close to rhumb line and getting more south will help with the rougher conditions during Thu and Fri
****
Subject: WX Thu 11-11-2010
Date: 11 Nov 2010 11:53:00 -0000
Route: Hampton, VA to Tortolla
Prepared: 0630edt Thu, November 11, 2010
Summary∑ Expect gradual increase in wind and especially sea from N to S in the next 24 hours. Boats furthest N will be impacted the most.
1) Low pressure has consolidated near 38n/ 60w this morning.
2) It will track SSW to close to Bermuda by Friday morning and remain near stationary into early Saturday.
a) Then will weaken and head NE into the central Atlantic this weekend.
3) A surge of stronger NNW-N Winds will arrive from N to S in the next 24 hours.
a) Wind speeds increase to 25-35 kt range- strongest for the boats to the N and lightest for the faster boats to the S.
b) Could be few higher gusts to 40 kts near any brief squally showers
4) The northerly sea state will continue to build from N to S as well
a) 15-20+ ft sea will be down to 27n by Friday morning and 23n by Sat morning.
b) This largest sea will have a period of 12 seconds with the wind waves a period of 5-7 seconds.
5) The winds will begin to diminish as the fleet approaches 25n Friday and will see a significant drop off in wind over the weekend .
a) Wind direction may back to more NW over the weekend as well.
6) But the sea state will be slower to subside probably not getting back below 15 ft until Sat night and to10 ft until Sunday.
7) Winds early next week will be light trending N-NNE in the BVI.
Routing: Get as much southing as possible to minimize conditions somewhat. But do not expect it to be a great deal of improvement
****
Subject: WX Fri 11-12-2010
Date: 12 Nov 2010 11:40:00 -0000
Route: Hampton, VA to Tortolla
Prepared: 0630edt Fri, November 12, 2010
Summary:
Strongest wind and biggest sea for those furthest N - diminishing wind starting tomorrow, especially for the lead boats
1) Low pressure to the NE of Bermuda, near 34n/64w
2) It will continue to track slowly to the E over the next couple of days
3) Large circulation around the system with strongest flow around and N of 29n, less the further S
4) Some of the stronger winds will edge S and SE today, but most of the fleet will stay ahead of the bigger wind
5) Flow more N at 22-28 kts with occasional gusts to 30 kts for the slower boats with the wind tending to back some, ie, more NNW and NW tonight and tomorrow
a) NW wind closer to 17-24 kts for the lead boats
b) so, stronger winds for the boats furthest N, less for those S
6) There will be bands of clouds and associated showers/squalls rolling S as well
a) some brief gusts to 35+ kts near the front end of a heavier shower ˆ these will be moving mainly from the NNW to the SSE
7) Big N sea will continue to build S and SE
a) 15-20 ft sea will be down to 25n by Fri evening and to 23n by Sat am
b) long period swell (12 sec) with wind waves around 5-6 sec
8) NW wind around 17-24 kts on Sat for the group further N, NW to WNW winds at 12-19 kts for the fastest
9) NW to WNW wind diminishing to 10-18 kts Sun, least wind for the fastest boats, strongest for those furthest N
10) Very light conditions likely early next week
Routing: By being further S will ease the wind and sea a little 
NE winds of 20-25 kts around the Bahamas - seas building to 10-15 ft by this evening/tonight as bigger NE swell arrives
****
Subject: WX Sat 11-13-2010
Date: 13 Nov 2010 11:53:00 -0000
Route: Hampton, VA to Tortolla
Prepared: 0630edt Sat, November 13, 2010
Summary: Will continue with the strongest wind and biggest sea for the boats furthest N ˆ much lighter conditions for those S, but with a big swell
1) Low pressure in the Atlantic still to the NE of Bermuda
a) it will move slowly to the E
2) Ridge of high pressure over the eastern US
3) The big low continues to dominate the circulation in the Atlantic and even down thru the northern Caribbean
a) basically, no trades
4) Strongest wind will be with the northern boats, around and N of 25n
a) wind more NNW to NW at 18-25 kts north of 25n, more left, ie, WNW, closer to 20-21n
b) wind speeds closer to 8-15 kts around 23n and lightest winds down nearer 20-21n
b) wind then tries to clock S of 20n
5) Wind will diminish the further S you get
6) There will be some fast moving scattered showers and a few squalls rotating from the NW towards the SE near and N of 24n, more WNW to ESE movement S of there
a) best chance of gusty winds will be N of 24n, and again around 22-23n
b) seas 12-17 ft N of 25n, 10-15 ft S of there, with least sea closer to 20n ˆ big N swell
7) On Sun, Flow will be 15-20 kts around and N of 24 30n, 10-15 kts tomorrow between 22-24 30n, and 7-13 kts S of there
a) wind NW to WNW, except maybe more N around 19-20n
b) flow may be quite shifty around 19-20N and to the S of there
c) seas 9-12 ft near and S of 20n Sun, 11-15 ft to the N
8) Little change on Mon with light mainly NW flow ˆ 7-13 kts


----------



## eryka

doublewide said:


> A wise person has already thought out the problem. He decides in advance how he will react when faced with a potentially dangerous situation. Making the decision in advance, she will make a better, safer decision than she could make under conditions of stress or fear or temptation.
> 
> We should make important decisions before the need to decide becomes urgent. Will I use methamphetamine? Will I accept a bribe? Will I drink and drive? Will I cheat on my spouse? In my surgical practice, how will I deal with a major arterial bleeder? When sailing, will I make a night landfall? What will be my storm tactics when sailing offshore? Before I enter the Gulf Stream, on my boat, what minimum wind and wave conditions must be met? Under what conditions would I ever abandon ship?
> 
> These are not problems to be solved on the spur of the moment, in the heat of passion, or when seasick and sleep deprived. Each of us should compile his own list of life's decisions with potentially serious consequences, and decide IN ADVANCE what he will do. Then stick with that decision. The rules we make for ourselves will keep us safe. This is important not only for individuals but also for crews, families, and organizations.


Smart advice! (from one who spent about 5 hours hove-to in the Atlantic with lightning circling our boat 360 degrees while half the crew was barfing over the side ... )


----------



## jwieneck

I was out there with the 1500 these weather reports are pretty accurate. The top winds for us were around 53 true only with the squall lines that came through. I would say the norm was mid to upper 20's. For the most part what was forecast in these weather updates come true. For us this produced a fast ride sailing around 120 degrees off the apparent most of the time. Waves on our aft to port quarter big but spaced auto did a nice job. It would have been tough to have worked west across this wave state for sure.


----------



## skipgundlach

All is speculation on what happened to cause them to wreck, but I now have 
(and if I can figure out how to get 41M up somewhere, in mininum 2.5 to as 
much as 4M pix, I'll give a link) pix of the boat as it was being prepared 
for pulling across the beach to transport to Marsh Harbour and then to the 
states.

If you have a FTP I could use, mail my name, all one word, at gmail...

There are large plywood hot patched sections in the turn of the bilge (about 
the same area we experienced our damage in during our wreck, but on both 
sides) above the steel (based on observable rust) keel, which has been 
removed and is on the beach with nuts attached to the bolts but no hull 
material present, with a small chunk taken out of the leading edge, but very 
little other observable damage, other than some paint removal along the flat 
bulb (not a wing, but not a true bulb). No sign of the rudder, which is 
suggestive (note this purely speculative) of a loss (which would explain 
their track veering from SSW to due west).

It appears not to have rolled on anything hard (wheels, davits, engine on 
bracket on pushpit all intact, unbent) and all the scarring is either below 
or near the waterline. However, there's a suggestion of a dismasting via a 
starboard roll, due to the furler being bent severely to port, no 
cable/sail, along with the pulpit which is pushed over, or perhaps a shroud 
gave way - but the angle of the pulpit bends suggests the entire mast went 
over. Further evidence includes the port jackline being up over the rail 
midships, and the absence of a mast (but the boom is lashed to the cabin 
top) or any rigging visible anywhere.

The lack of any mast debris suggests (speculation, again) that they 
successfully cut it away. The hull appears in very good condition, patched 
areas excepted, and the fact that it made it to the beach on that night 
suggests it didn't sink, or it would have been rolled through the reefs in 
the surf.

Of course, I have no real knowledge of what happened, but my SPECULATION is 
that

1 diversion due to seasickness and tiredness (known)
2 dismasting somewhere along the way - causing loss of SSB comms, likely 
also VHF - apparently successfully removed. Perhaps that exercise was
when the two crew were washed over (also known) and recovered (no 
doubt tethered, or they'd have been gone for sure)
3 heading toward Lynyard/down the outside of the Abacos, at some point
they turned due west - rudder loss, therefore being carried by the wind 
and sea?
4 hitting the reef, being holed, they decide to get in the life raft after 
epirbing (known) and perhaps maydaying (unknown)
5 boat didn't sink (lack of topsides damage) and was eventually washed up on 
the beach - reminding me of my protocol of stepping UP into the liferaft - 
if the water's not over the countertops, I don't even want to THINK of 
leaving the boat

A real tragedy...

L8R

Skip, in Georgetown, after a rollicking, >6 knot average passage

-- 
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at Web-Folio -- Your Portfolio on the Web !
Follow us at TheFlyingPigLog : Morgan 461 Hull #2, Flying Pig
and/or Flying Pig Log | Google Groups

"Believe me, my young friend, there is *nothing*-absolutely nothing-half so
much worth doing as simply messing, messing-about-in-boats; messing about in
boats-or *with* boats.

In or out of 'em, it doesn't matter. Nothing seems really to matter, that's
the charm of it.

Whether you get away, or whether you don't; whether you arrive at your
destination or whether you reach somewhere else, or whether you never get
anywhere at all, you're always busy, and you never do anything in
particular; and when you've done it there's always something else to do, and
you can do it if you like, but you'd much better not."


----------



## smackdaddy

Skip - great post. It all that sounds completely credible. But what about the rudder? What could have gone wrong to cause a complete failure and loss...even in a roll? That's the only piece that seems too extreme to have happened at sea.

If you haven't heard from anyone else on the photos, I'll send you an ftp link.


----------



## skipgundlach

smackdaddy said:


> Skip - great post. It all that sounds completely credible. But what about the rudder? What could have gone wrong to cause a complete failure and loss...even in a roll? That's the only piece that seems too extreme to have happened at sea.
> 
> If you haven't heard from anyone else on the photos, I'll send you an ftp link.


Thanks so much. Uploading now, link to follow.

Seeing your label on the pic of your avatar makes me think of one of my other sigs...

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at Web-Folio -- Your Portfolio on the Web !
Follow us at TheFlyingPigLog : Morgan 461 Hull #2, Flying Pig
and/or Flying Pig Log | Google Groups

The Society for the Preservation of Tithesis commends your ebriated
and scrutible use of delible and defatigable, which are gainly, sipid
and couth. We are gruntled and consolate that you have the ertia and
eptitude to choose such putably pensible tithesis, which we parage.

>>Stamp out Sesquipedalianism<<


----------



## CaptOrganized

*About that Rule 62 Transponder Track*

Regarding Transponder Track Rule 62:

I think everybody knows that the track shown on the charts was not the actual track of the boat. Just a connect-the-dots type thing. If it only pings every 4 hours, a lot can happen. You can pick up the sometimes subtle turning points on the track. It seems as if their speed was fairly consistent during the right turn to the Abacos as the points are at the ends of roughly equal segments. Second, the last couple of segments make a beeline for the cut, almost unswerving and the speed picks up to 7.1 kts. (double click Rule 62 in class 7 to see the speed chart) At this time they were not hove-to for sure. Third we really are guessing at the actual track changes and speed toward the end. The track at the end is no longer shown on the Carib1500 Site. A drop in speed would indicate something happened, Dismasting...heaving to...etc...) I didn't zoom in to analyze the track when it was up there, did anybody else?

"TORTOLA, BVI (Nov. 26, 2007) - For the first time in the 18 year history of the Caribbean 1500 Offshore Sailing Rally, satellite transmitters were mounted on each of the 69 participating boats. As a result, a record number of friends and family flooded the event's web site to track the progress of their favorite vessel.

With Axonn wireless transmitters on each yacht, positions were broadcast via the Globalstar satellite network six times each day, every four hours using software customized by Magnalox that incorporates features from Google Earth."


----------



## ottos

smackdaddy said:


> But what about the rudder? What could have gone wrong to cause a complete failure and loss...even in a roll?


I imagine a breaking-following wave would apply enormous forces to a rudder that was hard over....

Alternatively, if the boat got shoved back by a steep wave, the rudder would be highly stressed if it were not amidships.

YMMV


----------



## sailingdog

Also, if the keel came off, any further grounding would likely shear the rudder off, since it is now the lowest part of the boat.


ottos said:


> I imagine a breaking-following wave would apply enormous forces to a rudder that was hard over....
> 
> Alternatively, if the boat got shoved back by a steep wave, the rudder would be highly stressed if it were not amidships.
> 
> YMMV


----------



## CaptOrganized

It would not be surprising if "this" rudder broke off in following sea or surf with or without damage to keel.


----------



## skipgundlach

Thanks to Michael, on another forum, for hosting an FTP site for the pix.

Go to Index of /FlyingPig and click on the image numbers to download them, and have a look at Rule 62 before it was DRAGGED across the island (very short distance) before being readied for transport for repair...

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at Web-Folio -- Your Portfolio on the Web !
Follow us at TheFlyingPigLog : Morgan 461 Hull #2, Flying Pig
and/or Flying Pig Log | Google Groups

"Believe me, my young friend, there is *nothing*-absolutely nothing-half so 
much worth doing as simply messing, messing-about-in-boats; messing about in 
boats-or *with* boats.

In or out of 'em, it doesn't matter. Nothing seems really to matter, that's 
the charm of it.

Whether you get away, or whether you don't; whether you arrive at your 
destination or whether you reach somewhere else, or whether you never get 
anywhere at all, you're always busy, and you never do anything in 
particular; and when you've done it there's always something else to do, and 
you can do it if you like, but you'd much better not."


----------



## Belisana

skipgundlach said:


> Thanks to Michael, on another forum, for hosting an FTP site for the pix.
> 
> Go to Index of /FlyingPig and click on the image numbers to download them, and have a look at Rule 62 before it was DRAGGED across the island (very short distance) before being readied for transport for repair...
> 
> L8R
> 
> Skip


Thanks for the pics. It's really heartbreaking - that boat sitting upright on the beach like that. Of course, when they got in the liferaft, they had no idea that the boat would end up there (or they probably would've stayed put). And it may not have remained upright on its journey from the point of abandonment to its resting place, but it really drives home the wisdom of the saying to 'always step up' to the liferaft.


----------



## CaptOrganized

Nice pics Skip...Looks like the keel was removed...and the rudder is no where to be seen.

I have a much smaller boat with a similar keel and rudder configuration. It will not keep a straight course for a minute without attention to the helm. It really does not like to heave to.

If this Jeanneau with 4 not so young (my age) crew experienced an autopilot failure early in the race, they must have been exhausted from steering manually for a couple of days in those waves and conditions.

I'm curious as to whether this type of boat would be able to heave-to in those conditions, as we have all said they should have done (for rest and daylight).

The reason I am curious is that as I get ready for retirement I was thinking of buying a used Beneteau 37 for cruising the Caribbean and Med. The design is similar to Rule 62. The heaving-to, the long unprotected rudder, the open walk-out transom (was boat pooped and rudder broke off?)

Anybody with experience heaving-to with this keel and rudder configuration. If so, how did you do it? How long does it hold? How about following seas with open transom? Any experience?


----------



## ottos

sailingdog said:


> Also, if the keel came off, any further grounding would likely shear the rudder off, since it is now the lowest part of the boat.


I interpreted Smacky's question to mean what could rip the rudder off while underway (pre-grounding). Of course once grounded, there are any number of ways it's coming off - especially if the keel is off.


----------



## smackdaddy

ottos said:


> I interpreted Smacky's question to mean what could rip the rudder off while underway (pre-grounding). Of course once grounded, there are any number of ways it's coming off - especially if the keel is off.


You're right ottos - That's what I'm asking. One of the reasons for the question is that we've discussed at length whether a following breaking sea could take out a rudder...even while towing a drogue. The consensus has been that it could not since the rudder is below the surface - hence not exposed to the force of the breaking water.

I've always been a little dubious of that conclusion...but there's never been any "proof" to make a determination one way or the other.

If a breaking sea did indeed poop Rule62 and take out its rudder, that's an interesting scenario worthy of some serious thought and discussion.


----------



## CaptOrganized

*Rudder in Water Not Exposed? Really*

Somebody is kidding right?

26 foot waves, 45 foot boat, rudder in water protected 100% of time.
Those phrases don't go together.

Rudder of that high aspect ratio only has to be exposed wrong for an instant.


----------



## ottos

smackdaddy said:


> ...whether a following breaking sea could take out a rudder...even while towing a drogue. The consensus has been that it could not since the rudder is below the surface - hence not exposed to the force of the breaking water.


I'm no expert, but I may have a little more experience than most in sailing with a following break - I have to do it every time I beach! I won't argue with the consensus, but just because a rudder is below the surface, doesn't mean it will not have great forces on it, particularly if the boat has started to surf(exposing the rudder more). The motion of the volume of water in a breaking wave is not strictly down - it is also forward.

YMMV


----------



## smackdaddy

Two great threads that contain the discussions I mentioned above. Good stuff...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship/48237-heavy-weather-sailing.html
(Rudder discussion starts on page 27 or so)

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ed/53639-don-jordan-jordan-series-drogue.html


----------



## ottos

Good reading indeed. From your first referenced post:



sailingdog said:


> You're making the mistaken assumption that the boat is actively sailing... it's not... it's being held at a very slow speed and steering isn't necessary. The bridle the drogue is attached to the boat by keeps the boat stern to the waves. There are specific requirements for the drogue bridle and attachment points.
> 
> The common misunderstanding is that the breaking wave does the damage... this is generally not the case. From Don Jordan's website:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A final misconception is the belief that a breaking wave "strikes" the boat and that the moving water in the crest does the damage. Actually, the boat is lifted by the forward face of the wave with no impact. When it reaches the breaking crest the boat velocity is close to the wave velocity. The crest water is aerated and has little damage potential. Damage to the boat is incurred when the boat is thrown ahead of the wave and impacts the green water in the trough. The leeward side and the deck are struck. A careful reading of "Fastnet Force Ten" and "Fatal Storm" will confirm this conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the boat is almost stationary relative to the wave, there is little risk of damage to the rudder. This is also why there is little risk of damage to the boat by a pooping wave. The rudder isn't really at any risk at all.
Click to expand...

My question would be if there is a difference from an open water breaking wave, and a shoal or beach breaker.


----------



## PCP

ottos said:


> ...
> 
> My question would be if there is a difference from an open water breaking wave, and a shoal or beach breaker.


Yes, a big difference. On a shoal beach breaker it is all the wave that breaks. On an ocean breaker, assuming you are far away from the shore, it is only the top that breaks. That makes a huge difference in what has been described previously even if I agree with the basic principle. That's why cats and full "deriveurs" behave so well on that situation contrasting strongly with full keelers, that trip on the keel, transforming a skidding horizontal movement on a rotational one.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## btrayfors

Skip,

Thanks for posting the pix. Very helpful.

While we still have almost no first-hand info, I'm beginning to construct in my mind a scenario of how this might have happened. Piecing together what we know and what the track info tells us, here's what might well have happened.

*Reconstructed Chronology*

Thursday, Nov. 11 circa 1602AST - Rule 62 decides to divert to the Bahamas, leaving the rest of the Caribbean 1500 fleet headed for the BVI. Been a very rough passage from Hampton VA, two female crew are seasick. Unknown other problems, but fatigue is very likely.

Saturday, Nov. 13.

1202 AST - squares away on course for the North Bar Channel, Lynyard Cay

1619 AST - still on course for NB Channel

1920 AST - checks in via SSB and reports "nearing the Abacos" Apparently does NOT check in via VHF with boats in Marsh Harbour or Hopetown.

1931 AST - passes over 1,000 fathom curve (6,000' depth)

1955 AST - still on course for NB Channel

1956 AST - passes over 100-fathom curve (600' depth)

2005 AST - Lat 2623.4N Lon 7657W speed 7.1 knots still on course for NB Channel which is 1.7nm distant

In next 10-15 minutes passes rapidly from 600' depths to 96', then 60', then 26' (depth of NB Channel).

*Speculative Scenario*

A half-moon is about 45-degrees above the horizon on their port beam.

As they pass from 6,000ft depths to very shallow water, the already rough seas begin building to very dangerous heights.

Rule 62 is lulled into the belief that they can make the entrance OK, due to fatigue, darkness, and inability to see the actual conditions within the inlet from the sea. Tidal conditions in the cut may have contributed to this misreading of true conditions.

Before they reach the inlet itself, one of these huge waves crests over their stern, and lifts it around causing the boat to broach. The next large breaker rolls them, causing a dismasting and - possibly- the loss of their rudder. The keel is loosened, but not lost.

Rule 62 is now completely and utterly helpless and within the grasp of the monumental forces at work in those rage conditions. Survival is the only priority.

We really don't know what happens for the next hour or so. She's apparently stuck on the reefs and pounding. The crew scrambles into a liferaft in order to get away from the boat and to shore, implying that the boat is still stuck on a reef. Eventually, however, it washes loose.

Driven by the crashing waves, the strong northerly winds, and the currents, Rule 62 comes to her final resting place on the NE shore of Lynyard Cay, some 4,000 ft south of the North Bar Channel. Her onboard transponder transmits her location on the beach, and continues to do so for almost a week thereafter.

Again, this is only speculation since we have no firsthand reports. But, I believe it's realistic and pretty well fits the details we do have.

Bill


----------



## LandLocked66c

Dumb question, but who is doing there laundry? The owners or some callous cruisers that needed to dry there laundry? Not being funny, by the way...


----------



## Sixpoint

Offhand, I'd say they're drying out the boat's contents.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Sixpoint said:


> Offhand, I'd say they're drying out the boat's contents.


If that's the case, then did no one talk to the owners and try to get their account of what happened? Or are these just folks helping out - good Samaritans?


----------



## TakeFive

LandLocked66c said:


> Dumb question, but who is doing there laundry? The owners or some callous cruisers that needed to dry there laundry? Not being funny, by the way...


I think it's safe to assume that everything they had became soaking wet in the accident, so they had to dry them out to have anything to wear. It would seem to be the natural thing to do in that situation.


----------



## Northeaster

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the boat had been salvaged, and that the salvors would be keeping watch on the boat, until it could be moved.

I am not aware of the rules for salvage, either far from shore, or close to shore, as is the case here, or if there is any distinction or difference.


----------



## LandLocked66c

RhythmDoctor said:


> I think it's safe to assume that everything they had became soaking wet in the accident, so they had to dry them out to have anything to wear. It would seem to be the natural thing to do in that situation.


Sure, makes total sense. I'm with yah on that one.

I guess what i'm getting at is:

Where did these pics come from, did anyone talk with the owners while they were drying there clothes? What's the rest of the story. You'd think if someone was there taking pictures that they'd want to chat with the owners? dunno, guess i'm expecting too much... [shrug]


----------



## smackdaddy

+1.

Best post of the thread.



JonEisberg said:


> Hello Jon,
> 
> C'mon, man - such old-fashioned "rules" went out the window with the advent of Loran, and then GPS&#8230; (grin)
> 
> I've followed this thread with interest, lots of good perspectives offered here. However, I'm planted firmly in the camp with those who've asserted that this tragedy was entirely avoidable - no matter what cascading series of circumstance occurred, everything stems from the unfathomably poor decision made that night to enter that cut&#8230;
> 
> Perhaps the greatest danger to any sailor - no matter how experienced - is the lack of a healthy respect for "knowing what you do not know"&#8230; First and foremost, such an awareness should always inform the thinking of anyone whenever they venture off in a small boat, knowing the limitations of your skill and/or experience is perhaps the greatest responsibility of any skipper&#8230; It's painfully apparent to me the master of RULE 62 had precious little experience running inlets of the sort found between Montauk and Canaveral, much less a Bahamian cut - otherwise, he simply would have KNOWN, beyond any doubt, that to attempt the North Bar Channel in such conditions was virtually suicidal&#8230;
> 
> More than anything else, what strikes me about this incident is that it a classic example of a "GPS-enabled" mishap&#8230; Quite simply, had the GPS aboard RULE 62 been disabled or inoperative that night, there is no way in hell the skipper would have been sufficiently emboldened to attempt that entry, treating it like the virtual equivalent of a video game&#8230; "Just keep the cursor in between those rocky things on the screen, and we'll be in smooth water before we know it, and drop our hook right on top of that little "anchor" symbol indicated behind Lynyard Cay&#8230;"
> 
> Monty and Sarah Lewis were one of the best things that ever happened to Bahamian Kroozing. Unfortunately, the precision of their Explorer Charts is also one of the worst things that's ever happened out there&#8230; I've witnessed this trend for years, yet it still boggles the mind - he amount of false confidence that many cruisers are displaying these days in the accuracy of electronic positioning and charting is frightening to a degree I'm still hard pressed to express&#8230;
> 
> For example, the professional pilots of Spanish Wells who guide cruisers through the Devil's Backbone passage to Harbour Island will not make that trip during a rage condition... Those guys who've been doing that trip for 60+ years, could probably do it blindfolded, but they will simply NOT attempt it in a rage... And yet, cruisers armed with a set of Explorer Charts waypoints, and their trusty plotters, will do so - especially when their schedule dictates it... WTF is wrong with that picture? Yeah, I know, even the Bumfuzzles "proved" that the Devil's Backbone could be transited in a rage and poor light, right? Last winter, I spent a few days at Samana Cay, which features one of the most challenging and dangerous reef passages in all of the Bahamas... Extremely tight, difficult to read in even the best light, you're in one of the most remote areas to be found down there - put a boat on that reef, or suffer a grounding that might damage a rudder or pop a couple of keel bolts, you could be well and truly screwed in that place... And yet, I awoke one morning to find a Nordhavn trawler that had come in during the night, through a break in the Columbus reef perhaps 3-4 times the beam of their vessel in width, relying on a chartplotter alone... UFB, some of these people are freakin' insane, the risks they're willing to undertake simply to avoid spending a few more hours outside...
> 
> I saw it to an even greater degree a couple of years ago in Belize. The charting there is not nearly as accurate nor complete as it has become in the Bahamas, so cruisers are relying to a considerable extent on lists of waypoints that get passed around like so many trading cards. One morning, I heard a net controller on the NW Caribbean Cruiser's Net provide some waypoints for Ranguana Pass to a boat that was coming over from Roatan, and wouldn't be arriving until after dark... Unbelievable - these waypoints should be considered the navigational equivalent of an STD, who knows where they originated, or where they've been? We all know how easily a couple of digits might have been transposed in copying somewhere along the line, such a mistake could easily spell the difference between deep water, and the reef... What's so hard about slowing down/standing off for the night, then making your approach with the sun behind you in the morning? The unwillingness on the part of some to tolerate even the slightest discomfort in the name of safety/proper seamanship, it's amazing...
> 
> As long as I'm on an electronic chartplotting rant, one more point&#8230; Not only in giving a false confidence regarding the accuracy of waypoints in the cut, etc, but also in making it more difficult to see the Big Picture in strategic terms... This is just my hunch, of course, but I'd venture that the master of RULE 62 was likely relying solely on electronic/computer navigation on his approach to the Bahamas... IMHO, there is no substitute for a large paper chart spread out in front of you for assessing your options, this in one area in which electronic charting is very weak for planning purposes, it's extremely difficult to grasp the bigger picture... The need for endless zooming/panning on a computer or plotter screen to obtain the same information that can be gleaned at a glance from a paper chart can really cloud the decision-making process, especially when you're being forced to consider an alternative plan, and then factor exhaustion into the equation... The greatest mystery to be about this whole deal, is why it wasn't so apparent to him how much safer the option to continue sailing just a bit further south to places like Sandy Point or Spanish Wells would have been, and I've got to believe such options might have been so much clearer to him had he had the proper scale paper chart spread out before him, and the luxury of studying it repeatedly at his leisure once the decision had been made to divert to the Bahamas...
> 
> Anyway, that's probably enough for one night, and my first post here, eh? (grin)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jon


----------



## LandLocked66c

Bump, what's the word? I'm not on many other forums, anything else being talked about?


----------



## JonEisberg

LandLocked66c said:


> Bump, what's the word? I'm not on many other forums, anything else being talked about?


Dream on, if you think we're likely to ever hear anything akin to an "official version" of this sad event&#8230; I would suspect a lawyer or two is being paid rather handsomely to try to ensure this story stays on lockdown, it's quite striking how it appears to have been pretty well quashed even in Atlanta&#8230;

Because this transpired in the Bahamas, it's highly unlikey any sort of official investigation of the sort that the CG or an agency like the NTSB would likely conduct in the States will ever take place&#8230;

So, short of some civil/legal action being brought against the skipper by surviving relatives of Laura Zekoll, I can't imagine what might compel the owner to ever "share" his account of this tragedy&#8230;


----------



## LandLocked66c

JonEisberg said:


> Dream on, if you think we're likely to ever hear anything akin to an "official version" of this sad event&#8230; I would suspect a lawyer or two is being paid rather handsomely to try to ensure this story stays on lockdown, it's quite striking how it appears to have been pretty well quashed even in Atlanta&#8230;
> 
> Because this transpired in the Bahamas, it's highly unlikey any sort of official investigation of the sort that the CG or an agency like the NTSB would likely conduct in the States will ever take place&#8230;
> 
> So, short of some civil/legal action being brought against the skipper by surviving relatives of Laura Zekoll, I can't imagine what might compel the owner to ever "share" his account of this tragedy&#8230;


That's the saddest part of this story then!


----------



## btrayfors

JonEisberg said:


> ....
> 
> So, short of some civil/legal action being brought against the skipper by surviving relatives of Laura Zekoll, I can't imagine what might compel the owner to ever "share" his account of this tragedy&#8230;


Common decency, maybe? OK, I'm old school, and I know it's not common anymore.

B.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Dream on, if you think we're likely to ever hear anything akin to an "official version" of this sad event&#8230; I would suspect a lawyer or two is being paid rather handsomely to try to ensure this story stays on lockdown, it's quite striking how it appears to have been pretty well quashed even in Atlanta&#8230;
> 
> Because this transpired in the Bahamas, it's highly unlikey any sort of official investigation of the sort that the CG or an agency like the NTSB would likely conduct in the States will ever take place&#8230;
> 
> So, short of some civil/legal action being brought against the skipper by surviving relatives of Laura Zekoll, I can't imagine what might compel the owner to ever "share" his account of this tragedy&#8230;


That's exactly right. There's too much room for litigation in all this (from many angles) for anyone involved to start talking. There will be a news story at some point, especially if/when this goes to trial, but we've probably gotten more inside info on this thread than through any other outlet you'll see.


----------



## TakeFive

This guy already carries a heavy burden. I don't think it's fair to assume that he has kept the victim's family totally in the dark. Maybe he has (perhaps upon his lawyer's advice), and if so that may just add to his already heavy emotional burden.

I enjoy coming here for the advice, and the debates that rage over many topics - even things as mundane as fenders or anchors - are very educational. But there's no denying that almost every topic leads to a heated debate, no matter how trivial.

With that in mind, I'd think this guy would be crazy to "feed himself to the wolves" here. Most of you have made up your minds that there is no acceptable reason why a fatality - or even an accident - should have occurred, so what's the point of even inviting your debate?

I genuinely hope the guy is doing the right thing by opening up to the victim's family, and to anyone who has authority to conduct a legitimate investigation, but he has no obligation to feed his raw, unfiltered information to the Internet message boards, and I think he would be crazy to subject himself to that.

Hopefully if there is an authority who is charged with doing a formal investigation we'll eventually get some filtered information that we can all learn from. But let's not take ourselves too seriously - this guy has no obligation to share anything with Internet chat boards like this one.


----------



## AE28

RhythmDoctor said:


> With that in mind, I'd think this guy would be crazy to "feed himself to the wolves" here. Most of you have made up your minds that there is no acceptable reason why a fatality - or even an accident - should have occurred, so what's the point of even inviting your debate?


Agree.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

RhythmDoctor said:


> This guy already carries a heavy burden. I don't think it's fair to assume that he has kept the victim's family totally in the dark. Maybe he has (perhaps upon his lawyer's advice), and if so that may just add to his already heavy emotional burden.
> 
> I enjoy coming here for the advice, and the debates that rage over many topics - even things as mundane as fenders or anchors - are very educational. But there's no denying that almost every topic leads to a heated debate, no matter how trivial.
> 
> With that in mind, I'd think this guy would be crazy to "feed himself to the wolves" here. Most of you have made up your minds that there is no acceptable reason why a fatality - or even an accident - should have occurred, so what's the point of even inviting your debate?
> 
> I genuinely hope the guy is doing the right thing by opening up to the victim's family, and to anyone who has authority to conduct a legitimate investigation, but he has no obligation to feed his raw, unfiltered information to the Internet message boards, and I think he would be crazy to subject himself to that.
> 
> Hopefully if there is an authority who is charged with doing a formal investigation we'll eventually get some filtered information that we can all learn from. But let's not take ourselves too seriously - this guy has no obligation to share anything with Internet chat boards like this one.


Agreed. He'll almost certainly be sued in civil court if nothing else.

There is nothing for him to gain from giving in to the howls of internet sailing experts to publicly flog himself into a bloody mess before donning a horse hair shirt.

Some of us might be suprised to learn that there are lots of sailors that don't post on a sailing website -- Shocking I know, but they are out there!


----------



## JonEisberg

btrayfors said:


> Common decency, maybe? OK, I'm old school, and I know it's not common anymore.
> 
> B.


Yeah, probably should have kept my mouth shut, on that one&#8230; But, it's a sad reality reflecting the legal climate in modern America, there's at least some probability the next we hear of regarding this story could well be related to some legal or civil action&#8230; Only time will tell, of course&#8230;

FWIW, I truly hope we never do hear anything further or more substantive from any of the parties involved, I'd be quite happy to see this story die a quiet death. Nothing will ever bring Laura back, the skipper will have to live with this tragedy forever&#8230;

We all have already learned everything we need to know from this tragedy, we are certainly not "owed" any answers to the raft of speculation about possible rudder failure, and so on&#8230; this event was the result of the simple failure to adhere to one of the most basic, elemental tenets of good seamanship - that is the ONE thing that we do know for sure, and the only thing that really matters in this case, EVERYTHING else flowed from that fateful decision, and Laura Zekoll would still be alive had the master of RULE 62 chosen one of several more seamanlike alternatives available to him&#8230;


----------



## tdw

Jon Eisberg,

Welcome to SailNet.......

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that we have never been inflicted with the DTs. 

ah yes, I suppose I should add.....now.....FON.....ah me...sadly SailNet rules proclude me spelling it out but hey, even in abreviated form its worthwhile getting it in. 

Cheers to you and thanks for joining in.


----------



## smackdaddy

tdw said:


> Jon Eisberg,
> 
> ah yes, I suppose I should add.....now.....FON.....ah me...sadly SailNet rules proclude me spelling it out but hey, even in abreviated form its worthwhile getting it in.


How about "piss off greenhorn, and show us your admiral's through-hulls".

Naa. It'll never work. Welcome to SN JE.


----------



## Valiente

JE states a likely theory. The "normalization" of the use of GPS in cars, phones and Google Maps have made the plotters ubiquitous, but of course, charts are only as good as the chartmakers, and no reef lasts forever, and not everything is charted or even charted accurately. Add to that the possibly that a car backfiring in the wrong neighbourhood will put America's military on alert and the GPS "detuned" to civilians and hell, I just consider the GPS/plotter a suggestion.

But, as with the fact I learned pilotage and celestial and am buying an SSB instead of a satphone, I think I'm in the minority. It is ironic that while sailing has in terms of means of rescue, toughness of boats and accuracy of weather forecasting, never been safer, we are developing lazy habits of making it less safe by attempts to automate our poor, Mark 1 eyeballs.


----------



## Vasco

Don't think the problem had anything to do with GPS or electronic navigation. Problem was trying to enter a cut in the Bahamas during a rage. Very few people try this. If no rage had been running they would have been ok. Inexperience compounded by crew pressure to be in sheltered waters. That's my take on it. Sad. Many new cruisers are not familiar with rages. Granted, without GPS they might not have tried it but the main problem was trying to do it in a rage. Probably without GPS they would not have left Hampton Roads.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Why would you break away from the pack? There must have been other boats close by during the race. Why not just tough it out and stay close with someone? Puke your guts out and go to sleep. That's what always worked for me...


----------



## billyruffn

Vasco said:


> Don't think the problem had anything to do with GPS or electronic navigation. Problem was trying to enter a cut in the Bahamas during a rage. Very few people try this. If no rage had been running they would have been ok. .


Try this scenario:

You've been in 10-15 ft seas (with some higher) for three days. You're tired. You approach the coast -- nothing much changes....winds the same, seas are still big, but not that much bigger than what you've been experiencing. You're feeling your way in.

You come ahead (on GPS charting) -- you find the entrance you're seeking -- it's dead ahead. You've called the marina at Marsh Harbor and requested a slip reservation. They've said nothing about bad conditions at the inlets. (Perhaps because they don't know you're approaching from offshore).

You proceed on at reasonable speed -- seas are a bit bigger, but the entrance ahead looks pretty good. What you don't know is that it's the outflowing tide that's making the entrance itself look pretty flat.

You keep going -- feeling your way in. Bottom comes up. Swells react and go up, but you're focused on the entrance ahead and how can you tell that the seas which were 12 feet are now 14 with the occasional 15 footer. You don't realize the period is shortening and the swell is getting steeper. You keep going, focused on the entrance ahread. Feeling your way in.

Bottom comes up and waves come under the influence of the outgoing tidal current. Swells go way up, get really steep and WHAM -- a 20+ footer comes, seemingly out of no where, 45-60 degrees off your course and it breakes on your stern.

Broach ensues, boat rolls over, mast comes down, boat eventually rights itself ,deck is a chaos of spars and wire flying around as the boat rolls in the surf, and....the rest is history.

Point: on the approach, it may not have seemed like a "rage" to those standing in the cockpit that night. Rather, it's "We can do this!" because the boat's OK, we're OK, the inlet is right there just in front of us and we want to get in there, tie up and go to sleep.


----------



## billyruffn

LandLocked66c said:


> Why would you break away from the pack? There must have been other boats close by during the race. Why not just tough it out and stay close with someone? Puke your guts out and go to sleep. That's what always worked for me...


The pack? It's a big ocean. There may be seventy boats within a hundred fifty mile circle, but you don't see many, if any, of them.

You do a 360 scan and chances are you're the only one there. The ocean can seem a very lonely place, particularily when things aren't going as you might have wanted them to.


----------



## smackdaddy

billyruffn said:


> Try this scenario:
> 
> You've been in 10-15 ft seas (with some higher) for three days. You're tired. You approach the coast -- nothing much changes....winds the same, seas are still big, but not that much bigger than what you've been experiencing. You're feeling your way in.
> 
> You come ahead (on GPS charting) -- you find the entrance you're seeking -- it's dead ahead. You've called the marina at Marsh Harbor and requested a slip reservation. They've said nothing about bad conditions at the inlets. (Perhaps because they don't know you're approaching from offshore).
> 
> You proceed on at reasonable speed -- seas are a bit bigger, but the entrance ahead looks pretty good. What you don't know is that it's the outflowing tide that's making the entrance itself look pretty flat.
> 
> You keep going -- feeling your way in. Bottom comes up. Swells react and go up, but you're focused on the entrance ahead and how can you tell that the seas which were 12 feet are now 14 with the occasional 15 footer. You don't realize the period is shortening and the swell is getting steeper. You keep going, focused on the entrance ahread. Feeling your way in.
> 
> Bottom comes up and waves come under the influence of the outgoing tidal current. Swells go way up, get really steep and WHAM -- a 20+ footer comes, seemingly out of no where, 45-60 degrees off your course and it breakes on your stern.
> 
> Broach ensues, boat rolls over, mast comes down, boat eventually rights itself ,deck is a chaos of spars and wire flying around as the boat rolls in the surf, and....the rest is history.
> 
> Point: on the approach, it may not have seemed like a "rage" to those standing in the cockpit that night. Rather, it's "We can do this!" because the boat's OK, we're OK, the inlet is right there just in front of us and we want to get in there, tie up and go to sleep.


Another great post. I think you nailed the psychology of it br. Perfectly plausible.


----------



## MC1

billyruffn said:


> Try this scenario:
> 
> You've been in 10-15 ft seas (with some higher) for three days. You're tired. You approach the coast -- nothing much changes....winds the same, seas are still big, but not that much bigger than what you've been experiencing. You're feeling your way in.
> 
> You come ahead (on GPS charting) -- you find the entrance you're seeking -- it's dead ahead. You've called the marina at Marsh Harbor and requested a slip reservation. They've said nothing about bad conditions at the inlets. (Perhaps because they don't know you're approaching from offshore).
> 
> You proceed on at reasonable speed -- seas are a bit bigger, but the entrance ahead looks pretty good. What you don't know is that it's the outflowing tide that's making the entrance itself look pretty flat.
> 
> You keep going -- feeling your way in. Bottom comes up. Swells react and go up, but you're focused on the entrance ahead and how can you tell that the seas which were 12 feet are now 14 with the occasional 15 footer. You don't realize the period is shortening and the swell is getting steeper. You keep going, focused on the entrance ahead. Feeling your way in.
> 
> Bottom comes up and waves come under the influence of the outgoing tidal current. Swells go way up, get really steep and WHAM -- a 20+ footer comes, seemingly out of no where, 45-60 degrees off your course and it breaks on your stern.
> 
> Broach ensues, boat rolls over, mast comes down, boat eventually rights itself ,deck is a chaos of spars and wire flying around as the boat rolls in the surf, and....the rest is history.
> 
> Point: on the approach, it may not have seemed like a "rage" to those standing in the cockpit that night. Rather, it's "We can do this!" because the boat's OK, we're OK, the inlet is right there just in front of us and we want to get in there, tie up and go to sleep.


OK, I can definitely see one falling into this trap, so . . . other than heeding the "Lessons Learned" from this thread summarized below, what else should that voice inside a skipper's head be screaming as a situation like this is unfolding to break the chain of events?

"Lessons Learned" from prior posts so far in this thread:
1. Do not attempt an unfamiliar entrance at night
2. Avoid a lee entrance in adverse conditions
3. Head out, not in when conditions deteriorate; heave to on the offshore track; be sure you know how to heave to - try it asap
4. Be willing to wait for better conditions, even when you're (perhaps very) uncomfortable
5. Ensure you obtain local knowledge and stay out until you have it
6. Do not be overconfident just because you have GPS or other fancy technology
7. Be aware of special circumstances such as "rages", or rapidly shallowing depths that might turn a bad situation into a critical one
8. Don't disregard these safety principles when the time comes, put them into action in spite of fatigue, fear, stress, demands of other crew members
9. Don't fixate on the decision you've made; continuously reevaluate your plan/decision in light of what's playing out around you and any new information
10. When faced with an emergency, first . . . relax, stabilize the situation and then calmly assess it
11. Inlet conditions may not appear too bad when looking at them from the ocean side, but may actually be horrendous
12. Have sufficient information on board to ensure you can choose the safest possible alternative in case an unplanned diversion is required
13. Have a healthy respect for what you do Not know, build experience a step at a time, don't bite off more than you can chew
14. Life rafts may not fare too well in these circumstances

What'd I miss?


----------



## MacGyverRI

MC1 said:


> OK, I can definitely see one falling into this trap, so . . . other than heeding the "Lessons Learned" from this thread summarized below, what else should that voice inside a skipper's head be screaming as a situation like this is unfolding to break the chain of events?
> 
> 14. Life rafts may not fare too well in these circumstances
> 
> What'd I miss?


15 Install "crotch straps" on all life vests! (her jacket came off)

most don't have them and they will keep you in them


----------



## Yorksailor

Excellent summary MC1...you missed...

Learn this before you go to sea!


----------



## PalmettoSailor

Billyruffin nailed my conceptualization of how this tragedy unfolded and I think it highlights another lesson to be learned and that is the danger of assuming the skipper of Rule 62 was monumentally incompetent and this couldn't happen to you. 

Yes I believe GPS was partly responsible, but I also don't think that standing on the deck of that boat that you couldn't determine how dangerous that cut was under the circumstances. There were no flashing neon signs warning of a rage. It didn't look like the gates of hell guarded by the Kraken. It was likely only slightly worse than what they'd been dealing with for days, right up until it all went to hades.

It was a rare, and severe event described by the locals as the worst they've seen outside a hurricane. Now you've been out sailing in those conditions for a week, so its easy to see how you could be lead to thinking its as bad as its gonna get and we'll soon be in sheltered water.


----------



## Maxboatspeed

Thanks mc1
13 is key
still, people die at sea. It's great if someone can learn from this thread.
It's not fair for you guys to make any judgement. 
Safe sailing. 
Max


----------



## sck5

Billy ruffn probably has the psychology right but the seas already were 20 ft. out in the deep water - that is what presumably made them go for shelter. 

and speaking as one who was "in the pack" for several days, we didnt see a single other boat for 5 days. It is a big ocean


----------



## smackdaddy

midlifesailor said:


> Billyruffin nailed my conceptualization of how this tragedy unfolded and I think it highlights another lesson to be learned and that is the danger of assuming the skipper of Rule 62 was monumentally incompetent and this couldn't happen to you.


This is one of the most important lessons of them all.

Another that should be added to mc's list is; be able to do each of these things when people you love are begging and/or screaming at you to get them out of what you got them into. That makes all of the above much, much more difficult.


----------



## LandLocked66c

sck5 said:


> and speaking as one who was "in the pack" for several days, we didnt see a single other boat for 5 days. It is a big ocean


Wow! I was thinking that everyone started at the same time. So evidently, once you got the transponder aboard you can take off. I'm sure some people might be racing together? NO?

I really have no idea, obviously... How does this race go down?


----------



## LandLocked66c

billyruffn said:


> The pack? It's a big ocean. There may be seventy boats within a hundred fifty mile circle, but you don't see many, if any, of them.
> 
> You do a 360 scan and chances are you're the only one there. The ocean can seem a very lonely place, particularily when things aren't going as you might have wanted them to.


What about radio contact, scarce? I know if I was racing i'd want to do it with a friend... I know that's not how it happens, just talking out loud.


----------



## speciald

Boats in the "Cruising Fleet" could start whenever they wanted, determine their own route, and use their engines as much as they wanted without penalty. The "Rally Fleet" had a scheduled start, all classes at the same time. Engine use was penalized. After the first 24 hours, we didn't see another boat until we converged with one other boat close to the finish and then it was only tricolor lights in the darkness. Two boats did divert to stand by a non-fleet boat that was taking on water and stayed with that boat until a Coast Guard Helicopter dropped a pump and the leak was controlled. There was some other boats with trouble - lost autopilots, crashed electronics, broken booms, blown sails, no engine power, etc. As Captain Ron said - "If its going to happen, its going to happen out there". A number of other boats diverted - to Jacksonville, Beaufort, Bermuda, and other safe harbors. One boat tried to enter an inlet at Hatteras and bounced their way in. We were able to comunicate with some boats by VHF but SSB contact was limted to the sceduled times. I think that in future Rallys that there should be designated boats along the fleet with SSBs tuned to the fleet frequency at all times for emergencies. Many boats had Sat phones - Globalstar was still useless for voice communication (first group of new sattelites have been launched). By the way - that Email that Billy Ruffin refered to was sent by my wife. She emailed a diary every day to a group of friends. The Rallys have now been taken over by the ARC group (World Cruising Association?).


----------



## JonEisberg

CaptOrganized said:


> I have a much smaller boat with a similar keel and rudder configuration. It will not keep a straight course for a minute without attention to the helm. It really does not like to heave to.
> 
> If this Jeanneau with 4 not so young (my age) crew experienced an autopilot failure early in the race, they must have been exhausted from steering manually for a couple of days in those waves and conditions.
> 
> I'm curious as to whether this type of boat would be able to heave-to in those conditions, as we have all said they should have done (for rest and daylight).
> 
> The reason I am curious is that as I get ready for retirement I was thinking of buying a used Beneteau 37 for cruising the Caribbean and Med. The design is similar to Rule 62. The heaving-to, the long unprotected rudder, the open walk-out transom (was boat pooped and rudder broke off?)
> 
> Anybody with experience heaving-to with this keel and rudder configuration. If so, how did you do it? How long does it hold? How about following seas with open transom? Any experience?


Good question, you're wise to try to sort this out before heading offshore. I still can't wrap my mind around the notion that someone would set out on a passage from north of Hatteras to Tortola in November without ever having done so, experimenting with various methods of parking one's boat at sea&#8230;

Every boat and situation is different, of course. Obviously, a design like RULE 62 would not be likely to properly heave-to in the classic sense, like that described by the Pardeys, where the key element becomes the creation of a slick to weather in which the boat remains planted. With a split underbody, a modified or fin keel with a spade rudder set well aft, I think the more advisable tactic is akin to fore-reaching&#8230; Much more easily accomplished and maintained, and the slow forward progress minimizes the greatest risk in attempting to heave-to in a boat with a separate spade rudder - namely, the possibility of a breaking sea driving the boat back hard against the rudder&#8230;

My boat happily happens to forereach very nicely under a deeply reefed main or trysail alone, with the windvane doing the driving. YMMV, of course, and RULE 62 still would likely require more attention from the crew to comfortably park at sea&#8230; I just happened to stop in Hampton a week before the original scheduled departure of the 1500, and one trend I observed that is becoming more commonplace, but I feel is a very poor practice, is that of placing a large SUV-style tender on davits for an offshore passage. The excessive height and resultant amount of windage of some of these gargantuan stern arch/davit configurations can only serve to inhibit the ability to heave-to or park the boat. That much windage that far aft will make the boat more inclined to want to tack through the wind when fore-reaching, and is one of the many reasons I feel a dinghy on davits has no place offshore, on anything less than the very largest boats&#8230;

Until you've successfully parked a boat offshore in the sort of conditions or circumstance that warranted it, you cannot begin to appreciate the sort of relief it can afford&#8230; It's almost like a revelation, someone else has perhaps best described it as "The Miracle Cure"&#8230; I feel very comfortable assuming the crew of RULE 62 had never successfully parked the boat prior to this passage, otherwise they simply would have KNOWN it was the best tactic to employ when the crew was becoming exhausted, even well before they approached the Abacos&#8230;

Their possible prior reluctance to do so gets to one of the problematic elements of the whole nature of a cruising cattle drive such as the Caribbean 1500, for me. I would suspect there would be a natural resistance to employing a tactic that would cause them to get "left behind" the rest of the fleet, and one might be inclined to keep pushing on simply because everyone else is. Parking the boat is no different from reefing - the time to do it is usually when the thought first occurs to you to do so, but I would guess the sort of groupthink that might pervade a fleet of rally boats could easily tend to inhibit a skipper or crew from making their own decision that it's time for a break&#8230;

Cruisers really do themselves a disservice, in my opinion, by considering heaving-to as primarily a heavy weather, or otherwise exceptional tactic&#8230; In reality, it should be considered much more as part of a cruiser's ROUTINE, and practiced regularly&#8230; Quite simply, it is very often the smartest thing you can do, in a wide variety of situations&#8230;

I had a good reminder of this recently, classic example of how the best and most experienced sailors out there park their boats with regularity. A few weeks ago, I was running a Trintella 47 down from Maine to Annapolis. Nearing the end of a fast passage from Camden across the Gulf of Maine, I was a bit ahead of schedule to catch the tide through the Cape Cod Canal, an hour or two before sunrise&#8230; Hadn't seen a soul out there all night, but about 0300 I came across another boat holding station about 12 miles from the canal entrance. Turned out to be the 56' McCurdy & Rhodes cutter MORGAN'S CLOUD, John Harries and Phyllis Nickel aboard&#8230; They're a couple of my cruising heroes, vastly experienced in some of the most challenging high latitude cruising grounds in the world - Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, etc&#8230; If you've never seen their website, it's definitely worth a look - one of the very best and most complete resources for any cruising sailor out there&#8230;

Attainable Adventure Cruising, Morgan's Cloud

We had a nice chat for 10 minutes or so - John was all business on the VHF, extremely professional, you just knew this guy is the real deal. They've written a fair amount for CRUISING WORLD and other publications, and I remember reading awhile back that they routinely hove-to when they were faced with the prospect of sailing to weather in anything much more than 20 knots&#8230; Now, MORGAN'S CLOUD is a big, heavy boat that should go to weather like a freight train, and yet&#8230; they were simply smart enough to spare themselves and the boat such punishment, and live to fight another day&#8230; They were doing the same that night, just standing off the canal entrance for a couple of hours, waiting to enter it in daylight&#8230; Struck me as being exceedingly prudent for sailors as experienced as them, and an entrance as straightforward and easily navigated at night as the Cape Cod Canal - but, obviously, such caution and routine adherence to the most basic skills of seamanship has stood them in very good stead over all their years and miles of sailing, we could all do well to follow their example&#8230;


----------



## btrayfors

Amen. To all the thoughts in your post, Jon.

Bill


----------



## speciald

I agree that carrying a dinghy on davits off-shore is bad. A friend of mine on a 56 ft Oyster broke his heavy davits when following sea pooped the dinghy. We carry our's inverted and partially deflated on the foredeck between the mast and staysail, tied down strongly. Even when tied securely, it has moved around with boarding green water. The other potential problem with the fleet was the number of boats with fuel containers tied to the life lines and stantions. On most boats the stantions are not designed for the potential stress. Boarding waves could potentially tear the stantions right off the boat.


----------



## JonEisberg

midlifesailor said:


> Billyruffin nailed my conceptualization of how this tragedy unfolded and I think it highlights another lesson to be learned and that is the danger of assuming the skipper of Rule 62 was monumentally incompetent and this couldn't happen to you.
> 
> Yes I believe GPS was partly responsible, *but I also don't think that standing on the deck of that boat that you couldn't determine how dangerous that cut was under the circumstances. There were no flashing neon signs warning of a rage. It didn't look like the gates of hell guarded by the Kraken. It was likely only slightly worse than what they'd been dealing with for days, right up until it all went to hades.*
> 
> It was a rare, and severe event described by the locals as the worst they've seen outside a hurricane. Now you've been out sailing in those conditions for a week, so its easy to see how you could be lead to thinking its as bad as its gonna get and we'll soon be in sheltered water.


I think it's important to understand the distinction between incompetence and inexperience, or - to put it more bluntly - stupidity and ignorance&#8230; Now, I generally don't consider myself to be a stoopid individual, but I will happily concede that there are many, MANY things of which I am profoundly ignorant... (grin)

I've said it before, I'll say it again - this skipper simply did not know what he did not know&#8230; One shouldn't have required "Rage Warnings" to have been posted to have been deterred from entering the such a Bahamian cut for the first time at night - it still would have been an incredibly foolhardy maneuver even on a flat calm night under a full moon&#8230; He simply lacked the experience to fully appreciate that&#8230;

No different from someone who doesn't understand that a bridge surface will often begin to freeze before the roadway leading up to it - perhaps they'd just be better off not driving during a freezing rain, to begin with&#8230; Or at least, first gain experience driving in such conditions by taking baby steps, on a deserted roadway, or under the tutelage of a more experienced driver, whatever... I certainly don't want to be sitting in the passenger seat next to a driver who lacks such awareness, no more than I'd want to be aboard a boat under the command of someone who "couldn't have determined how dangerous" the North Bar Channel would have been in those conditions&#8230;


----------



## Vasco

billyruffn said:


> Try this scenario:
> 
> You've been in 10-15 ft seas (with some higher) for three days. You're tired. You approach the coast -- nothing much changes....winds the same, seas are still big, but not that much bigger than what you've been experiencing. You're feeling your way in.
> 
> You come ahead (on GPS charting) -- you find the entrance you're seeking -- it's dead ahead. You've called the marina at Marsh Harbor and requested a slip reservation. They've said nothing about bad conditions at the inlets. (Perhaps because they don't know you're approaching from offshore).
> 
> You proceed on at reasonable speed -- seas are a bit bigger, but the entrance ahead looks pretty good. What you don't know is that it's the outflowing tide that's making the entrance itself look pretty flat.
> 
> You keep going -- feeling your way in. Bottom comes up. Swells react and go up, but you're focused on the entrance ahead and how can you tell that the seas which were 12 feet are now 14 with the occasional 15 footer. You don't realize the period is shortening and the swell is getting steeper. You keep going, focused on the entrance ahread. Feeling your way in.
> 
> Bottom comes up and waves come under the influence of the outgoing tidal current. Swells go way up, get really steep and WHAM -- a 20+ footer comes, seemingly out of no where, 45-60 degrees off your course and it breakes on your stern.
> 
> Broach ensues, boat rolls over, mast comes down, boat eventually rights itself ,deck is a chaos of spars and wire flying around as the boat rolls in the surf, and....the rest is history.
> 
> Point: on the approach, it may not have seemed like a "rage" to those standing in the cockpit that night. Rather, it's "We can do this!" because the boat's OK, we're OK, the inlet is right there just in front of us and we want to get in there, tie up and go to sleep.


In the Bahamas under those conditions a rage will be running. It's that simple!! There's no good reason for running a cut in those sea conditions. This might sound harsh but it really is that simple. You don't have to be in or approaching the cut to know that.


----------



## skipgundlach

Those with this thread for a while know that I've chimed in on several occasions.

Two comments:

First is that - whether here or the other places I've been following this disaster - a participant boat reported that Rule 62 checked in with the fleet at 7PM (theirs being circa 7:20). This suggests that they still had their mast up, and absent any emergency message (the beginning of each check-in period), can be presumed to have been under command.

Yet, very shortly later, their transponder shows them in the area of the reef. From that I deduce that the much higher seas (the recent commentary has mentioned less, by the way - seas were 16' swells on a 14 second interval, already short and steep - and the 25-30 knots winds would have added another 6-10 feet of waves) closer to shore rolled them shortly after they checked in. It appears my original speculation of an earlier dismasting and perhaps rudder loss as to why they seemed to head straight for the reef must have been incorrect.

The absence of topsides damage suggests that they did so in deep water, as the top would surely have been damaged, along with doing stanchion, davits, push and pulpit damage were they to have done so on the reef. Examination of the pix link I put up (and perhaps some others, I don't remember if here, where someone took those links and posted in-thread) shows that the mast went over to port, with no starboard damage to mounted fittings. That's consistent with the wave direction had they been going SW as the transponder track suggests. Also consistent with a deep-water (vs being tripped on the reef) dismasting is that all the hull scarring and damage is near or below the waterline.

Second is that we routinely make tracks as fast as possible to our next port, using dead reckoning to expect to arrive either near or just after daylight. That gives us a margin of error if our expected speed of travel is too slow, allowing the rest of the day to still have light.

Of course, if it's a long passage, that's a bit tricky, so not so much of concern to our departure considerations. If we find we're going too fast, we'll slow the boat down using any _convenient_ means.

However, ALWAYS, if we arrive too early for a daylight entry, we heave to well off, and come about at a time which would bring us to the entrance well after daybreak. Of course, we also heave to if we need a break. However, as speculated below this post, we don't know if Rule 62 is capable of heaving-to, but, surely, would be capable of forereaching, if the rigging was still intact. Even running under bare poles would be possible.

Of course, under the circumstances, particularly since they arrived well after dark, the direction to reach in, or the tack on which to heave to, would have been offshore, rather than heading in...

My two cents :**))

L8R

Skip, lying Georgetown, Exuma Bahamas

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at Web-Folio -- Your Portfolio on the Web !
Follow us at TheFlyingPigLog : Morgan 461 Hull #2, Flying Pig
and/or Flying Pig Log | Google Groups

"Believe me, my young friend, there is *nothing*-absolutely nothing-half so 
much worth doing as simply messing, messing-about-in-boats; messing about in 
boats-or *with* boats.

In or out of 'em, it doesn't matter. Nothing seems really to matter, that's 
the charm of it.

Whether you get away, or whether you don't; whether you arrive at your 
destination or whether you reach somewhere else, or whether you never get 
anywhere at all, you're always busy, and you never do anything in 
particular; and when you've done it there's always something else to do, and 
you can do it if you like, but you'd much better not."


----------



## CaptOrganized

GPS and perhaps not having strong enough or enough crew to man the helm in serious weather when the Autopilot fails early in the race. Does anybody know what make Autopilot was on Rule 62 and what the radio troubleshooting was about?

So far the Autopilot has been off the hook completely, but I'll bet they were counting on it and that would be mistake number 1


----------



## LandLocked66c

Are there anymore pics available elsewhere? Not sure why i'm so intrigued by this story... It has certainly been an eye opening event and something i'll always take with when at sea.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Seems like a delicate rudder?


----------



## IKena

I am amazed how people like to speculate about what could have happened.
In the end, that's not the point. The old rules are there to tell us what to do. No need to reinvent the wheel. Even with modern underbody boats.

Today, with GPS, satellite&SSB communications, weather reports, fairly accurate charts, there is no more excuse to risk other's life in simple passages like the one to the Caribbean. The "rally" is a joke in itself allowing people to go out at sea with the false safety of the group, where they would not even be capable to go at sea alone!

The captain is responsible for his mistakes, all captains are. 

It does not matter whether the boat can heave to or not, he should know his boat, and know what to do.
It does not matter whether the autopilot failed he should have thought about it (and were not they were 4 aboard!!)
it does not matter there was a rage, and he did not know about it! this is a reef entrance on an unfamiliar destination. You just don't enter at night without visual aids, piloting the boat with GPS joystick. Reef entrances are scary enough during the day...
It does not matter, if you lose a mast or rudder, you plan it before hand.
It does not matter if there is a mutiny aboard, the captain needs to have the charisma to convince people about best course of action and DO it.
In fact, no matter what, the captain has to be prepared.

This is what differentiate a sailor (not to mention a captain), and someone who just has the money to buy a boat and risk people's life. And there is plenty of them out there.

Even though we don't know what happened, there is no excuse for the captain, who have to be up to the task. Note that it is also the captain's task to evaluate if somebody can be a crew, or simply a passenger, or even worse, a liability.

Sailing today has become a luxury hobby, and we see the consequences with more and more accidents. People concentrate on buying expensive "joke" boats and gears, instead on concentrating on the knowledge of the sea.

People spends 100s of thousands $$ on boats that are barely seaworthy, but has that gorgeous inside! All these "captains" are victims of boat builder marketing strategy.

There are plenty of capable boats out there, but one also need to be a capable captain. 

Let's not let this accident worry the new sailor wannabes. You can go out there at sea. Just be prepared, don't be ashamed to take precaution (people will laugh at you for doing so), and love and respect the sea. No need to be a hero, just enjoy life and stay alive.

Ikena


----------



## Barquito

> No need to be a hero, just enjoy life and stay alive.


... and sometimes sh*t happens and you die... on land and at sea.


----------



## sck5

can it really be that anyone would sail a 10 day ocean passage without knowing how to heave to? it aint rocket science. i find it hard to imagine that they didnt know. I would more easily believe in billy ruffn's idea of the psychology of the situation. They could SEE calm water just inside. Only 5 more minutes to get there! Finally! ..........


----------



## skipgundlach

sck5 said:


> I(clip)
> I would more easily believe in billy ruffn's idea of the psychology of the situation. They could SEE calm water just inside. Only 5 more minutes to get there! Finally! ..........


It was full dark, with no moon. Unless they're better than any humans I know, they COULDN'T see anything other than, MAYBE, phosphorescence...

L8R

Skip


----------



## btrayfors

skipgundlach said:


> It was full dark, with no moon. Unless they're better than any humans I know, they COULDN'T see anything other than, MAYBE, phosphorescence...
> 
> L8R
> 
> Skip


As I noted earlier, at the time of the incident the then half-moon was approximately 45 degrees above the horizon with an azimuth of nearly due south. Unless there was low lying cloud cover, there should have been some moonlight.

This was about two hours after sunset (which was at 2218Z or 1818 AST).

See post #263 on page 27 of this thread.

Bill


----------



## Vasco

sck5 said:


> They could SEE calm water just inside. Only 5 more minutes to get there! Finally! ..........


When a rage is running in most cuts in the Bahamas you cannot see calm water. Just breakers and sea spray.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

JonEisberg said:


> I think it's important to understand the distinction between incompetence and inexperience, or - to put it more bluntly - stupidity and ignorance&#8230; Now, I generally don't consider myself to be a stoopid individual, but I will happily concede that there are many, MANY things of which I am profoundly ignorant... (grin)
> 
> I've said it before, I'll say it again - this skipper simply did not know what he did not know&#8230; One shouldn't have required "Rage Warnings" to have been posted to have been deterred from entering the such a Bahamian cut for the first time at night - it still would have been an incredibly foolhardy maneuver even on a flat calm night under a full moon&#8230; He simply lacked the experience to fully appreciate that&#8230;
> 
> No different from someone who doesn't understand that a bridge surface will often begin to freeze before the roadway leading up to it - perhaps they'd just be better off not driving during a freezing rain, to begin with&#8230; Or at least, first gain experience driving in such conditions by taking baby steps, on a deserted roadway, or under the tutelage of a more experienced driver, whatever... I certainly don't want to be sitting in the passenger seat next to a driver who lacks such awareness, no more than I'd want to be aboard a boat under the command of someone who "couldn't have determined how dangerous" the North Bar Channel would have been in those conditions&#8230;


We'll likely never know the actual conditions standing on the deck of Rule 62 that night, but I'm tending towards giving the guy the benefit of some doubt.

It just seems to me that things must not have seemed that bad on the back side of the cut to entice the guy to violate the well known principle of seamanship of not making a night landfall.


----------



## IKena

midlifesailor,

GIVE the guy the benefit of doubt!!! you must be kidding. 

I hope you don't end up the same way, thinking you CAN enter an unfamiliar reef cut at night!

There is a reason there are old seamanship rules out there.

Ikena


----------



## bb32

There is a saying in aviation, that every Federal Air Regulation is written in blood. Three weeks ago some was added to make the print in this rule a little bolder: NEVER, FRACKIN EVER, ATTEMPT AN UNFAMILIAR INLET AT NIGHT

Pilots also have a name for this: Gethomeitis - an all too often fatal condtion for those so afflicted.


----------



## Allanbc

The new Rule 62 of sailing.



bb32 said:


> NEVER, FRACKIN EVER, ATTEMPT AN UNFAMILIAR INLET AT NIGHT


----------



## PalmettoSailor

IKena said:


> midlifesailor,
> 
> GIVE the guy the benefit of doubt!!! you must be kidding.
> 
> I hope you don't end up the same way, thinking you CAN enter an unfamiliar reef cut at night!
> 
> There is a reason there are old seamanship rules out there.
> 
> Ikena


No, not forgive him for deciding to break a well founded rule. What I'm attempting to communicate is that the combination of conditions lead this skipper to believe he could (or must) violate a common tenet of seamanship. Its a fact he chose to ignore the rule of sound seamanship and enter an unfamiliar channel at night. Beyond that, everything in this thread is supposition and we have no idea what warning signs were or were not evident as this disaster played out. I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt that he didn't ignore BOTH a tenet of seamanship AND warning signs in the form of conditions making the boat difficult to control. My supposition is things on board were probably pretty much what they were used to, up until the point a big wave sent them surfing, laid the boat over then drove them onto the reef.

I say its hubris on our part to simply take the position "He's an idiot, it could never happen to me."

I too am a pilot and know about rules written in blood. I also know that better pilots than me get killed regularly doing something they should "know better" than do. People always try to draw lessons from these tragedies , but often its clear they really want things to be nice a neat, so many fail to consider that humans are making the decisions and humans are fallible, and we are subject to the same fallibility. I maintain that recognizing human fallibility is a major key in drawing useful lessons from such accidents.


----------



## Sixpoint

midlifesailor said:


> I say its hubris on our part to simply take the position "He's an idiot, it could never happen to me."


Hear, hear.


----------



## Boasun

midlifesailor said:


> I say its hubris on our part to simply take the position "He's an idiot, it could never happen to me."
> .


Many of us take educated risks and by pass situations that are just too risky.
But there are times when we become too callous in our risk taking and end up paying the piper. So being callous to certain situations, we end up becoming careless and thus pay the piper, sometimes in loss of life.
So in reading about Maritime accidents, we hopefully learn from other mistakes. So the many comments about the various collisions and groundings can also be a learning experience...May we NEVER read about our own foul-ups.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Boasun said:


> May we NEVER read about our own foul-ups.


I'd rather read about my foul-ups than ... ah ... not.


----------



## Leocat66

smackdaddy said:


> This is one of the most important lessons of them all.
> 
> Another that should be added to mc's list is; be able to do each of these things when people you love are begging and/or screaming at you to get them out of what you got them into. That makes all of the above much, much more difficult.


Great point Smack!

Do any of us know, for certain, the stress the captain was under? I must assume we do not. Do any of us know, for certain, that he had any assistance in controlling the vessel. Maybe all others were sick, maybe he had on board one or more crew who were, in his opinion, terminally sick or injured. Maybe that injured crew was Laura. Maybe he took this chance as a last attempt to save the life of a terminally injured crew member.

I say he knew better, but went against his own knowledge and experience because of something stronger pulling on him at that moment. Something stronger than a desire to get to calm water, something very serious.

In any event he will live with his decision for the rest of his life, If he sleeps much it will be the first thing he thinks of when awakening every day from now on. May God bless this man.


----------



## imagine2frolic

Not really smack. It makes it easier to make the right decision when comes to the begging & screaming. Do we know they were begging & screaming? I don't think we do know the exacts of what happened before. What we do know for what ever reason the decision was made to go in, was wrong.

I think as far as calling the man an idiot, is wrong. This man has to live with his decision the rest of his life. We can learn from his error without being cruel. It's obvious he thought he was making the right decision, as wrong as it was. I cannot believe he intentionally thought I will crash my boat, and possibly lose lives. If he was thinking properly he could've made other decisions. Like simply turning south........*i2f*


----------



## IKena

nothing being cruel about an idiot who kill somebody by mere incompetence. if somebody on board needed help that bad, he should have activated the epirb instead of going on the reef or call for help! 

I have been cruising 4 years, whole Caribbean and South Pacific. I have never entered a reef pass at night, and waited for daylight many times before entering. I even canceled going into some atolls upon arrival during DAYTIME because of bad conditions. you GOT to be prudent, that's it.

Excusing that guy is like saying it's OK to drink and drive, and it CAN happen to anybody.
Again, there are old seamanship rules, and they should be followed like laws.

A cruising sailboat is not like planes. It is very forgivable, it is very slow, so you have time to think. And if it seaworthy and capable, it will take care of you in most conditions.

Of course this guy thought he could made it. that what most people who speed with their cars, or drink and drive, think as well. They are either ignorant or idiot. in both case, they should not be on the road risking people's lives.


----------



## JonEisberg

Leocat66 said:


> Great point Smack!
> 
> Do any of us know, for certain, the stress the captain was under? I must assume we do not. Do any of us know, for certain, that he had any assistance in controlling the vessel. *Maybe all others were sick, maybe he had on board one or more crew who were, in his opinion, terminally sick or injured. Maybe that injured crew was Laura. Maybe he took this chance as a last attempt to save the life of a terminally injured crew member.*
> 
> I say he knew better, but went against his own knowledge and experience because of something stronger pulling on him at that moment. Something stronger than a desire to get to calm water, something very serious.


So, you're suggesting that even with a gravely ill crewmember or otherwise dire emergency aboard, he doesn't even MENTION that in his routine rally roll call shortly before the attempt to enter? Or, makes no effort whatsoever to alert BASRA or contact anyone in Marsh Harbor about such an emergency, or solicit advice or inquire as to the possibility of an escort or assistance in transiting the cut? (Seems unlikely Laura was incapacitated, BTW - as she was on deck with the skipper when RULE 62 was knocked down, "swamped", or whatever.)

Sorry, but I think we can safely file that one under the heading of "Not Bloody Likely"&#8230;


----------



## Leocat66

JonEisberg said:


> So, you're suggesting that even with a gravely ill crewmember or otherwise dire emergency aboard, he doesn't even MENTION that in his routine rally roll call shortly before the attempt to enter? Or, makes no effort whatsoever to alert BASRA or contact anyone in Marsh Harbor about such an emergency, or solicit advice or inquire as to the possibility of an escort or assistance in transiting the cut? (Seems unlikely Laura was incapacitated, BTW - as she was on deck with the skipper when RULE 62 was knocked down, "swamped", or whatever.)
> 
> Sorry, but I think we can safely file that one under the heading of "Not Bloody Likely"&#8230;


I am not suggesting anything in particular. I am not excusing the actions of the captain. I am reaching inside for some logical explanation, to myself, for such a suicidal decision on his part. I feel that he was a very desperate man to have even considered, let alone made, such an attempt, especially under those conditions. We all know the rule, which he violated, very well.

Is it possible that they lost the rudder on the way toward the cut, at the course change? Was he trying to get close enough to evaluate the conditions near the cut first hand before reaching the point of no return. If so, did he see or hear something which caused him to abort the attempt too late, being rolled, while trying to come about and reverse course, when coming beam to the waves?

Do we know for certain that they did not attempt radio contact with Marsh Harbor, or other yachts for input? Was the radio still transmitting or receiving? Did they loose the GPS at the point of the course change without first securing a compass heading?

Hopefully someday we will know more as I feel certain that we do not know the entire story at this time. We do know for certain that Laura was somewhat handicapped from the beginning and at a great disadvantage after entering the water.


----------



## sck5

fyi rally roll calls were ONLY for position reporting and wind reports. Requests to speak to rally sponsors outside of the roll call might be made but nobody went into any details of problems they had during the actual roll call.


----------



## lancelot9898

sck5 said:


> fyi rally roll calls were ONLY for position reporting and wind reports.


Therein lies the problem. Emergency calls should be encouraged and not discouraged regardless of the established rules! I grant you that the threshold for an emergency will vary depending on individuals, but even a "low grade" emergency can develop into a life threating situation under extreme fatigue and stress.


----------



## JonEisberg

Leocat66 said:


> I am not suggesting anything in particular. I am not excusing the actions of the captain. I am reaching inside for some logical explanation, to myself, for such a suicidal decision on his part. I feel that he was a very desperate man to have even considered, let alone made, such an attempt, especially under those conditions. We all know the rule, which he violated, very well.
> 
> Is it possible that they lost the rudder on the way toward the cut, at the course change? Was he trying to get close enough to evaluate the conditions near the cut first hand before reaching the point of no return. If so, did he see or hear something which caused him to abort the attempt too late, being rolled, while trying to come about and reverse course, when coming beam to the waves?


You may be right, of course - perhaps there was some extraordinary circumstance that compelled him to go against all that he should have known in that situation&#8230; Still, I'm a bit mystified by apparent need to find some extraordinary cause to this tragedy, what is so hard to accept about the notion that this skipper simply lacked the experience to fully understand how dangerous the attempt to enter that cut would have been?

After all, another tragedy in the 1500 was narrowly averted less than 100 miles from the start, when another boat made the decision to bail out, and go into Oregon Inlet&#8230; they had some crew aboard who were seasick, and were frightened by the prospect of spending another night offshore around Hatteras. Given the reported conditions at the time (10+ seas, 30-40 knots), however, coupled with the fact the guy had never run Oregon Inlet before, his decision to attempt to enter one of the most treacherous inlets on the East Coast in those conditions was just plain nuts, IMHO&#8230; He obviously lacked the experience to appreciate the conditions he was likely to encounter running that gauntlet - and as a result, his Hallberg-Rassy was dropped on the bottom crossing the bar, and seriously damaged&#8230; The skipper later confessed, that he and his crew were "lucky to be alive"&#8230;

Again, I see cruisers out there all the time making extremely poor choices based on their overconfidence in GPS, and the predominant accuracy of today's charting&#8230; As I've mentioned in an earlier post, entering reef passes at night or in times of poor light, such poor and imprudent seamanship is becoming a virtual EPIDEMIC in places like the Bahamas, or western Caribbean&#8230; So much so, that in his latest cruising guide to the NW Caribbean, Steve Pavlidis has refrained from placing a lat/long grid on his charts for the northern coasts of Guanaja, Roatan, and many other reef passes throughout the region&#8230; In a lengthy explanation in the guide's forward, he now feels the need to do so "in order to protect cruisers from themselves", as he is convinced that the modern tendency to watch a cursor on the chartplotter screen instead of the water around them has become so commonplace&#8230;

I don't get it, what is so hard to understand about the notion of a modern sailor finding himself in a circumstance of which he has no complete understanding or previous experience? GPS has become the Great Enabler to an entire generation of modern sailors, who can now so easily "outsail" their home waters, and level of prior experience&#8230; As someone else mentioned earlier, it is highly unlikely RULE 62 would be heading for the Caribbean to begin with, were it not for GPS, and they actually had to find their own way there&#8230; Or at least, they would have had someone aboard with the experience to navigate them to their destination, and the wisdom to have overruled the skipper's overwhelming desire to get off that ocean, and off that damn boat&#8230;


----------



## btrayfors

+1. Well said, Jon.

In fact, we don't know ANYTHING about the skipper, his abilities, experience, training, etc.

Thus, we have no reason to believe that he KNEW how deadly the Atlantic inlets can be in a rage or, in fact, in any rough conditions.

What we do know is that any experienced captain with knowledge of the dangers of Atlantic inlets in rough conditions --- not to say at night and probably unfamiliar --- would have chosen another of several safe options, including heaving to or heading further south for a wide deep-water passage.

No need to call him an idiot; we don't know if he is or isn't. But, it's clear that the decision was just that...whatever the reason. Making excuses for the decision IMHO is just reflecting ones own fears, sympathies, and/or inexperience. 

Bill


----------



## paulk

JonEisberg said:


> "in order to protect cruisers from themselves", as he is convinced that the modern tendency to watch a cursor on the chartplotter screen instead of the water around them has become so commonplace&#8230;&#8230;


 We had this need to watch the water illustrated for us by some friends who had to heave to off of South Africa for days in a storm, waiting, along with a bunch of 1000 foot tankers, for a harbor to open. Our firends explain that the risk of getting run down by the tankers was better than the certainty, if they entered the channel, of having the first wave simply trip over the windward breakwater, pick them up thirty feet, and drop them on the leeward breakwater. Some people don't comprehend the ocean's capabilities because they're too busy watching screens. We can all learn more.


----------



## CaptOrganized

*Perhaps the boat name says it all!*



btrayfors said:


> +1. Well said, Jon.
> 
> In fact, we don't know ANYTHING about the skipper, his abilities, experience, training, etc.
> 
> Thus, we have no reason to believe that he KNEW how deadly the Atlantic inlets can be in a rage or, in fact, in any rough conditions.
> 
> What we do know is that any experienced captain with knowledge of the dangers of Atlantic inlets in rough conditions --- not to say at night and probably unfamiliar --- would have chosen another of several safe options, including heaving to or heading further south for a wide deep-water passage.
> 
> No need to call him an idiot; we don't know if he is or isn't. But, it's clear that the decision was just that...whatever the reason. Making excuses for the decision IMHO is just reflecting ones own fears, sympathies, and/or inexperience.
> 
> Bill


Rule 62 means don't take yourself too seriously -- *or anything else for that matter*! Lighten up; remember to have fun.
It's origins are in AA but, I can't tell you were.


----------



## Leocat66

JonEisberg said:


> You may be right, of course - perhaps there was some extraordinary circumstance that compelled him to go against all that he should have known in that situation&#8230; Still, I'm a bit mystified by apparent need to find some extraordinary cause to this tragedy, what is so hard to accept about the notion that this skipper simply lacked the experience to fully understand how dangerous the attempt to enter that cut would have been?
> 
> After all, another tragedy in the 1500 was narrowly averted less than 100 miles from the start, when another boat made the decision to bail out, and go into Oregon Inlet&#8230; they had some crew aboard who were seasick, and were frightened by the prospect of spending another night offshore around Hatteras. Given the reported conditions at the time (10+ seas, 30-40 knots), however, coupled with the fact the guy had never run Oregon Inlet before, his decision to attempt to enter one of the most treacherous inlets on the East Coast in those conditions was just plain nuts, IMHO&#8230; He obviously lacked the experience to appreciate the conditions he was likely to encounter running that gauntlet - and as a result, his Hallberg-Rassy was dropped on the bottom crossing the bar, and seriously damaged&#8230; The skipper later confessed, that he and his crew were "lucky to be alive"&#8230;
> 
> Again, I see cruisers out there all the time making extremely poor choices based on their overconfidence in GPS, and the predominant accuracy of today's charting&#8230; As I've mentioned in an earlier post, entering reef passes at night or in times of poor light, such poor and imprudent seamanship is becoming a virtual EPIDEMIC in places like the Bahamas, or western Caribbean&#8230; So much so, that in his latest cruising guide to the NW Caribbean, Steve Pavlidis has refrained from placing a lat/long grid on his charts for the northern coasts of Guanaja, Roatan, and many other reef passes throughout the region&#8230; In a lengthy explanation in the guide's forward, he now feels the need to do so "in order to protect cruisers from themselves", as he is convinced that the modern tendency to watch a cursor on the chartplotter screen instead of the water around them has become so commonplace&#8230;
> 
> I don't get it, what is so hard to understand about the notion of a modern sailor finding himself in a circumstance of which he has no complete understanding or previous experience? GPS has become the Great Enabler to an entire generation of modern sailors, who can now so easily "outsail" their home waters, and level of prior experience&#8230; As someone else mentioned earlier, it is highly unlikely RULE 62 would be heading for the Caribbean to begin with, were it not for GPS, and they actually had to find their own way there&#8230; Or at least, they would have had someone aboard with the experience to navigate them to their destination, and the wisdom to have overruled the skipper's overwhelming desire to get off that ocean, and off that damn boat&#8230;


About the other boat at Oregon Inlet. One major difference could be, as you state, they were only 100 miles into the run, and had a very fresh crew as a result. We will never know if Rule 62 too would have made the cut, if they had been able to stay on course. Not very likely IMHO.

I am fascinated simply because I am truly mystified, as many are.


----------



## xxuxx

*I like this guy...........*



IKena said:


> nothing being cruel about an idiot who kill somebody by mere incompetence. if somebody on board needed help that bad, he should have activated the epirb instead of going on the reef or call for help!
> 
> I have been cruising 4 years, whole Caribbean and South Pacific. I have never entered a reef pass at night, and waited for daylight many times before entering. I even canceled going into some atolls upon arrival during DAYTIME because of bad conditions. you GOT to be prudent, that's it.
> 
> Excusing that guy is like saying it's OK to drink and drive, and it CAN happen to anybody.
> Again, there are old seamanship rules, and they should be followed like laws.
> 
> A cruising sailboat is not like planes. It is very forgivable, it is very slow, so you have time to think. And if it seaworthy and capable, it will take care of you in most conditions.
> 
> Of course this guy thought he could made it. that what most people who speed with their cars, or drink and drive, think as well. They are either ignorant or idiot. in both case, they should not be on the road risking people's lives.


After all the theorizing, all the pontificaring and conjecturing there is only one answer. Laura has passed due to a bad decision by the captain. Period. They found her life jacket but no strobe? Because she had no strobe!! How can one see someone in the water at night.....Duh: STROBE!!! I am here in Marsh Harbor, pictures of her everywhere. Rescue people who finally came to the 3 that survived said she was heard screaming for help on the other side of the reef but could not be seen. DUH: NO STROBE. By the way, I was so moved, being the one of the last people to speak with her, that we diverted to Marsh Harbor to learn more about what happened. Very sad story. Oh by the way we entered North Bar during the daytime....benign conditions. Laura Zekoll: rest in peace, you are loved.


----------



## sailingdog

I find it very tragic that Laura lost her life due to a very bad decision by the captain.

Why they tried to enter the reef pass, at night, during a rage, without local knowledge is completely beyond me. It makes absolutely no sense, especially since the Northeast Providence Channel was just a bit further south, and would have been a good choice to enter, since it is 25 miles wide or so and OVER A MILE DEEP. It would have given the boat some shelter and a chance to rest/recover until daylight came.









The area where Rule 62 tried to enter the Bahama banks is circled in *RED*.


----------



## HDChopper

This thread seems argumentative & derogatory & depressing at times .

That said if anything is to be taken away from all this is that it helps others ( newb's) such as myself have learned more than one thing from it and not likely to forget it.

least of all how to heave to I cant imagine ANY sailor not pratice this within the first hour of sailing any new them boat. 
yes I was listining ,and the RULE62 my not of been the best hoveing to type boat , but that is not my point ..... I have learned.

Again to Laura's family & friends all the best....


----------



## IKena

somebody explains to me how can a SANE sailor possibly plan his entrance at Oregon inlet? I looked at the charts, it looks like hell!


----------



## Leocat66

btrayfors said:


> +1. Well said, Jon.
> 
> In fact, we don't know ANYTHING about the skipper, his abilities, experience, training, etc.
> 
> Thus, we have no reason to believe that he KNEW how deadly the Atlantic inlets can be in a rage or, in fact, in any rough conditions.
> 
> What we do know is that any experienced captain with knowledge of the dangers of Atlantic inlets in rough conditions --- not to say at night and probably unfamiliar --- would have chosen another of several safe options, including heaving to or heading further south for a wide deep-water passage.
> 
> No need to call him an idiot; we don't know if he is or isn't. But, it's clear that the decision was just that...whatever the reason. Making excuses for the decision IMHO is just reflecting ones own fears, sympathies, and/or inexperience.
> 
> Bill


Bill, I really do not consider hoping to learn the reason, or understand the captains thoughts akin to reflecting ones own fears or expressing sympathies and / or inexperience.

I have not heard one person here, who agrees with or defends his decision, regardless of the true reason it was made. No excuse will suffice. It is not the excuse but the reason that many seem to seek.


----------



## JimMcGee

*Experienced Captains, let me ask a question*

OK, first I'm a weekend bay sailor with limited experience on a 22 and now my 30. I am in no position to criticize this captain and I won't.

But I've been wondering -- for those of you who do sail blue water -- would it be a normal part of your trip planning to look at harbors along your planned route where you could bail out due to weather or equipment failures? By this I mean do some reading on local conditions and weigh one harbor and/or approach against others nearby when you're sitting at the dock with a coffee in your hand. Develop an idea of "I'd go in here if I had equipment problems but I wouldn't attempt this inlet in a storm." Or would that level of planning be considered overkill?

Jim


----------



## Leocat66

JimMcGee said:


> OK, first I'm a weekend bay sailor with limited experience on a 22 and now my 30. I am in no position to criticize this captain and I won't.
> 
> But I've been wondering -- for those of you who do sail blue water -- would it be a normal part of your trip planning to look at harbors along your planned route where you could bail out due to weather or equipment failures? By this I mean do some reading on local conditions and weigh one harbor and/or approach against others nearby when you're sitting at the dock with a coffee in your hand. Develop an idea of "I'd go in here if I had equipment problems but I wouldn't attempt this inlet in a storm." Or would that level of planning be considered overkill?
> 
> Jim


Yes, I consider that type of planning essential. It is much easier to do when in home waters, but much knowledge can be found on charts and from cruising guides, and from others met on the way back from where you are headed. It is certainly not overkill.


----------



## doublewide

People are funny. They do things that are unwise and nothing bad happens, so they falsely conclude that it is OK to do them. In decreasing order of lethality such things as 1. entering an unmarked or unfamiliar inlet at night, 2. texting while driving, 3. talking on the phone while driving, 4. smoking tobacco. If you have done one of these things and nothing bad happened so far, you are wrong to conclude that it was a safe thing to do. If one persists in doing these things, something bad will eventually happen. Studies have shown that they are all unsafe practices. Best wishes.


----------



## billyruffn

JimMcGee said:


> But I've been wondering -- for those of you who do sail blue water -- would it be a normal part of your trip planning to look at harbors along your planned route where you could bail out due to weather or equipment failures?


Jim, my post #366 at http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship/48237-heavy-weather-sailing-19.html is relevant to your question.


----------



## JonEisberg

IKena said:


> somebody explains to me how can a SANE sailor possibly plan his entrance at Oregon inlet? I looked at the charts, it looks like hell!


Nah, in favorable conditions, Oregon Inlet can be fine. I've used a lot over the years, running down outside through there and down Pamlico Sound to Beaufort is my preferred route running up and down the coast&#8230; Easily saves at least a day, even in a fast boat, as opposed to having to go inside at Norfolk, and down the Ditch&#8230;

However, a place like Oregon Inlet really places a premium on Local Knowledge&#8230; Even though I use it regularly, you have to be aware that things can change there - literally - overnight&#8230; I'm always a bit apprehensive running down there after a big storm, for example&#8230;

But in benign conditions, Oregon Inlet is not much different than numerous others such as Shinnecock, Barnegat, St. Augustine, and so on&#8230; However, in the sort of conditions that existed the day the 1500 Rally fleet passed by, it would have been a whole different ball game, and even the charter sportfishing guys who run out of there every day would not have considered it&#8230; For someone to have run that inlet for the first time ever in such conditions, well - that would simply be another classic example of someone who just did not know what he did not know&#8230;

One of the primary reasons Oregon Inlet has such a reputation is its location... You do NOT want to head down there unless you're reasonably certain conditions will not deteriorate by the time you arrive... Otherwise, it's 70 miles back up to the Chesapeake entrance, or out around Hatteras... that's what drove the boat from the rally in there, when in fact if he'd toughed it out another few hours down around Diamond Shoals and gotten into the lee afforded by the bight of Hatteras, he could have hove-to very comfortably, in considerably more moderate conditions...

Even in relatively settled weather, as with many other east coast inlets, a prime consideration is the state of the tide&#8230; An immense volume of water from Pamlico sound gets flushed in and out of Oregon Inlet with every tide, and the difference between running it on the flood, or on the ebb, can be astonishing - you always want to hit it on the flood near the top of the tide, of course&#8230;

It's rare to see a sailboat transiting the inlet, however - I've almost always done it with sportfishermen or motor yachts, I think I've only taken 2 or 3 sailboats besides my own through there&#8230; One problem is, there have never been clearance boards on the Bonner Bridge, so I'd be terrified to take a rig remotely close to 65' through that damn thing, where the current is often ripping at 4 knots, perhaps more&#8230;

And, as you can see from the pic, Oregon is one of those places that can really get interesting once you get inside, the hydraulics are extremely dynamic, the channel constantly shifting&#8230;

So, just as with a cut like the North Bar Channel, all the difference in the world between someone who's familiar with the place, and someone who's never seen it before - or, between running it in daylight, or after dark&#8230;


----------



## Leocat66

Thanks Jon, awesome photo!


----------



## billyruffn

xxuxx said:


> They found her life jacket but no strobe? Because she had no strobe!! How can one see someone in the water at night.....Duh: STROBE!!!.....Rescue people who finally came to the 3 that survived said she was heard screaming for help on the other side of the reef but could not be seen. DUH: NO STROBE.


---------

A couple hypothetical questions for the general discussion prompted by xxuxx's post:

1. Let's assume we're getting ready for a 1500 nm offshore passage. What personal safety gear would it be reasonable for the "boat" to supply to it's crew? Inflatible PFD? harness? tethers? strobe? PLB? personal flares? Or, is the USCG minimums (Type 1 offshore life jacket) all that a skipper needs to supply?

If you were signing on to the crew of a vessel with skipper you had not sailed with before, what gear would you bring on your own? What's in your seabag?

Costs involved: Offhsore PFD w/ harness - $200-300, tethers $100-150, strobe $25-75, PLB $250-450, Type 1 Offshore life jacket $50

2. Let's assume you're a skipper who's short handed for a trip south. You recruit a couple of people to join your crew whom you have not met, but based on the the information they provided you they seem qualified, i.e., they've "been there, done that." OK, you're a few days from your planned departure, the new crew members show up and once you've had the opportunity to get to know them, you begin to doubt if there may have been some miscommunication about their prior offshore sailing experience. Or how about if the crew members shows up with a medical condition previously undisclosed? (E.g. I had a guy tell me he had a controlled diabetic condition two days before a departure.) Do you keep them onboard and sail on schedule, or do you refuse them the passage and start your search for crew a new?

3. You're on a beach with the wind blowing 20+kts on shore. There's a big surf running, breaking on the reef and the beach. The SAR helo is overhead hoisting survivors off the beach. Under these conditions, from what distance could the human voice be heard?


----------



## sailingdog

IMHO, this is essential for not only blue water passages but coastal cruising as well. My recommendation is to make up a page for each harbor that you might have to use in an emergency with notes on what the ATONs are, what lights are located there, the bearings you need to get into the harbor safely, what conditions would possibly make it unsafe to enter, etc. Also, might want to indicate what VHF channel to contact the various marine facilities in that harbor and note what services they provide.

You should also have a good idea of what your route is and where you might be able to take shelter, even if it isn't a harbor or refuge, should conditions worsen. For instance, in the case of Rule 62, the Northeast Providence Channel would have made far more sense than trying to enter where they did. They could have proceeded up the Northwest Providence Channel and gotten a fair bit of shelter from the seas and winds without risking a raging reef passage.



JimMcGee said:


> OK, first I'm a weekend bay sailor with limited experience on a 22 and now my 30. I am in no position to criticize this captain and I won't.
> 
> But I've been wondering -- for those of you who do sail blue water -- *would it be a normal part of your trip planning to look at harbors along your planned route where you could bail out due to weather or equipment failures?* By this I mean do some reading on local conditions and weigh one harbor and/or approach against others nearby when you're sitting at the dock with a coffee in your hand. Develop an idea of "I'd go in here if I had equipment problems but I wouldn't attempt this inlet in a storm." Or would that level of planning be considered overkill?
> 
> Jim


----------



## speciald

I believe that it is prudent to carry harbor charts and guide books for every potential duck-in site along the route -US East Coast, Bahamas, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, etc. There is an extensive list of equipment required for the passage by the CRA. New boats are inspected by the management and every thing on the list is inspected and approved. Many trips were made to WM to complete the equipment list and pass inspection.


----------



## sailingdog

billyruffn said:


> ---------
> 
> A couple hypothetical questions for the general discussion prompted by xxuxx's post:
> 
> 1. Let's assume we're getting ready for a 1500 nm offshore passage. What personal safety gear would it be reasonable for the "boat" to supply to it's crew? Inflatible PFD? harness? tethers? strobe? PLB? personal flares? Or, is the USCG minimums (Type 1 offshore life jacket) all that a skipper needs to supply?
> 
> If you were signing on to the crew of a vessel with skipper you had not sailed with before, what gear would you bring on your own? What's in your seabag?
> 
> Costs involved: Offhsore PFD w/ harness - $200-300, tethers $100-150, strobe $25-75, PLB $250-450, Type 1 Offshore life jacket $50


I'm a big believer in bringing my own safety gear along. I can trust my gear...



> 2. Let's assume you're a skipper who's short handed for a trip south. You recruit a couple of people to join your crew whom you have not met, but based on the the information they provided you they seem qualified, i.e., they've "been there, done that." OK, you're a few days from your planned departure, the new crew members show up and once you've had the opportunity to get to know them, you begin to doubt if there may have been some miscommunication about their prior offshore sailing experience. Or how about if the crew members shows up with a medical condition previously undisclosed? (E.g. I had a guy tell me he had a controlled diabetic condition two days before a departure.) Do you keep them onboard and sail on schedule, or do you refuse them the passage and start your search for crew a new?


It depends on the specific situation. For instance, a person with celiac disease who didn't disclose it prior to signing up is probably going to have trouble, since a gluten-free menu is difficult to manage without prior preparation. Of course, asking about allergies and health issues should be a standard part of recruiting crew.

Getting crew that has good references helps eliminate the problem with "miscommunications".



> 3. You're on a beach with the wind blowing 20+kts on shore. There's a big surf running, breaking on the reef and the beach. The SAR helo is overhead hoisting survivors off the beach. Under these conditions, from what distance could the human voice be heard?


You can't be heard at all...much less at any distance, in those conditions. Even in fairly mild conditions, being heard at any distance upwind takes a lot of work.


----------



## JonEisberg

CaptOrganized said:


> GPS and perhaps not having strong enough or enough crew to man the helm in serious weather when the Autopilot fails early in the race. Does anybody know what make Autopilot was on Rule 62 and what the radio troubleshooting was about?
> 
> So far the Autopilot has been off the hook completely, but I'll bet they were counting on it and that would be mistake number 1


Based on the pics Skip posted, the instrumentation is Raymarine. So, one would presume the autopilot would be as well, part of a networked system&#8230;

I think one of the reasons this tragedy has such resonance for us all, and has provoked such discussion, is the natural desire to pinpoint the single, identifiable action or mistake that could have made all the difference. Would Laura still be alive had a different autopilot been selected? Or if she had been wearing a strobe? IMHO, the narrow focus on such details generally miss the point, the answers we should be seeking are part of a much bigger picture, of course - and are never as simple or straightforward as we would like to hear&#8230;

For me, the reason this tragedy is so compelling is that it seems such a perfect example of the consequences of continuing TRENDS I've witnessed during my years on the water&#8230; Why are such occurrences becoming increasingly commonplace, when one would think that with all the technological advances, the opposite would be the case? Some things will never change, however, and one thing this event has in common with the vast majority of maritime disasters is that it was the culmination of a drawn-out series of cascading failures, as opposed to a single, catastrophic event&#8230; For me, in a very real sense, this tragedy began to unfold with the decision to make such a passage, in a boat such as RULE 62&#8230;

I'm not suggesting such a boat is incapable successfully making such a trip, of course&#8230; But I do believe that the trend towards going offshore in some of these modern designs catches many sailors unaware, they simply don't appreciate the downsides of many of these sexy speedsters for bluewater passagemaking&#8230;

Just had a look at CRUISING WORLD's Boat of the Year list of winners, where gushing descriptions such as "sexier", "faster", and "more comfortable" abound. What really strikes me, however, is that there is not a single boat on that list that I would feel entirely comfortable sailing to Bermuda, for example&#8230; Well, OK, the Hylas 56 would qualify, if it weren't for the fact that sailing a boat of that size offshore scares the hell out of me, that is simply WAY too much boat for most of us middle-aged mortals, IMHO&#8230;

But I think all of us would agree that the source of this tragedy lies in the discomfort and resultant exhaustion of the crew during this passage, which initially caused them to divert to the Bahamas, and undoubtedly contributed to the poor decision making upon their arrival&#8230; One look at this boat, it should be obvious that despite all its sexiness, speed, and apparent comfort - this is the sort of boat that will beat up its crew pretty good, in boisterous conditions offshore&#8230;

A boat like RULE 62 is emblematic of so many modern boats, in that it was designed from the inside out, the design brief being to maximize its Boat Show Curb Appeal. The hull form flows from the maximization of interior volume, and the rest of the design flows from the accommodation plan&#8230; As a result, the layout and ergonomics of the deck and cockpit are simply atrocious for bluewater passagemaking&#8230;

It was initially reported that the skipper and Laura were "ejected" from the cockpit when the boat was "swamped" that night&#8230; Well, just LOOK at the freakin' thing, should anyone be surprised?










Such a cockpit appears eminently suitable for lounging about, sunbathing, entertaining a group at anchor or dockside&#8230; But, keeping a crew comfortable and secure offshore??? Looking at the above pic, I see a LOT to dislike about that thing, it amazes me more people apparently don't appreciate how dangerous such designs can be offshore&#8230;

Look at the height and width of those cockpit coamings, and what it requires to leave the cockpit (they're a result of designing from the inside out, of course - they afford the headroom for the aft staterooms) Look at the height of the cockpit, it's essentially at deck level. That's one thing in a center cockpit, where whatever exaggerated motion is somewhat diminished being at the center of the boat's motion axis - but such height above the water in an aft cockpit boat is a whole different ballgame&#8230; then, with that "sexy" double wheel arrangement, you stick the helmsman all the way out at the corner of such a wide-assed platform, increasing the fatigue and exposure to the elements factor exponentially. Imagine going forward on a dirty night, there is no handrail whatsoever forward of that cateye saloon window, and the low deckhouse forward of the mast is nothing more than a tripping hazard&#8230; And, imagine if you had to do any work at the base of the mast? You'd have to stand on a freakin' SLOPED GLASS WINDOW, for chrissakes! UFB, some of the crap you see on some of this sexily sculpted and faceted EuroTrash&#8230; (grin)

Now, compare the deck and cockpit ergonomics with this beautiful Alden, a boat designed from the outside in&#8230; Don't have to be a rocket scientist, to appreciate which design will take better care of its crew offshore&#8230;










OK, I could rant all day on the shortcomings of many of today's cruising condos for sailing offshore, enough is enough&#8230; (grin)

Most important resource for anyone thinking of bluewater cruising, IMHO, is the book DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS, edited by John Rousmaniere&#8230; Really a pity it obviously enjoys such little recognition today, an no surprise is features an Alden design on its cover&#8230; But, of course, stuff like such wide side decks greatly reduce the volume and spaciousness below, and features like that don't cut it anymore at the Boat Shows, nor with the wives of today's offshore adventurers&#8230;


----------



## sailingdog

*I'll point out that the autopilot, regardless of what make/model/condition it was in, did not make the decision to try and enter the reef passage that the Rule 62 was lost in... That was ultimately the decision of the captain. * The equipment is not to blame...the person who made that decision is IMHO. Relying on autopilots in bad conditions is generally a mistake. Another capsize that was clearly the result of poor judgement and using equipment, such as an autopilot, when it was unwise to do so is the *capsize of the Chris White designed catamaran Anna*.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> IMHO, the narrow focus on such details generally miss the point, the answers we should be seeking are part of a much bigger picture, of course - and are never as simple or straightforward as we would like to hear&#8230;


+1.

That's why I've never bought in to those people that jump on "the guy was an idiot" or "I would never have done..." bandwagon. Too many variables in all this for us forum posters to be so sure of anything.

We read and we learn. That's why we're all here. Thank goodness we have some very experienced salts around here that take that same tack and simply help us all get more prepared.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> A boat like RULE 62 is emblematic of so many modern boats, in that it was designed from the inside out, the design brief being to maximize its Boat Show Curb Appeal. The hull form flows from the maximization of interior volume, and the rest of the design flows from the accommodation plan&#8230; As a result, the layout and ergonomics of the deck and cockpit are simply atrocious for bluewater passagemaking&#8230;
> 
> It was initially reported that the skipper and Laura were "ejected" from the cockpit when the boat was "swamped" that night&#8230; Well, just LOOK at the freakin' thing, should anyone be surprised?


Yeah, but look at the dude to chick ratio - and all the skin! That's what I call a fun cruise. And then you have this...



JonEisberg said:


> Now, compare the deck and cockpit ergonomics with this beautiful Alden, a boat designed from the outside in&#8230; Don't have to be a rocket scientist, to appreciate which design will take better care of its crew offshore&#8230;


See my point?

Seriously, you raise a very interesting point above. But it's one that you'll never win in terms of the market. In other words, people are buying the "sexy" boats, not the "sensible" boats. That's the trend that is irreversible - no matter how little sense it might make.

So, what does that mean for sailing?

The oxymoron is that less experienced sailors (like me) are buying boats that are billed as "bluewater capable" (at least in terms of what this rally was), but are more akin to race boats in terms of hull/keel/rudder shape (and sail area) as you point out. Then, as you also point out, these people are getting beat to hell and worn down usually because they are under-crewed unlike a race boat and haven't been in those conditions before in their boat. In short, as you say, these boats are more challenging to handle in rough weather.

But here's the kicker for me (again a newb), I am going to buy a 38'-40' boat in the next year for sailing the islands. And it will probably be a Bene/Jenneau/Catalina/Hunter. I don't want a true "bluewater" boat because it won't make the wife and kids happy in terms of just hanging out on it (too "cramped", too "slow", not "sexy", too "expensive", etc. as is the perception of most of the buyers in this market). And this approach makes sense for the most part, especially in light of the actual number of times sailors hit dangerously rough weather.

So what does this mean for me (and the majority of the market out there)?

At this point in my learning, and using this tragedy as an example, it means a few general things I think:

1. I need to prepare for the worst as much as I possibly can (gear, knowledge, abilities, strategies, etc.).
2. I need to be extremely (overly) conservative in my sailing, confining my sailing to mellower weather windows (not chancing it), "easier" places to sail, etc.
3. I will have to make sure I have enough capable crew on board to handle the forecast conditions.
4. I will have to do everything I can to keep learning better seamanship and preparedness - and know as much as I possibly can about the areas in which I sail.
5. I will have to practice in gradually more difficult conditions and locations to learn how to handle my boat, crew, and self, in tougher circumstances. (That's why I've always been a fan of BFS).
6. I will have to remember that there is a line that we can't cross - period - especially in light of the boat I have and my abilities. That line may change over time as I get better - but it will always be there.

There's a lot more...but I think the last one is the biggest one...and one that applies to most of the sailboat market out there with these kinds of popular boats.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Driven over that numerous times, You don't see many sailboats in that area generally. That's kinda crazy!










Great info! I agree on the boat not being suitable, it appears to me to be a nice weather/racing boat more than anything.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

How is the boat at anyway at fault in this?

If you don't like the trend in boat design (I don't, especially Deck Saloon designs) then don't by one, but there is really no reason this boat couldn't have safely completed the voyage it was on.

It seems to have proven it was, as boats usually are, able to withstand more than its crew.


----------



## LandLocked66c

midlifesailor said:


> How is the boat at anyway at fault in this?
> 
> If you don't like the trend in boat design (I don't, especially Deck Saloon designs) then don't by one, but there is really no reason this boat couldn't have safely completed the voyage it was on.
> 
> It seems to have proven it was, as boats usually are, able to withstand more than its crew.


No doubt, except if it had lost it's rudder...


----------



## JimMcGee

I've been really hesitant to weigh in because of my level of experience. But a couple of things keep floating up in my mind.

1 - Preparation; knowing as much as possible about local conditions along the route in places and conditions where you could/couldn't bail out.

2 - Having a schedule. I've always read that you shouldn't have a schedule but should always let the weather dictate your go-no-go decisions. Would this captain in this boat have normally sailed with this forecast if not for the rally schedule? Or would he have waited for a weather window that would have allowed him to make the trip in more benign conditions?

3 - How experienced was the captain sailing offshore in these kinds of conditions?

I'm not ready to say that this Beneteau shouldn't have been out there. I'm guessing similar boats completed the rally.

So maybe a question to be asked is what was different aboard Rule 62 compared to other production boats that _did_ complete the rally? As several others have said it's likely to be a list of things, not just one thing. Also as others have said I'd like to hear the captain's account of what happened. I think there are lessons to be learned from reading it.

Jim


----------



## TakeFive

midlifesailor said:


> How is the boat at anyway at fault in this?


I think his main point was that the boat design may have contributed to fatigue, exposure, and seasickness, and that those things may have then impaired the captain's judgement after several days at sea.


----------



## Vasco

JonEisberg said:


> Based on the pics Skip posted, the instrumentation is Raymarine.


Anyone sailing the Bahamas that relies on Raymarine Chartplotters that take Navionics chips is in for a big surprise. There are many errors in their chip. I have corresponded with Navionics pointing out the errors. They put out a new chip that was worse than the old one as they had to remove some "borrowed" material. They refuse to buy Explorer Chart data so their chips remain the worst ones going. Full of errors.


----------



## AE28

IKena said:


> nothing being cruel about an idiot who kill somebody by mere incompetence.


I find your Monday-morning quarterbacking and name-calling insensitive, at the very least!


----------



## PalmettoSailor

RhythmDoctor said:


> I think his main point was that the boat design may have contributed to fatigue, exposure, and seasickness, and that those things may have then impaired the captain's judgement after several days at sea.


The crews of Swan's aren't immune from that stuff either, but the point is taken.

My point is many, many similar boats, some arguably less capable, completed the trip from Norfolk to Tortola unscathed, with safe and happy crews.


----------



## Belisana

The whole lifejacket issue is something I'd like some feedback on. We don't know the type of PFD that Laura was wearing so this may not pertain at all to this case, but this tragic event is something that makes me 2nd-guess the inflatable harness PFD's. If the inflatable tube were to get punctured by rigging of the boat if you're thrown/rolled or by some other hardware that got into the water from the boat, or by a reef, then it woud deflate and be useless. In circumstances like this, it drives home the point - for me, at least - to get a bonafide Type I PFD for offshore passages.

We used inflatable harnesses for our cruise to the Bahamas and back. Upon arriving home, we decided to inflate it and show some folks how it worked. We yanked the manual cord - and nothing happened. Nothing at all. 

I remain skeptical but would welcome others' experiences.


----------



## smackdaddy

midlifesailor said:


> The crews of Swan's aren't immune from that stuff either, but the point is taken.
> 
> My point is many, many similar boats, some arguably less capable, completed the trip from Norfolk to Tortola unscathed, with safe and happy crews.


Mid I agree. As I stated above, I think it's the combination of the "faster, sexier" boats with the less experienced buyers that presents the most problems (the "trend" JE points out above).

Sure, plenty of people take these boats all over the place (so it's not really the boat per se). But when things get snotty, are the majority of those buyers prepared to deal with the elevated discomfort and difficulty these designs present?

My opinion is that most of the buyers in the market (me included) wouldn't be able to handle the same conditions in the Alden, much less the Jeanneau.

As JE says, we just don't know what we don't know when it comes to really nasty conditions.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Belisana said:


> We used inflatable harnesses for our cruise to the Bahamas and back. Upon arriving home, we decided to inflate it and show some folks how it worked. We yanked the manual cord - and nothing happened. Nothing at all.
> 
> I remain skeptical but would welcome others' experiences.


That is downright terrifying! Was it old?


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> But when things get snotty, are the majority of those buyers prepared to deal with the elevated discomfort and difficulty these designs present?
> 
> My opinion is that most of the buyers in the market (me included) wouldn't be able to handle the same conditions in the Alden, much less the Jeanneau.


I'm surprised you wouldn't want a salty'er boat for these reasons alone?


----------



## sailingdog

Belisana said:


> The whole lifejacket issue is something I'd like some feedback on. We don't know the type of PFD that Laura was wearing so this may not pertain at all to this case, but this tragic event is something that makes me 2nd-guess the inflatable harness PFD's. If the inflatable tube were to get punctured by rigging of the boat if you're thrown/rolled or by some other hardware that got into the water from the boat, or by a reef, then it woud deflate and be useless. In circumstances like this, it drives home the point - for me, at least - to get a bonafide Type I PFD for offshore passages.


I have both inflatable and foam Type I PFDs aboard my boat. The inflatables are for daily use and comfort, but the Type I's are what are reserved for serious emergencies.



> We used inflatable harnesses for our cruise to the Bahamas and back. Upon arriving home, we decided to inflate it and show some folks how it worked. We yanked the manual cord - and nothing happened. Nothing at all.


This can happen if the CO2 cartridge isn't fully seated in its socket. This is pretty common, and I generally recommend checking the cartridges to see that they're fully seated whenever donning an inflatable PFD. *Many of the designs will show "green" indicators even if the cartridge isn't seated completely.*



> I remain skeptical but would welcome others' experiences.


----------



## smackdaddy

LandLocked66c said:


> I'm surprised you wouldn't want a salty'er boat for these reasons alone?


I've thought a lot about it - and read a lot about it. And the simple answer, for me, is that I honestly don't.

The way I look at it (based on what I've read here and many places elsewhere) is that seriously heavy weather is fairly avoidable these days - especially with coastal and island cruising. And as many salts have said in the past, getting caught out in the bad stuff is very rare (less than 10% chance it's been said) - especially with good planning.

So, if my wife and kids will enjoy a less salty production boat and will be willing to cruise more because of the comfort and space it provides - that makes it worth it to me over an older HR, Tayana, Alden, Hinckley, etc. which would be in the same price range, but far less comfy.

Again, I'm focusing on the 90%+ of time that we'll spend on the boat in doable conditions - with the caveat that I'll need to be very conservative as I mentioned above to avoid that other 10%.

Even so, most production boats will do fine in that 10% if I don't screw it up.


----------



## IKena

Inexperienced people always try to analyse and figure out what to do/not to do to avoid a disaster like rule 62. They think it has to be with fancy reasons, that only experience will allow them to avoid.

The truth: most sailing accidents I have heard about happen from stupidity and incompetence. 

Yes, it can be explained (leaving wrong time, tired, wrong boat, whatever), but still it is incompetence. This being said, I did met a guy who was sank by killer whales (can't really say it was entirely his fault), and another attacked by pirates, who left him aboard without sails and engine, drifting: so YES, **** happens as well.

I've been saying on this forum, that you HAVE to stick with the old rules, and it IS as simple as that.

And yes, we all are at times incompetent at sea. Even though I have been lucky to cruise for 4 years without problems , I did make some mistakes, and survived only by luck.

I tell you one of my worst mistakes. It was on a passage from Sydney to New Zealand, on my old lady, a Pearson 365. As often in that area, unpredictable depressions starts within a day. Soon enough, we have a blown main AND a blown genoa. Not cool. I dont have fancy electronics aboard, so no wind meter. let's say it was blowing hard.
The wind being in a good direction, I decided to sail barepole, and I was doing a good 5 to 6 knot without sails.
So far so good, I expected this kind of scenario ,even though I had never experienced it before.
The wind eventually died down, and I put a spare main up and temporary small jib stayed on a halyard. The genoa halyard broke, so I needed to get up the mast to remove it, get the genoa down, and patch it (I did not have a spare genoa). 
Even though, I was not at all tired, or sick, just by being LAZY, I thought I would make it easy for the rest of the passage on jurry rigged jib. I simply did not feel like fixing the boat (AGAIN!), and I had plenty of time, all the tools and the skills to do it.
God I was wrong. Arriving close to the coast a few days later, the wind picked up again, and now was pushing me real bad on a lee shore. Needless to say I could not go against the wind (probably 30knots!) with a jurry rig jib.

So I had to rely on the engine to get me out of there. I went againt the wind at around 1.5knot, and barely made it around the coast. I had my anchor ready in case the engine died, but I was not very optimistic it would hold in 6-10 ft seas.

So now let's imagine I ended up on the beach. Would you guys try to analyse and figure out what mistakes, or gear failure, or boat design led me to the accident. You would, but the sad truth is, that I went against rule #1 of seamanship: keep the boat seaworhty and ship shape. 
I was too OPTIMIST, and too LAZY, to fix what needed to be fixed. I was STUPID and INCOMPETENT at that time. But unlike Rule 62, I was lucky.

My point, follow the rules, and you won't have to rely on luck to successfully complete a passage. Rule 62 did not follow the rules, that was his mistake. You don't need experience not to make that mistake. You just need to have what it takes to be a captain: know your seamanship rules and follow them. If you don't, you are just an idiot. And I too was an idiot!


----------



## tommays

Those wacky around the world Volvo people seem to like the big open boats


----------



## JonEisberg

midlifesailor said:


> How is the boat at anyway at fault in this?
> 
> If you don't like the trend in boat design (I don't, especially Deck Saloon designs) then don't by one, but there is really no reason this boat couldn't have safely completed the voyage it was on.
> 
> It seems to have proven it was, as boats usually are, able to withstand more than its crew.


You're right, of course - this boat was undoubtedly capable of this trip. My point was simply that several inherent aspects of this sort of design can present - in my opinion - severe liabilities for a relatively inexperienced, shorthanded crew on such a passage&#8230;

From the little we know, it appears their problems began with trouble with their autopilot&#8230; Well, such a boat is gonna be pretty demanding of an autopilot in heavy going. These modern boats that carry their beam so far aft, put them on a 20+ degree angle of heel in a seaway and that rudder will begin to stall with regularity. Look at this pic, even at a very modest degree of heel, you can see the top of the rudder is already beginning to pop free of the water. (Also, this pic clearly illustrates the height of the cockpit above the water, you don't think that crew is gonna be subject to far more motion than one aboard a boat like the Alden I showed earlier?)










High aspect rudder or not, that sort of configuration can quickly overwhelm the autopilot's ability to cope with the conditions, which will force the crew to steer in conditions that a more conventional/traditional design would handle with greater ease&#8230; Perhaps it's just coincidence, but another rally boat that had to divert to Bermuda with autopilot/steering related problems was an Aerodyne 47, another high performance design that is likely to make significant demands on an autopilot&#8230;

Of course, I'm one of those dinosaurs that believes a windvane is the most suitable self-steering mechanism for an offshore passagemaker, but we know precious few of these rally boats are so equipped these days&#8230; Can't have a windvane with a dinghy on stern davits, after all&#8230; (grin)

But for me, one look at that cockpit says it all&#8230; Such an expansive configuration is going to be extremely fatiguing over time, where do you brace yourself, and the helmsman is very exposed&#8230; Hell, I would be way more comfortable and protected on my own little 30' POS, huddled up under the dodger, or behind the cockpit weathercloths&#8230; Until you've sailed one of these flat-bottomed, lighter boats geared towards performance day after day offshore, it's hard to appreciate how sharp and brutal their motion can be, and how fatiguing life aboard them can become&#8230; Perhaps it's just me, but give me a more moderate design, heavier displacement, and sacrifice a bit of performance for an underbody with more directional stability, and will tend to look after the crew a bit more, instead of requiring the crew to look after it&#8230;

Finally, and I'm certainly in the minority these days, but IMHO this was another case of a crew that was seriously "over-boated" for such a passage&#8230; That is a BIG freakin' boat for a what I have to assume was a relatively inexperienced crew of 4 to head out into the North Atlantic in November. When the breeze gets up to 30 or so, the forces and loads on such a boat can become immense, well beyond most people's ability to manage manually, or without the potential for serious injury&#8230; I see so many cruisers out there nowadays in boats of a size which are WAY beyond their ability handle when the going gets rough&#8230; but again, that's probably just me&#8230;

When it comes to boats of that size, I'm definitely a wimp, no question about it...


----------



## btrayfors

The sea is not your friend, nor is it your enemy. It just is. 

It's been the same for thousands of years. It has multiple personalities, ranging from dead calm to Cat 5 hurricane conditions, and worse (the tornados which accompany). It's very adept at changing personalities in a very short time, and in surprising you just when you thought you knew what was coming next.

Wave height can vary from zero to well over 100 feet. Freak waves, and breaking waves in ocean inlets, can be MUCH higher than average.

The sea doesn't give a damn for your boat, be she a proper seagoing design or a Bendy Toy. The sea doesn't give a damn for your wile or your experience. The sea doesn't care a damn about your age or your strength or your stamina. The sea most certainly doesn't give a damn for your electronic gadgets.

Given these facts, any sailor who dares to venture out on the sea would be well-advised to do everything possible to prepare him/herself and his/her boat for potentially very dangerous conditions. Conditions which are way more challenging -- and threatening -- than any which were anticipated.

I've witnessed the same trends which Jon E described, having sailed for over five decades on waters around the world and, for some time now, working on boats which are preparing for ocean sailing. I cruise the boat shows and am amazed and, usually, disgusted....the builders, with few exceptions, don't give a damn for the sea their creations will be floating in. 

I've also noticed the trend of many/most cruisers these days to only venture out when predicted winds are below 10 knots, or 15 at the most. Their preoccupation seems to be with comfort, or perhaps it's the knowledge that their vessels -- to to say themselves -- are unprepared for greater challenges.

And, SmackDaddy, yes...most of the time they get away with it. Most of the time.

Rule 62 didn't.

Sunrise didn't (the boat which entered Oregon Inlet).

Rule 62 was a Jeanneau bottle boat....sexy, sleek, "fast", comfortable.

Sunrise, by contrast, was a Hallberg-Rassy 38....a very well-built sea boat.

In neither case was the boat at fault.

And, it's possible that adequate steps had been taken to prepare the boat(s) for the Carib 1500 Rally.

However, it's crystal clear that adequate steps to prepare the skipper(s) and, perhaps, the crew(s) were not taken.

Crew failure, not boat failure.

Which is not to say that BendyToys and Jenneaus and Hunters and Catalinas and the like are really suited for long ocean passages.

Bill


----------



## PalmettoSailor

IKena said:


> And yes, we all are at times incompetent at sea. Even though I have been lucky to cruise for 4 years without problems , I did make some mistakes, and survived only by luck.


And there is the crux of the discussion. The only way to get experience is to go get experience. If you pass the test, then you learn. If you don't pass the test, you become a thread on a sailing website to be flogged over incessantly. Knowing and heeding sage advice from mariners of old increases your odds of passing the test.


----------



## smackdaddy

btrayfors said:


> The sea is not your friend, nor is it your enemy. It just is.
> 
> It's been the same for thousands of years. It has multiple personalities, ranging from dead calm to Cat 5 hurricane conditions, and worse (the tornados which accompany). It's very adept at changing personalities in a very short time, and in surprising you just when you thought you knew what was coming next.
> 
> Wave height can vary from zero to well over 100 feet. Freak waves, and breaking waves in ocean inlets, can be MUCH higher than average.
> 
> The sea doesn't give a damn for your boat, be she a proper seagoing design or a Bendy Toy. The sea doesn't give a damn for your wile or your experience. The sea doesn't care a damn about your age or your strength or your stamina. The sea most certainly doesn't give a damn for your electronic gadgets.
> 
> Given these facts, any sailor who dares to venture out on the sea would be well-advised to do everything possible to prepare him/herself and his/her boat for potentially very dangerous conditions. Conditions which are way more challenging -- and threatening -- than any which were anticipated.
> 
> I've witnessed the same trends which Jon E described, having sailed for over five decades on waters around the world and, for some time now, working on boats which are preparing for ocean sailing. I cruise the boat shows and am amazed and, usually, disgusted....the builders, with few exceptions, don't give a damn for the sea their creations will be floating in.
> 
> I've also noticed the trend of many/most cruisers these days to only venture out when predicted winds are below 10 knots, or 15 at the most. Their preoccupation seems to be with comfort, or perhaps it's the knowledge that their vessels -- to to say themselves -- are unprepared for greater challenges.
> 
> And, SmackDaddy, yes...most of the time they get away with it. Most of the time.
> 
> Rule 62 didn't.
> 
> Sunrise didn't (the boat which entered Oregon Inlet).
> 
> Rule 62 was a Jeanneau bottle boat....sexy, sleek, "fast", comfortable.
> 
> Sunrise, by contrast, was a Hallberg-Rassy 38....a very well-built sea boat.
> 
> In neither case was the boat at fault.
> 
> And, it's possible that adequate steps had been taken to prepare the boat(s) for the Carib 1500 Rally.
> 
> However, it's crystal clear that adequate steps to prepare the skipper(s) and, perhaps, the crew(s) were not taken.
> 
> Crew failure, not boat failure.
> 
> Which is not to say that BendyToys and Jenneaus and Hunters and Catalinas and the like are really suited for long ocean passages.
> 
> Bill


I think you're right bt. No argument here.

PS - +1 mid.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Is there a list of boats that competed? What make won the race?


----------



## speciald

On the other hand - after we arrived in Tortola 2 years ago - one of my crew took it upon himself to rinse off all our inflatables and all of them inflated after a few minutes.


----------



## Leocat66

It seems to me that most of todays boats along the lines of Rule 62 are really becoming on the water condos or RV's. The reason IMHO is to appeal to the wives and girls, therefor allowing the guys with the bucks to make the purchase. 

They, for the most part are terrible sea boats especially for those with short crew. They pound to weather and have little if any course holding ability. Try going below for a sandwich and a cold one without an auto pilot or when doing it alone. 

They seem to be more party and day sailing types with coastal cruising capabilities at most for a couple or two. They allow one to be thrown around the cabin like a ping pong ball in heavy weather. Back a few years ago I remember the "Endeavor Dash" and that was mild by todays trend. 

Real sea boats shine on the comfort and ultimate stability index also.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Rally Class Results
2010
Performance Class I
1 Madrugada Pacer 42 Steve Black
2 Sunsets MacGregor 65 Howard Weiss & Kelly Reed
Rally Class II
1 Fado Fado Denis McCarthy
2 Windara J/46 Glenn & Elsa Gustafson
3 Skitterygusset J/46 Chris Holm
4 Magnetic Sky Hylas 70 Ray Nissan
5 Champlain Oyster 56 George & Sam Chandler
DNF -
Finished in
Puerto
Rico
Agua Dulce Hylas 54 Charles Cunningham
Rally Class III
1 Special Delivery Taswell AS 58 Bill & Diana Quinlan
2 Joy For All Farr 50 Gil & Joy Smith
3 Zafu 444 J/44 CR Mike Scott
4 Sapphire Jeanneau 54DS Bill & Linda Knowles
Rally Class IV
1 Pelekan Island Packet
485
Tom & Jos Hollway
2 Mystery Seguin 46 Ward McElhinny
3 Glory Jeanneau 45.2 Case & Patty Whittemore
4 Dancing in the
Dark
Island Packet
485
David & Sally Heaphy
5 Aurora Stevens 47 David & Rorie Craig
DNF –
diverted to
Bermuda
Kiva Aerodyne 47 David & Beverly Peel
Rally Class V
1 Smidge Hallberg Rassey
43
Maury & Bonnie Benbow
2 Island Time Morgan OI 41 Peter Wallo
3 Southern Cross Lagoon 380 Stephen Spracher
4 North Star Bristol 47.7 Hank & Tricia Semmelhack
5 Indulgence Pearson 424 John & Lorri Sommer
6 Oracle Gemini 105Mc Peter & Carole Meyers
DNF –
diverted to
FL
Sophie Hallberg Rassey
40
Harald & Christel Ertl
Bahamas Rally Class
1 RNR Prout 50 Reg Noble
2 Runaway Conser 47 Bill & Maureen Danilczyk
3 Entrepreneurship Catana 50 Stephen Schambach
4 Maholo Valiant 42 Bernie Jakits & Kate Christensen
5 La Belle Helene IV Sabre 402 Hank & Ellen Lucas
6 So Mote It Be Jeanneau 49 Bill & Robin Kammerer
7 Bentana Gulfstar 41K Judy Long & Stephen Sellinger


----------



## speciald

Yes - there is a list of the winners of the rally classes.

RESULTS OF THE 2010 CARIBBEAN 1500 


Class Boat Name PHRF Elapsed Time + Engine Hrs -Allowance = Corrected Place 

1 Hammer DNS 

1 Madrugada 12 175:37 00:02 4:15:00 171:24:00 1 (custom)
1 Sunsets 27 166:52 16:19 9:33:45 173:37:15 2 (Mac 65)

2 Club Carp Cruise 
2 Between the Sheets DNS
2 Fado Fado 42 173:48 5:31 14:52:30 164:26:30 1 
2 Windara 45 178:10 18:25 15:56:15 180:38:45 2 
2 Skittery Gussett 45 194:40 26:40 15:56:15 205:23:45 3 
2 Magnetic Sky 24 182:12 50:12 8:30:00 223:54:00 4 (Tyana60?)

3 Agua Dulce DNF 
3 Special Delivery 57 176:40 20:14 20:11:15 176:42:45 1 (Taswell 58)
3 Joy for All 51 175:05 23:26 18:03:45 180:27:15 2 (Farr50)
3 Zafu 444 48 186:20 21:49 17:00:00 191:09:00 3 (modified J44)
3 Sapphire 51 190:10 57:45 18:03:45 229:51:15 4 Beneteau 57)

4 Kiva DNF 
4 Pelekan 96 203:40 00:00 34:00:00 169:40:00 1 
4 Mystery 93 186:02 25:54 32:56:15 178:59:45 2 
4 Glory 69 193:17 28:03 24:26:15 196:53:45 3 
4 Dancing in the Dark 96 197:09 54:43 34:00:00 217:52:00 4 
4 Aurora 90 240:30 103:30 31:52:30 312:07:30 5 

5 Sophie DNF 
5 Smidge 138 186:55 12:51 48:52:30 150:53:30 1 
5 Island Time 162 195:10 26:00 57:22:30 163:47:30 2 
5 Southern Cross 99 206:28 16:39 35:03:45 188:03:15 3 
5 North Star 114 213:23 35:51 40:22:30 208:51:30 4 
5 Indulgence 156 239:21 40:36 55:15:00 224:42:00 5 
5 Oracle 117 216:52 49:18 41:26:15 224:43:45 6 

We were first in class. I don't have my list of entries here - its on the boat. The boats ranged from 65 to 34 feet (a Catalina)


----------



## Belisana

LandLocked66c said:


> That is downright terrifying! Was it old?





sailingdog said:


> I have both inflatable and foam Type I PFDs aboard my boat. The inflatables are for daily use and comfort, but the Type I's are what are reserved for serious emergencies.
> 
> This can happen if the CO2 cartridge isn't fully seated in its socket. This is pretty common, and I generally recommend checking the cartridges to see that they're fully seated whenever donning an inflatable PFD. *Many of the designs will show "green" indicators even if the cartridge isn't seated completely.*


No, not old. We bought them just before the trip so they were less than 12 months old. We checked all the expire dates before leaving and we (or least, I) checked often to see that the green indicator was showing.

I'm not saying that such malfunctions are common, but if my life may depend on something working, I want it to be 100% and not 95%. Who wants to be in that 5%?

As far as reserving foam PFDs for emergency use, you never know when that "emergency" may be and have time to plan for it - and also hunt down or dig out that foam PFD from under a bunch of lines in a locker somewhere. This is just my opinion and I know others who really swear by the inflatable PFDs...

Thanks for the responses.


----------



## Barquito

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."

This only works around the edges. In the middle, in the meaty part of the thing, you really need to have the skills and good seamanship before the sh*t hits the mains'l.


----------



## imagine2frolic

sailingdog said:


> I find it very tragic that Laura lost her life due to a very bad decision by the captain.
> 
> Why they tried to enter the reef pass, at night, during a rage, without local knowledge is completely beyond me. It makes absolutely no sense, especially since the Northeast Providence Channel was just a bit further south, and would have been a good choice to enter, since it is 25 miles wide or so and OVER A MILE DEEP. It would have given the boat some shelter and a chance to rest/recover until daylight came.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The area where Rule 62 tried to enter the Bahama banks is circled in *RED*.


This is what I was typing about earlier. Just 3 hours south you round the Abacos, and you have a leeward side. There's an anchorage just to the west of the tip of the island. By turning south instead of west he would have had the storm on his quarter, and not his beam. Fear & fatigue are a bad combination..........*i2f*


----------



## btrayfors

Here's where it would be really good to know WTF they were thinking:

The decision to turn further west from a course which would have taken them around the southern end of Grand Abaco Island was made 12 hours before they came to grief.

Eight hours before the disaster, they squared away for the North Bar Channel, according to the waypoints. 

So, they were on course toward disaster for at least eight hours.

I suppose the operable question is not WTF were they thinking, but rather, was anyone aboard actually thinking? And, did anyone aboard have enough experience to KNOW that running an Atlantic inlet in those conditions was tantamount to suicide?

Bill


----------



## sailingdog

Belisana said:


> No, not old. We bought them just before the trip so they were less than 12 months old. We checked all the expire dates before leaving and we (or least, I) checked often to see that the green indicator was showing.
> 
> I'm not saying that such malfunctions are common, but if my life may depend on something working, I want it to be 100% and not 95%. Who wants to be in that 5%?


Check that the cartridge is fully seated each time you put it on. Some models are less prone to this issue than others. The ones with the bayonet type fitting on the cartridge are less likely to have this problem.



> As far as reserving foam PFDs for emergency use, you never know when that "emergency" may be and have time to plan for it - and also hunt down or dig out that foam PFD from under a bunch of lines in a locker somewhere. This is just my opinion and I know others who really swear by the inflatable PFDs...
> 
> Thanks for the responses.


The Type I PFDs are not hidden or buried on my boat. They're stowed in the forepeak with nothing on top of them or preventing immediate access to them.


----------



## sailingdog

imagine2frolic said:


> This is what I was typing about earlier. Just 3 hours south you round the Abacos, and you have a leeward side. There's an anchorage just to the west of the tip of the island. By turning south instead of west he would have had the storm on his quarter, and not his beam. Fear & fatigue are a bad combination..........*i2f*


I don't understand why anyone would risk entering a reef passage when they could take shelter safely elsewhere. Any boat headed to that area needs to keep in mind what I said back in post #97.



sailingdog said:


> I'd point out that the Bahama banks tend to be really dangerous in heavier conditions. The combination of very shallow waters in the banks and the very deep waters nearby can result in very, very dangerous conditions very quickly.
> 
> For instance, in the Exumas, Exuma Sound is almost a mile deep half a mile from shore, but as you go west out of Exuma Sound, you often end up in waters that are less than 20' deep....if the wind is from the east and of any strength, you can see some really hellacious waves forming there. This is pretty common in many areas of the Bahamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Trying to enter any of these types of areas in heavy weather is really ill advised.*


----------



## IKena

Other scenario based on what 90% people out there are doing:

They approach the inlet under engine alone, with no back up plan. The engine died, no time to raise sail and maneuver, they are pushed on the reef.

Lesson: always enter the a pass under sail, and keep engine in gear at normal speed to use as an aid/backup. Most people go under engine alone relying on luck to stay out of trouble!


----------



## AE28

Belisana said:


> As far as reserving foam PFDs for emergency use, you never know when that "emergency" may be and have time to plan for it - and also hunt down or dig out that foam PFD from under a bunch of lines in a locker somewhere. This is just my opinion and I know others who really swear by the inflatable PFDs...


My foam PFD isn't my emergency PFD, it IS my PFD.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

speciald said:


> Yes - there is a list of the winners of the rally classes.
> 
> RESULTS OF THE 2010 CARIBBEAN 1500
> 
> Class Boat Name PHRF Elapsed Time + Engine Hrs -Allowance = Corrected Place
> 
> 1 Hammer DNS
> 
> 1 Madrugada 12 175:37 00:02 4:15:00 171:24:00 1 (custom)
> 1 Sunsets 27 166:52 16:19 9:33:45 173:37:15 2 (Mac 65)
> 
> 2 Club Carp Cruise
> 2 Between the Sheets DNS
> 2 Fado Fado 42 173:48 5:31 14:52:30 164:26:30 1
> 2 Windara 45 178:10 18:25 15:56:15 180:38:45 2
> 2 Skittery Gussett 45 194:40 26:40 15:56:15 205:23:45 3
> 2 Magnetic Sky 24 182:12 50:12 8:30:00 223:54:00 4 (Tyana60?)
> 
> 3 Agua Dulce DNF
> 3 Special Delivery 57 176:40 20:14 20:11:15 176:42:45 1 (Taswell 58)
> 3 Joy for All 51 175:05 23:26 18:03:45 180:27:15 2 (Farr50)
> 3 Zafu 444 48 186:20 21:49 17:00:00 191:09:00 3 (modified J44)
> 3 Sapphire 51 190:10 57:45 18:03:45 229:51:15 4 Beneteau 57)
> 
> 4 Kiva DNF
> 4 Pelekan 96 203:40 00:00 34:00:00 169:40:00 1
> 4 Mystery 93 186:02 25:54 32:56:15 178:59:45 2
> 4 Glory 69 193:17 28:03 24:26:15 196:53:45 3
> 4 Dancing in the Dark 96 197:09 54:43 34:00:00 217:52:00 4
> 4 Aurora 90 240:30 103:30 31:52:30 312:07:30 5
> 
> 5 Sophie DNF
> 5 Smidge 138 186:55 12:51 48:52:30 150:53:30 1
> 5 Island Time 162 195:10 26:00 57:22:30 163:47:30 2
> 5 Southern Cross 99 206:28 16:39 35:03:45 188:03:15 3
> 5 North Star 114 213:23 35:51 40:22:30 208:51:30 4
> 5 Indulgence 156 239:21 40:36 55:15:00 224:42:00 5
> 5 Oracle 117 216:52 49:18 41:26:15 224:43:45 6
> 
> We were first in class. I don't have my list of entries here - its on the boat. The boats ranged from 65 to 34 feet (a Catalina)


There was a Caliber 33 in there also. They finished near the back of the pack but way ahead of the Catalina that was days behind the fleet leaving the east coast.


----------



## billyruffn

smackdaddy said:


> So what does this mean for me (and the majority of the market out there)?
> 
> At this point in my learning, and using this tragedy as an example, it means a few general things I think:
> 
> 1. I need to prepare for the worst as much as I possibly can (gear, knowledge, abilities, strategies, etc.).
> 2. I need to be extremely (overly) conservative in my sailing, confining my sailing to mellower weather windows (not chancing it), "easier" places to sail, etc.
> 3. I will have to make sure I have enough capable crew on board to handle the forecast conditions.
> 4. I will have to do everything I can to keep learning better seamanship and preparedness - and know as much as I possibly can about the areas in which I sail.
> 5. I will have to practice in gradually more difficult conditions and locations to learn how to handle my boat, crew, and self, in tougher circumstances. (That's why I've always been a fan of BFS).
> 6. I will have to remember that there is a line that we can't cross - period - especially in light of the boat I have and my abilities. That line may change over time as I get better - but it will always be there.


SD,

Your analysis is good. But remember,you don't need a real "offshore passage-maker" unless you're going to do real offshore passages.

So...........if you're not going to do the North Atlantic in December, or Gulf of Alaska in early May.....

Buy a boat in the islands........there are many for sale coming off charter

Sail it in the islands...........there's lots to see that will keep the mate and family happy for many a year.

Keep it in the islands........Grenada and Trinidad are good options, but insurance companies are relaxing a bit and you could also investigate places like Antigua and St. Lucia for off-season storage.

There are many people who follow this strategy.....get the boat to the eastern Caribbean and never leave!

PS -- Your six rules are good practices regardless of where you sail.


----------



## smackdaddy

billyruffn said:


> SD,
> 
> Your analysis is good. But remember,you don't need a real "offshore passage-maker" unless you're going to do real offshore passages.
> 
> So...........if you're not going to do the North Atlantic in December, or Gulf of Alaska in early May.....
> 
> Buy a boat in the islands........there are many for sale coming off charter
> 
> Sail it in the islands...........there's lots to see that will keep the mate and family happy for many a year.
> 
> Keep it in the islands........Grenada and Trinidad are good options, but insurance companies are relaxing a bit and you could also investigate places like Antigua and St. Lucia for off-season storage.
> 
> There are many people who follow this strategy.....get the boat to the eastern Caribbean and never leave!
> 
> PS -- Your six rules are good practices regardless of where you sail.


Thanks billy.

It looks like we'll actually be keeping the boat in Florida for the most part (easier to get to and from).

BTW - what kind of boat do you need for a run in the Gulf of Alaska in May?


----------



## billyruffn

Belisana said:


> The whole lifejacket issue is something I'd like some feedback on. We don't know the type of PFD that Laura was wearing so this may not pertain at all to this case, but this tragic event is something that makes me 2nd-guess the inflatable harness PFD's. If the inflatable tube were to get punctured by rigging of the boat if you're thrown/rolled or by some other hardware that got into the water from the boat, or by a reef, then it woud deflate and be useless. In circumstances like this, it drives home the point - for me, at least - to get a bonafide Type I PFD for offshore passages.


Belisana makes a very good point made here!!!

For years (on shore and off) I sailed with inflatable PFD's to meet our life jacket requirement. On my first Carib 1500, Rick Palm (head safety inspector) looked over my gear and said, "What happens if one of those gets punctured while you're climbing up a cargo net of a steamer who's stopped to rescue you". I smiled and ignored him. We sailed south with our inflatables and we did another 12,000 uneventful miles with them.
But, I never forgot Rick's question. What if....?

Five years later we're getting ready to do another Carib 1500. Again, the safety inspector gets on my case because we don't have inherently bouyant Type 1 life jackets. My reply this time is, "Where do you suggest I store them?" The safety inspector says, "It's your boat. You're the skipper" and asks me to sign off on a waiver because I don't have the "proper gear".

This time I remember Rick's admonition from fives year prior, I swallow my pride and trot off to West Marine -- $300+ dollars later I am the proud owner of 6 cubic feet of safety gear that I have no place to store. All because of "what if...."

Imagine what it might have been like when the mast came down on Rule 62. With the boat rolling in the swell and spars and wire flying around, it's easy to see how a USCG approved inflatable PFD could have been punctured, even before anyone stepped into the liferaft.


----------



## billyruffn

smackdaddy said:


> BTW - what kind of boat do you need for a run in the Gulf of Alaska in May?


See Discovery Channel -- Deadliest Catch! Any of those boats will do. (BR did it in mid June. We only had two gales.)


----------



## smackdaddy

Then what is the best option for a Type-1 that isn't crazy bulky and is somewhat comfortable? Does such a beastie exist?


----------



## billyruffn

*Stirring the pot...*

OK.....I know I'm sticking my neck out here, but I got to thinking yesterday....what was the weather off that inlet? And how big an inlet was it? I've gotten an impression from our conversation here that it was "raging" -- wind blowing a gale, seas breaking port and starboard; and that it was a narrow inlet in a reef only a fool would enter under the best of circumstances.

So I decided to look for some facts.

CD provided a chart in post #43. My crude estimate indicates the inlet they were attempting to run is about 300 yards wide. On a boat like Rule 62, 300 yards is about 400 boat beam widths. There's a little room for error there.

I also checked a Grib file of the weather in the area I downloaded on Friday, the day before they were wrecked. (I was following the Carib 1500). The Saturday forecast was for north winds, 15 knots in the area of Abaco Is.

Question: was the forecast wrong, or was it "raging" at 15 knots? Does anyone know what the weather conditions actually were that night? Locals apparently said it was a rage. Was it a rage on Friday, or Saturday? Was it raging Saturday night or had the winds calmed down a bit? Conditions on a stretch of beach 10 miles north or 10 miles south might have been very different to those off the inlet Rule 62 attempted to run. In one area the swell might break a 1/2 mile off the shore, in another it might be 100 yards off the beach. Conditions along a beach front are not the same as conditions off an inlet. Anyone know what the conditions were off the inlet that night....for sure?

If the 15 knots wind is approximately right, and if my calculation of a 300 yard wide inlet is correct, then all we've got here is a really big swell, which obviously got much bigger as they approached a fairly wide inlet. If the 1/2 moon was 45 degrees up to the south, the visibility wouldn't have been that bad........

......and I go back to my earlier post that they were "feeling their way in" and got swamped by a really big wave that got big because of shoaling water and an outgoing tide in in the inlet.

I'm not saying it was a good idea to attempt it....I'm only saying you don't have to be a complete idiot to initiate the approach, to see how it goes, to "feel your way in", and then you find yourself in breaking waves and deep doo-doo.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can understand how it happened, and it's not a case of black and white, dumb and dumber. A tired skipper with a tired, but alert crew approaches a coast to have a look to see if they might get in....they proceed slowly attempting to see what lies ahead and....


----------



## billyruffn

smackdaddy said:


> Then what is the best option for a Type-1 that isn't crazy bulky and is somewhat comfortable? Does such a beastie exist?


No.


----------



## IKena

billyruffn said:


> . Anyone know what the conditions were off the inlet that night....for sure?
> 
> If the 15 knots wind is approximately right, and if my calculation of a 300 yard wide inlet is correct, then all we've got here is a really big swell, which obviously got much bigger as they approached a fairly wide inlet. If the 1/2 moon was 45 degrees up to the south, the visibility wouldn't have been that bad........


How do you predict the swell based on the width of the inlet and how can you tell if it's breaking just by looking at current wind condition?

I will certainly **** my pants navigating reefs with moon light good companion at sea though.

The problem then is the skipper had to trust his GPS position and chart accuracy. 300 yard divide by 2, that 150yard. easy to be off by 100 yard.
Even it it was calm and no rage, there was a good probability he end up on the reef.


----------



## billyruffn

IKena said:


> How do you predict the swell based on the width of the inlet and how can you tell if it's breaking just by looking at current wind condition?
> 
> ......easy to be off by 100 yard.
> Even it it was calm and no rage, there was a good probability he end up on the reef.


"How do you predict"....didn't say you could. That's why someone might be tempted to have a look-see.

"easy to be off by 100 yds".....if I were to attempt something this foolish, I'd have the radar on to keep me in the middle, and, of course, the depth sounder going to avoid the really thin water.....

but all that doesn't do you any good when you get hammered by a really big wave.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Still scares the **** out of me!


----------



## SVAuspicious

billyruffn said:


> I also checked a Grib file of the weather in the area I downloaded on Friday, the day before they were wrecked. (I was following the Carib 1500). The Saturday forecast was for north winds, 15 knots in the area of Abaco Is.


Remember that gribs don't show the effect of fronts and other discontinuities. Check the real weather products from NOAA or UK Met for that period.


----------



## btrayfors

Exactly!

The nearest WX station in the Abacos was reporting at the time of the incident:

WSpd 10.5 m/s 19kts
Gusts 12.7 m/s 23 kts
WvHt 4.19 mtrs 12-13'

Conditions were moderating. However, this says NOTHING about the fact that a hurricane (Tomas) had recently passed and it had been blowing hard for some days.

Approaching an unknown Atlantic inlet on a lee shore at night for a "looksee" after days of heavy weather is madness -- or just plain ignorance.

....like sticking your arm into the lion's cage to see if he's friendly

Bill


----------



## JonEisberg

billyruffn said:


> OK.....I know I'm sticking my neck out here, but I got to thinking yesterday....what was the weather off that inlet? And how big an inlet was it? I've gotten an impression from our conversation here that it was "raging" -- wind blowing a gale, seas breaking port and starboard; and that it was a narrow inlet in a reef only a fool would enter under the best of circumstances.
> 
> So I decided to look for some facts.
> 
> CD provided a chart in post #43. My crude estimate indicates the inlet they were attempting to run is about 300 yards wide. On a boat like Rule 62, 300 yards is about 400 boat beam widths. There's a little room for error there.
> 
> I also checked a Grib file of the weather in the area I downloaded on Friday, the day before they were wrecked. (I was following the Carib 1500). The Saturday forecast was for north winds, 15 knots in the area of Abaco Is.
> 
> Question: was the forecast wrong, or was it "raging" at 15 knots? Does anyone know what the weather conditions actually were that night? Locals apparently said it was a rage. Was it a rage on Friday, or Saturday? Was it raging Saturday night or had the winds calmed down a bit? Conditions on a stretch of beach 10 miles north or 10 miles south might have been very different to those off the inlet Rule 62 attempted to run. In one area the swell might break a 1/2 mile off the shore, in another it might be 100 yards off the beach. Conditions along a beach front are not the same as conditions off an inlet. Anyone know what the conditions were off the inlet that night....for sure?
> 
> If the 15 knots wind is approximately right, and if my calculation of a 300 yard wide inlet is correct, then all we've got here is a really big swell, which obviously got much bigger as they approached a fairly wide inlet. If the 1/2 moon was 45 degrees up to the south, the visibility wouldn't have been that bad........
> 
> ......and I go back to my earlier post that they were "feeling their way in" and got swamped by a really big wave that got big because of shoaling water and an outgoing tide in in the inlet.
> 
> I'm not saying it was a good idea to attempt it....I'm only saying you don't have to be a complete idiot to initiate the approach, to see how it goes, to "feel your way in", and then you find yourself in breaking waves and deep doo-doo.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I can understand how it happened, and it's not a case of black and white, dumb and dumber. A tired skipper with a tired, but alert crew approaches a coast to have a look to see if they might get in....they proceed slowly attempting to see what lies ahead and....


A "rage" is the Bahamian vernacular for the sea state surrounding a cut or break in the reef&#8230; the actual weather conditions and wind strength can often be immaterial, it's entirely possible to have "rage" conditions persisting for days in calm conditions, when they would be entirely a function of the swell&#8230;

But, we do know that the swell that had been running in the Bahamas and along the Florida coast during that time was the biggest they had seen in many years, and would have created rage conditions about as bad as you'll ever see&#8230;

Actually, I think your scenario could actually be a likely one, he may have intended simply to attempt to work in closer to simply assess the situation without necessarily committing himself to an entry&#8230;. But again, that's just another indication of his lack of awareness of the potential danger of doing so, especially at night&#8230; As anyone who has sat off an inlet entrance for awhile assessing their entry knows, it's entirely likely a rogue or larger set of seas can surprise you at any time, cresting or breaking much sooner than the average, and catching one unaware&#8230;

Still, any way you figure it, the math of attempting to enter a cut with a 6' draft when the reported swell height roughly equals the water depth is not very favorable, and one should be able to figure that out without having to go in to "have a look"&#8230;

Incidentally, you mention the use of radar to assist such an entry in your other post above. In such conditions, with that sort of wave height, the degree of sea clutter would have likely rendered radar virtually useless&#8230; Furthermore, it is a fringing reef, not the cays themselves that border the North Bar Channel, that define the width of that cut&#8230; And that, of course, is the primary reason why it is so risky to navigate so many parts of the Bahamas at night or in poor light, where eyeball navigation and the ability to read the water - and what is BENEATH the surface - is the surest way to go&#8230;

One thing I've wondered about this incident right from the start, has anyone ever seen a photo of RULE 62 from the start of the Rally? I'd be very curious to know whether she might have been equipped with a full-cockpit enclosure? In the pics Skip posted, I do see a couple of fittings on the stern rail that indicate some sort of bimini might have been in place, but that's about it&#8230; But IMHO, the trend towards these cockpit greenhouses that are becoming so commonplace today can be a very dangerous one, making safe navigation at night all but impossible, and insulating the skipper from the actual conditions that may exist "outside" to a great degree&#8230; If in fact RULE 62 had been so configured, in my opinion it could have played a major factor in this incident - but all that is just a hunch, of course&#8230; But I'd still be very curious to see what sort of dodger and whatever else this boat may have been fitted with, on so many boats today, these measures of cockpit/companionway protection can really inhibit piloting and the safe operation of a vessel from the helm to an extraordinary degree&#8230;


----------



## Vasco

JonEisberg said:


> A "rage" is the Bahamian vernacular for the sea state surrounding a cut or break in the reef&#8230; the actual weather conditions and wind strength can often be immaterial, it's entirely possible to have "rage" conditions persisting for days in calm conditions, when they would be entirely a function of the swell&#8230;


Very true! I have seen cuts (from the safety of a hilltop) looking like Hawaii Five O when the wind speed was 10 -15 knots. The swell is a major factor and when they predict large northerly swells - take care.


----------



## tommays

So far i learned they have a different name for how the current can affect the sea state as it passes over shallow water and its bad to try and pass through 

Rages:

Rages generally occur on the Atlantic side of the inlets during the passage of cold fronts when the strong northeast swell enters the shallow Bahama Bank in one of the
passages. The result is is very big, steep seas that can make the passage - well not passable in those conditions. Although this can be an issue in many places, one
notable place this occurs that affects many cruisers is the Whale Cay passage in the Abacos. A long sandy shoal extending from the Treasure Cay peninsula out to Whale
Cay means most moderate to deep draft boats must exit the Sea of Abaco and pass on the ocean side of Whale Cay. A rage can shut this passage down for days. One way I
often work with this weather when heading south is to time a passage south through here with the final day(s) of a northwest wind before it turns northeast creating rage
conditions. I then usually still have a few days of northeast and east wind to continue south perhaps to Little Harbour. If I'm heading back to Marsh Harbour (when chartering
for example), I can then ride the east to southeast wind back

Which happens in inlets all over the place except they seem to last much longer down there

On the weat coast of the US passing over Bars at a bad time seems to be the killer mistake


----------



## s.runals

As to what the conditions were on the "ground" the day of accident I can tell you from being there that Sat inside the sea were very calm - winds 12-15 maybe a little higher but looking out at the sea and the reefs from Nippers they were HUGE. The cruisers net had been reporting the two before and the two days after the passages except for large boats were not passable. We anchoraged out that night just inside the East Loggerhead channel (by the Whale) and were able to watch the seas breaking on the reefs - HUGE. This is a little further north than where Rule 62 came to rest but while the wind was not a factor, the swells were HUGE because of the storms out in the Atlantic.


----------



## sailingdog

*Anytime you have swells passing from extremely deep waters (5000'+) to relatively shallow waters (<50'), you're going to have some serious problems.* That describes almost all of the banks in the Bahamas, as I've said previously. Most of the Bahamian banks are located next to very deep water-like Exuma Sound, where the water is 5000'+ deep less than a half-mile from shore, and on the other side of the islands, like Stocking Island, the water is not even 35' deep.


----------



## Sixpoint

sailingdog said:


> *Anytime you have swells passing from extremely deep waters (5000'+) to relatively shallow waters (<50'), you're going to have some serious problems.* That describes almost all of the banks in the Bahamas, as I've said previously. Most of the Bahamian banks are located next to very deep water-like Exuma Sound, where the water is 5000'+ deep less than a half-mile from shore, and on the other side of the islands, like Stocking Island, the water is not even 35' deep.


Makes sense. Even though I have no real offshore experience, on the lake that I'm familiar with you can watch water "shoal up" on shallow areas near the shore and the waves increase in both height and frequency. Although I'm seeing it on a micro-scale, I can only imagine that it would have the same effect, only greater, at sea; thus making rough-but-doable seas into the stuff of nightmares, almost instantly.

Or I could be wrong. 

Peace,

6P


----------



## tommays

You can go out on Long Island Sound by and area called the race and see it everyday on the flood 

On a flat clam day there is line across the water that looks made made and tothe east is flat calm and to the west it looks like a whitewater river


----------



## PCP

billyruffn said:


> ...
> ......and I go back to my earlier post that they were "feeling their way in" and got swamped by a really big wave that got big because of shoaling water and an outgoing tide in in the inlet.
> 
> .. A tired skipper with a tired, but alert crew approaches a coast to have a look to see if they might get in....they proceed slowly attempting to see what lies ahead and....





s.runals said:


> As to what the conditions were on the "ground" the day of accident I can tell you from being there that Sat inside the sea were very calm - winds 12-15 maybe a little higher but looking out at the sea and the reefs from Nippers they were HUGE. The cruisers net had been reporting the two before and the two days after the passages except for large boats were not passable. We anchoraged out that night just inside the East Loggerhead channel (by the Whale) and were able to watch the seas breaking on the reefs - HUGE. This is a little further north than where Rule 62 came to rest but while the wind was not a factor, the swells were HUGE because of the storms out in the Atlantic.





btrayfors said:


> ...
> Conditions were moderating. However, this says NOTHING about the fact that a hurricane (Tomas) had recently passed and it had been blowing hard for some days.
> 
> Approaching an unknown Atlantic inlet on a lee shore at night for a "looksee" after days of heavy weather is madness -- or just plain ignorance.
> 
> ....like sticking your arm into the lion's cage to see if he's friendly
> 
> Bill


Well, I think the above posts sums out pretty well the situation.

I agree with Bill. Approaching at night a difficult passage with heavy seas is never a good decision.

Heavy seas and weak wind just makes it a lot worse because you don't have the sail power to counteract the seas and the boat will not be "tight" on a tack, but just bouncing around. On those conditions and with big waves and messy seas it is possible that the boat motoring (without sails) could not make way against the seas. It has already happened to me.



midlifesailor said:


> How is the boat at anyway at fault in this?
> If you don't like the trend in boat design (I don't, especially Deck Saloon designs) then don't by one, but there is really no reason this boat couldn't have safely completed the voyage it was on.
> It seems to have proven it was, as boats usually are, able to withstand more than its crew.


I fully agree.

Attempting a risky passage at night is bad seamanship. Doing that without life lines (that would have maintained them in the boat) is just&#8230;madness.

The boat was not the problem

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sailingdog

Of course, at night in less than crystal clear conditions, how much useful visibility is there really? 100 yards might be pushing it, especially in remote areas where there is no loom or light pollution from brightly lit urban areas.

Also, in low light, it can be much more difficult to determine what the sea state is.

I'd also point out that in coral strewn areas like the Bahamas, making an entrance when you can't see the coral heads is not the brightest move in the world. Coral heads don't always appear on the chart plotters, and they're basically invisible at night. It only takes a single coral head in the wrong place to ruin your approach and take your life.



billyruffn said:


> "How do you predict"....didn't say you could. That's why someone might be tempted to have a look-see.
> 
> "easy to be off by 100 yds".....if I were to attempt something this foolish, I'd have the radar on to keep me in the middle, and, of course, the depth sounder going to avoid the really thin water.....
> 
> but all that doesn't do you any good when you get hammered by a really big wave.


----------



## billyruffn

JonEisberg said:


> Incidentally, you mention the use of radar to assist such an entry in your other post above. In such conditions, with that sort of wave height, the degree of sea clutter would have likely rendered radar virtually useless&#8230; Furthermore, it is a fringing reef, not the cays themselves that border the North Bar Channel, that define the width of that cut&#8230; And that, of course, is the primary reason why it is so risky to navigate so many parts of the Bahamas at night or in poor light, where eyeball navigation and the ability to read the water - and what is BENEATH the surface - is the surest way to go&#8230;
> 
> One thing I've wondered about this incident right from the start, has anyone ever seen a photo of RULE 62 from the start of the Rally? I'd be very curious to know whether she might have been equipped with a full-cockpit enclosure?


Re radar....I agree big swell degrades it's performance, but intermittent returns will give you some indication of where you are relative to the land, and comparing that with a chart can help you stay in a channel.

Re channel size.... I agree you cant sail over reefs, so I measured the width between the (5m?) contour lines.

Re bimini / dodger.... I think it is a safe bet that Rule 62 had a dodger or bimini of some sort, and I think you're very correct in the assessment that these plastic bubbles can insulate you from the real conditions (in addition to providing a lot of extra windage). We have a hard dodger (open at the aft end). Sitting inside, under cover, before the wheel, warm and dry is a very diffferent experience to standing at the wheel with the wind in your face. That's why we love the hard dodger! But it's also why I ask watch standers to stick their heads outside every few minutes, so they can get a sense of what's happening in the real world.

Jon, you're a man of few posts, but I've found your contributions here to be insightful -- especially, the one a few pages back about modern electronics extending sailors' comfort zones thus permitting them to sail well beyond their capabilities. In the heat of this discussion perhaps we have not yet extended you a "Welcome" aboard to SailNet!


----------



## Hesper

Just the other day I spoke to someone who was in the rally with Rule 62. According to him, Rule 62 had at least two very seasick people aboard. The fleet surgeon advised them to tough it out and continue on to Tortola. The captain apparently decided otherwise and was trying to make port in the Bahamas to get the two ashore. I believe the captain was one of the two afflicted with mal de mer, which doesn't bode well for good decision-making at the inlet.

I also understand that Laura was at least partly handicapped by having limited use of one arm.


----------



## IKena

Hesper said:


> I believe the captain was one of the two afflicted with mal de mer, which doesn't bode well for good decision-making at the inlet.


Reminds me on our first offshore passage, with my wife. As a captain, I got seasick (like throwing the dinner overboard). I had to be very discreet, so my wife would not freak out, particularly she was seasick as well!!

I can't imagine the moral of the crew on Rule 62 if the captain was seasick and stuck in his bunk


----------



## JonEisberg

billyruffn said:


> Re radar....I agree big swell degrades it's performance, but intermittent returns will give you some indication of where you are relative to the land, and comparing that with a chart can help you stay in a channel.
> 
> Re channel size.... I agree you cant sail over reefs, so I measured the width between the (5m?) contour lines.
> 
> Re bimini / dodger.... I think it is a safe bet that Rule 62 had a dodger or bimini of some sort, and I think you're very correct in the assessment that these plastic bubbles can insulate you from the real conditions (in addition to providing a lot of extra windage). We have a hard dodger (open at the aft end). Sitting inside, under cover, before the wheel, warm and dry is a very diffferent experience to standing at the wheel with the wind in your face. That's why we love the hard dodger! But it's also why I ask watch standers to stick their heads outside every few minutes, so they can get a sense of what's happening in the real world.
> 
> Jon, you're a man of few posts, but I've found your contributions here to be insightful -- especially, the one a few pages back about modern electronics extending sailors' comfort zones thus permitting them to sail well beyond their capabilities. In the heat of this discussion perhaps we have not yet extended you a "Welcome" aboard to SailNet!


Thanks for the kind words, and from the earlier greetings from tdw and Smack... Truth be told, however, anyone who's witnessed my act on the CSBB or CA knows I'm just another cyber-sailing gasbag.... (grin)

Yeah, I need to start posting on another sailing forum like I need a hole in the head, but things have been a bit slow elsewhere these days, my old buddy Jeff H assures me this a cool place to hang out...

I'll try to tear myself away from the keyboard after Christmas, however, hopefully head south for a few months - assuming I can get out of here before Barnegat Bay freezes over, that is... (grin)


----------



## Vasco

Welcome Jon, as long as you promise not to make fun of cruisers with jerry jugs on deck.  Have a close look at the avatar.


----------



## JonEisberg

Nah, Rick - that dinghy swaying in the breeze is a far greater offense... (grin)

Are you gonna be in the Abacos all winter, or moving about a bit? Perhaps our paths will cross, but I have no idea where I'll get to this year, yet...

best regards, nice to see you again...


----------



## Vasco

The dinghy doesn't budge an inch. Four ratchet straps.  I'm usually in the Exumas and Jumentos and Long Island. Every two or three years I head north through the Abacos. Just to remind me what Miami Beach is like.


----------



## skipgundlach

sailingdog said:


> Most of the Bahamian banks are located next to very deep water-like Exuma Sound, where the water is 5000'+ deep less than a half-mile from shore, and on the other side of the islands, like Stocking Island, the water is not even 35' deep.


So, are you in Georgetown? We're anchored in Kidd Cove currently...

L8R

Skip

PS Rule 62 had both lifelines and jacklines (that yellow strap on the port side is a jack line - we have the same aboard Flying Pig) WRT another post in this thread...


----------



## sailingdog

I wish... I'm up in Boston, and it's only 19˚F.... I was down in Georgetown this past spring, getting a boat from Stocking Island and moving it back to Marion, Mass.

BTW, if Rule 62 had jacklines, I am wondering whether Laura and the rest were clipped in or not and if not, why not.



skipgundlach said:


> So, are you in Georgetown? We're anchored in Kidd Cove currently...
> 
> L8R
> 
> Skip
> 
> PS Rule 62 had both lifelines and jacklines (that yellow strap on the port side is a jack line - we have the same aboard Flying Pig) WRT another post in this thread...


----------



## SPC

What does this have to do with the Sinking of Rule 62? Should this thread be closed?


----------



## chall03

SPC said:


> What does this have to do with the Sinking of Rule 62? Should this thread be closed?


I personally don't see the problem SPC. 
SD's post.....the latest.....directly addresses the sinking of Rule 62.

Yeah a couple of posts prior to that were somewhat of an aside, but I hardly see it as a derailment.


----------



## tdw

JonEisberg said:


> Thanks for the kind words, and from the earlier greetings from tdw and Smack... Truth be told, however, anyone who's witnessed my act on the CSBB or CA knows I'm just another cyber-sailing gasbag.... (grin)
> 
> Yeah, I need to start posting on another sailing forum like I need a hole in the head, but things have been a bit slow elsewhere these days, my old buddy Jeff H assures me this a cool place to hang out...
> 
> I'll try to tear myself away from the keyboard after Christmas, however, hopefully head south for a few months - assuming I can get out of here before Barnegat Bay freezes over, that is... (grin)


Aren't we all ? 

SPC .... every thread inevitably drifts downwind a tadge. As Chall says, as long as it doesn't head offshore we should be OK.


----------



## billyruffn

*Pay attention, guys!*

Hesper has given us some good second-hand data points in #408 above. My sources indicate Hesper is not far off.

If true, how does this information change assumptions / conclusions reached thusfar?

Is an incapacitated captain responsible for the decision-making on the boat? It was drilled into me in the Navy that the captain is always responsible, but this wasn't the U.S.S. (or H.M.S.) Rule 62. Do we hold yacht skippers to the same standard as captains of warships?

If Laura was partially handicapped, should she have been given a berth on this passage? Is it plausible that not having full use of an arm would have contributed to her tragic loss?


----------



## IKena

billyruffn said:


> Is an incapacitated captain responsible for the decision-making on the boat? It was drilled into me in the Navy that the captain is always responsible, but this wasn't the U.S.S. (or H.M.S.) Rule 62. Do we hold yacht skippers to the same standard as captains of warships?


YES, yacht skippers are responsible for their crew and boat



billyruffn said:


> Is it plausible that not having full use of an arm would have contributed to her tragic loss?


I find it unfair to make such comment! When a boat is thrown on the reef with big waves, it is a matter of luck to be able to survive.


----------



## IKena

midlifesailor said:


> And there is the crux of the discussion. The only way to get experience is to go get experience. If you pass the test, then you learn. If you don't pass the test, you become a thread on a sailing website to be flogged over incessantly. Knowing and heeding sage advice from mariners of old increases your odds of passing the test.


Well, not exactly. Some people just don't learn. When I sold my Pearson 365, a gentlemen came to have a look. He was upset that I had no electronics, aka no radar, no chartplotter, no wind meter. And basically, he told me electronics are a must for cruising, even though I had just done 40000 miles without them.
Then he explained how he lost his previous boat, a Moody 42. He was navigating in reef infested waters at NIGHT, with the chartplotter! He went
on the reef, and lost the boat. but survive thanks to the coast guard.
He was very proud to tell me, how the insurance covered him and he got his money back, because, the charts he carried were off !! So he was right and did nothing wrong!
some people just never learn...


----------



## sailingdog

Yes, I think the captain is ultimately responsible, regardless of whether they are incapacitated. If they are incapacitated to the point they should not be held responsible, they should probably not be captain at that point in time, being unfit for the responsibilities involved.

As for Laura, I don't think it matters whether she had full use of both arms or not. As Ikena points out, when a boat goes aground on a reef in those conditions, luck plays a far greater role in anyone's survival. Of course, the events that led to the boat going onto the reef are the real problem. Don't blame Laura, since I doubt she was the one making the decision to try and approach a coral strewn lee shore in those conditions.



billyruffn said:


> Hesper has given us some good second-hand data points in #408 above. My sources indicate Hesper is not far off.
> 
> If true, how does this information change assumptions / conclusions reached thusfar?
> 
> Is an incapacitated captain responsible for the decision-making on the boat? It was drilled into me in the Navy that the captain is always responsible, but this wasn't the U.S.S. (or H.M.S.) Rule 62. Do we hold yacht skippers to the same standard as captains of warships?
> 
> If Laura was partially handicapped, should she have been given a berth on this passage? Is it plausible that not having full use of an arm would have contributed to her tragic loss?


----------



## smackdaddy

sailingdog said:


> Yes, I think the captain is ultimately responsible, regardless of whether they are incapacitated. If they are incapacitated to the point they should not be held responsible, they should probably not be captain at that point in time, being unfit for the responsibilities involved.


I don't think this is necessarily true. Like any organization (military, corporate, whatever) there should be a clear chain of command - with someone on board who is qualified to take over if the captain is incapacitated.

Granted, that's far more challenging on a small boat - but it's pretty critical.

If it turns out in this case that the captain was incapacitated by seasickness, the danger of him/her making a bad decision rises pretty dramatically. So in that case, who steps up into that role?

I always read that the wife and eventually kids (and/or who ever else is sailing with you) all need to know how to sail the boat and how to think through very tough conditions. So, I don't think it's about "captainship" being assigned or taken away, it's about setting up a chain of command and preparing your crew to deal with it.


----------



## IKena

smackdaddy said:


> If it turns out in this case that the captain was incapacitated by seasickness, the danger of him/her making a bad decision rises pretty dramatically. So in that case, who steps up into that role?


Seasickness should not affect the decision making of the captain, otherwise he should not be captain in the first place. ..it's not like he being drunk...

Now, this brings to an interesting subject: what to do if the captain is really incapacitated, like "can't talk, and can't move". Life on a cruising sailboat is not a corporate world, where a backup captain would readily available.

First of, single-handing is a skill all captain should have. This means being able to stay in command and able to preserve your life and the boat. If I were that bad seasick at that time, I would at lay ahull, so not to have to worry about the crew doing silly things. Laying ahull in a 45 boat should be somewhat uncomfortable, but not dangerous. I've laid ahull many times, with no problem.

Second, if the captain is really incapacitated, meaning cannot instruct the crew what to do, what shall be done? We have to be honest, usually there is no backup captain on board (one with the same skills AND spirit). Plus, now the crew IS responsible to bring you back ashore to get you to a hospital or something ( I assume the captain is in serious condition since he can't talk, or maybe delirious because of infections, or whatever).
I would be interested to know what others think, as honestly, we never really talked about this with my wife. Probably because we have so solution!


----------



## tommays

I cant think of any boat i have done a distance race on that did not have many crew who could get the boat home safe as its rare to not rotate the helm a lot and have at least two people doing the navigation


----------



## jrd22

IKena said:


> Seasickness should not affect the decision making of the captain, otherwise he should not be captain in the first place. ..it's not like he being drunk...


Apparently you have never seen someone that is severely seasick. Whether they should be the captain or not is irrelevant, if they are seasick to the point of near unconsciousness they are not going to be making good decisions.


----------



## imagine2frolic

It is common for someone to think they are dying when in extreme seasickness. A dying person cares not what kills them. They in most cases just want it over.........*i2f*


----------



## genieskip

tommays said:


> I cant think of any boat i have done a distance race on that did not have many crew who could get the boat home safe as its rare to not rotate the helm a lot and have at least two people doing the navigation


There is a big difference between a well crewed ocean racer and a minimally crewed cruiser. On all the distance races I've been on, measured in many hundreds or thousands of miles, more than half of the crew could have taken over and done a good job as skipper. Usually on those kinds of boats there is a well delineated chain of command, skipper, watch captains etc. and the skipper is pretty used to being in big waters so is unlikely to get sick.

On my boat, now that I no longer race, I am usually pretty careful to delineate the chain of command when cruising long distances. My wife doesn't sail offshore so when we are out it is usually with friends and I try to make sure at least one competent sailor is aboard to take over in case I am incapacitated (or temporarily unattached to the boat - should the harness somehow fail, I want them to have the skills to come back and get me!)


----------



## PCP

I can understand what Ikena is saying.

I believe most cruising crews are just the Captain and the wife, sometimes with kids of different ages.

I know many guys that have wifes that can give a help but that could not skip a boat alone if needed (mine certainly can't). I have also sailed alone with my kids, one at a time, when they where just young teenagers and had not the ability to skip the boat alone.

One time, on a passage I become seriously sick. My 14 year's old daughter had no problem to brig the boat to its destination, but I was still the Captain and she was relying on me to know what she should do in any critical situation. 

Regarding seasick, if someone can be affected by seasickness to the point of total incapacity, then he should not be a boat captain, at least in all situations when the sailing can create the conditions that lead to that situation, and that includes all extensive passages.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

First off, I think some of the speculation about Laura’s suitability as a crewmember is a bit unfair. No reason why a person with an infirmity such as hers should have disqualified her, even without knowledge of her previous sailing experience, it’s obvious she was a remarkable, mentally tough woman who had overcome some serious challenges in her life…

Having said that, however, her physical limitations should certainly have given pause to the skipper, and IMHO is simply one more example that he did not know what he did not know, and lacked a complete understanding of the sort of demands sailing such a boat on such a passage were likely to place on an apparently inexperienced, and thus shorthanded crew… Crew selection is perhaps the most critical aspect of passage planning, and obviously having half the crew at least somewhat incapacitated by seasickness right from the start of the trip, well… that doesn’t speak very well to the skipper’s planning of such a voyage, especially on a boat of such a size that might have easily accommodated additional crew, who could have taken up some of the slack created by more inexperienced crew… 

Again, just one more example, in my opinion, of the roots of this tragedy lying in questionable decisions or choices made well before the boat ever left the dock…


----------



## ftldiver

I don't get the point of this discussion.

I've been through north bar channel, 

That cut was not safe in those conditions. waves break in that cut all the time with strong E - ESE winds. and very few run that at night, even in good conditions.

The correct cut would have been North Man of war channel. (requires a few waypoint turns, but easy (in daylight).


an abaco (Dodge) cruising guide or contact on the vhf would have cleared that up... 

OTOH, they weren't planning on abacos.. when they left.

clearly he didn't know about the breaking surf heading in...


----------



## btrayfors

On a moderately long offshore passage -- 10 days or so for the Carib 1500 -- it's a very good idea to PLAN for seasickness and fatigue, as well as breakdowns and bad weather.

1. No 10-day *weather forecast* is reliable.

2. *Sh.. happens* -- Murphy lurks on the offshore vessel, and begins planning his mischief the minute you drop the docklines.

3. *Seasickness is both predictable and treatable/preventable*...much of the time. If you're prone to seasickness, you need to have a proven strategy for combatting it. I once lay in the scuppers for most of 3 days on a passage from Gibraltar to the Canaries. Researched it. Tried remedies. Found that scopalamine in the form of Transcop behind-the-ear patches works well for me (not for everyone).

4. I very often *singlehand* my 42' sloop. On rivers, on the Chesapeake, in bays (like Penobscot Bay in Maine), etc.. No problem. However, on longer than overnite passages I want a minimum of 3 experienced crew. Four or five is better. Why? Because FATIGUE is your worst enemy.

5. I always do *pre-passage planning*, including waypoints, charts, information about harbors along the way, etc., etc. To leave without this basic workup is, IMHO, very shortsighted.

6. *No experienced skipper*, however experienced and however equipped, *would attempt to enter an unfamiliar ocean inlet in bad weather conditions, especially at night and after days of bad weather.* NO SEASICK CAPTAIN WOULD ATTEMPT THIS...IF HE/SHE HAD ANY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE WITH SUCH INLETS. Seasickness -- no matter how severe (and I've been there several times) does not mean you take leave of your senses.

7. IMHO, *the captain of a yacht is responsible for the boat and his/her crew*. That is a responsibility and a duty each yacht captain should recognize and consciously agree to shoulder. If he/she can't, they shouldn't be captaining a boat, whether a dingy or a megayacht. No excuses. No "contributing factors". No spinning. The captain is responsible. Period.

Bill


----------



## smackdaddy

btrayfors said:


> On a moderately long offshore passage -- 10 days or so for the Carib 1500 -- it's a very good idea to PLAN for seasickness and fatigue, as well as breakdowns and bad weather.
> 
> 1. No 10-day *weather forecast* is reliable.
> 
> 2. *Sh.. happens* -- Murphy lurks on the offshore vessel, and begins planning his mischief the minute you drop the docklines.
> 
> 3. *Seasickness is both predictable and treatable/preventable*...much of the time. If you're prone to seasickness, you need to have a proven strategy for combatting it. I once lay in the scuppers for most of 3 days on a passage from Gibraltar to the Canaries. Researched it. Tried remedies. Found that scopalamine in the form of Transcop behind-the-ear patches works well for me (not for everyone).
> 
> 4. I very often *singlehand* my 42' sloop. On rivers, on the Chesapeake, in bays (like Penobscot Bay in Maine), etc.. No problem. However, on longer than overnite passages I want a minimum of 3 experienced crew. Four or five is better. Why? Because FATIGUE is your worst enemy.
> 
> 5. I always do *pre-passage planning*, including waypoints, charts, information about harbors along the way, etc., etc. To leave without this basic workup is, IMHO, very shortsighted.
> 
> 6. *No experienced skipper*, however experienced and however equipped, *would attempt to enter an unfamiliar ocean inlet in bad weather conditions, especially at night and after days of bad weather.* NO SEASICK CAPTAIN WOULD ATTEMPT THIS...IF HE/SHE HAD ANY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE WITH SUCH INLETS. Seasickness -- no matter how severe (and I've been there several times) does not mean you take leave of your senses.
> 
> 7. IMHO, *the captain of a yacht is responsible for the boat and his/her crew*. That is a responsibility and a duty each yacht captain should recognize and consciously agree to shoulder. If he/she can't, they shouldn't be captaining a boat, whether a dingy or a megayacht. No excuses. No "contributing factors". No spinning. The captain is responsible. Period.
> 
> Bill


Awesome post b. That's going in the Salt's thread.


----------



## sailingdog

IKena said:


> Seasickness should not affect the decision making of the captain, otherwise he should not be captain in the first place. ..it's not like he being drunk...


Fatigue and seasickness can easily combine to make a person less than capable of making sound, well-thought-out decisions.



> Now, this brings to an interesting subject: what to do if the captain is really incapacitated, like "can't talk, and can't move". Life on a cruising sailboat is not a corporate world, where a backup captain would readily available.
> 
> First of, single-handing is a skill all captain should have. This means being able to stay in command and able to preserve your life and the boat. If I were that bad seasick at that time, I would at lay ahull, so not to have to worry about the crew doing silly things. Laying ahull in a 45 boat should be somewhat uncomfortable, but not dangerous. I've laid ahull many times, with no problem.


Lying ahull is a pretty dangerous move in many boats. Heaving to is usually a better choice.



> Second, if the captain is really incapacitated, meaning cannot instruct the crew what to do, what shall be done? We have to be honest, usually there is no backup captain on board (one with the same skills AND spirit). Plus, now the crew IS responsible to bring you back ashore to get you to a hospital or something ( I assume the captain is in serious condition since he can't talk, or maybe delirious because of infections, or whatever).
> I would be interested to know what others think, as honestly, we never really talked about this with my wife. Probably because we have so solution!


There is a good reason I say that the boat should be small enough that the smallest full-time crew can single-hand the boat and knows how to do so. In most cases, this will be the spouse. If both husband and wife don't have the knowledge and skill and experience to singlehand the boat, you WILL have a problem.


----------



## IKena

sailingdog said:


> Lying ahull is a pretty dangerous move in many boats. Heaving to is usually a better choice.


True, but I did not mean to lay ahull in any conditions in any boats. I seriously doubt that Rule 62 was in conditions that bad, that laying ahull in a 45 foot boat would have been dangerous. They were not in the peak of the Gulf Stream anymore, and I doubt they had dangerous breaking seas out there.


----------



## JonEisberg

ftldiver said:


> I don't get the point of this discussion.
> 
> I've been through north bar channel,
> 
> That cut was not safe in those conditions. waves break in that cut all the time with strong E - ESE winds. and very few run that at night, even in good conditions.
> 
> *The correct cut would have been North Man of war channel. (requires a few waypoint turns, but easy (in daylight).*


I wasn't there, of course, but I thought one of the things to come out of this discussion was - given the reported conditions during that period - that NONE of those cuts in the would have been the "correct" choice&#8230; Sounds like boats were not even transiting Whale Cay Passage during this time, and I seriously doubt any of the locals were running any of those cuts during this prolonged rage&#8230;



sailingdog said:


> Lying ahull is a pretty dangerous move in many boats. Heaving to is usually a better choice.


That's generally correct, but you never know&#8230; Many boats - my own happens to be among them - can lie ahull safely and surprisingly comfortably in the sort of conditions RULE 62 encountered&#8230; It's unlikely that Jeanneau would fall into such a category, but you never know until you give it a try. That's why it's so important to experiment with such tactics beforehand, to have some idea of what your particular boat may or may not be capable of&#8230; You don't necessarily need large seas to at least get a sense of how your boat will heave-to in a blow, all you need is a bit of wind to start playing around, and learn what configuration is likely to work best for you...



sailingdog said:


> There is a good reason I say that the boat should be small enough that the smallest full-time crew can single-hand the boat and knows how to do so. In most cases, this will be the spouse. If both husband and wife don't have the knowledge and skill and experience to singlehand the boat, you WILL have a problem.


Absolutely, I cannot agree more&#8230; It astounds me today that more Mom & Pop cruisers don't seem to appreciate this, IMHO most couples I see out there today are dangerously "over-boated" relative to their levels of experience, or fitness. I see it all the time, couples in behemoths struggling to simply come alongside a dock in 20 knots of wind, or who would be incapable of raising anchor in similar conditions were their windlass to fail&#8230; The reliance on sailhandling systems of increasing complexity, electric winches, bowthrusters, the list goes on and on&#8230; Sooner or later, such stuff WILL fail - typically at the most inopportune time - and they're suddenly in a situation well beyond their ability to manage physically&#8230;

As cruisers become older, the boats they're sailing should become smaller, and simpler&#8230; Unfortunately, precisely the opposite seems to be the predominant trend, today, and people are simply letting their bank accounts dictate what they will sail...


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> IMHO most couples I see out there today are dangerously "over-boated" relative to their levels of experience, or fitness. I see it all the time, couples in behemoths struggling to simply come alongside a dock in 20 knots of wind, or who would be incapable of raising anchor in similar conditions were their windlass to fail.


Still there is not substitute for practice. Working with the boat over time will do wonders for what one can manage.


----------



## sailingdog

True, practice can help, but when the conditions are really nasty, even practice can't make up for having manageable sized sails and such. Also, how much practice does the smaller/weaker/less capable member of the crew normally get in heavier weather conditions???

I'd point out that the techniques that work in 5-7' seas and 15-20 knots of wind may not be usable with 30-35 knots of wind and 10-15' seas.



SVAuspicious said:


> Still there is not substitute for practice. Working with the boat over time will do wonders for what one can manage.


----------



## speciald

Hey Junior member, quit picking on old people. I'm in my 60's and single hand my boat - its also in its 60s. Its easier to sail than the boat I raced for ten years. I doubt you could get the 100# anchor and chain back in the boat without the windlass any better than I could. I've put 40,000+ miles on this boat and despite two heart attacks and a valve replacement, I'm still on the boat. We did the 1500 this year (first in class) but with six crew onboard - three much younger than me (at my wife's insistence). Age is not the limiting factor - its preparation and experience - 35 years of sailing. I've seen younger sailors on smaller boats with less experience get into more trouble than us "old salts".


----------



## landmineop

Ruh roh. Wrong place to make smart remarks about "old sailors".


----------



## JonEisberg

sailingdog said:


> True, practice can help, but when the conditions are really nasty, even practice can't make up for having manageable sized sails and such. Also, how much practice does the smaller/weaker/less capable member of the crew normally get in heavier weather conditions???
> 
> I'd point out that the techniques that work in 5-7' seas and 15-20 knots of wind may not be usable with 30-35 knots of wind and 10-15' seas.


You're right, of course - but as regards to a tactic such as heaving-to, the dynamics don't really change all that much until conditions deteriorate to the point that seas begin breaking&#8230; But the balance of the sail plan, angle of attack, position of the rudder, etc is all gonna remain pretty much the same whether the breeze is blowing 25, or 45&#8230;

My point was that I think that the most common problem people have with attempting heaving-to, or a similar tactic, for the first time, is finding that proper balance&#8230; There's no reason not to attempt to try to learn as much as you can about how your boat will best balance itself under storm canvas in more moderate conditions, rather than waiting to find yourself in a full gale offshore, and then popping the Pardey's STORM TACTICS into the DVD player, and attempting to figure it out for the first time&#8230;



speciald said:


> Hey Junior member, quit picking on old people. I'm in my 60's and single hand my boat - its also in its 60s. Its easier to sail than the boat I raced for ten years. I doubt you could get the 100# anchor and chain back in the boat without the windlass any better than I could. I've put 40,000+ miles on this boat and despite two heart attacks and a valve replacement, I'm still on the boat. We did the 1500 this year (first in class) but with six crew onboard - three much younger than me (at my wife's insistence). Age is not the limiting factor - its preparation and experience - 35 years of sailing. I've seen younger sailors on smaller boats with less experience get into more trouble than us "old salts".


Nah, I'm not picking on old folks - hate to admit it, but I'm rapidly getting into that territory myself&#8230; (grin)

I'm glad you're comfortable sailing your boat (congrats on your win in the 1500, BTW), and you're absolutely right about experience counting for far more than youth, or raw strength, in many instances&#8230;

Obviously, we all have our individual comfort levels with the size boat we're capable of cruising with&#8230; My own is likely considerably smaller than many others, I'm obviously more of a wimp than most in that regard&#8230; But, I will stand by my original assertion, I see a LOT of cruisers out there today in boats of a size that could quickly overwhelm their physical ability to cope with the forces involved in the sort of conditions you'll likely find sailing offshore, when things start going downhill, and stuff like autopilots and Leisure-Furls begin to fail, or develop problems&#8230; And, IMHO, that's not good - especially when a relative lack of experience is factored in&#8230;


----------



## smackdaddy

speciald said:


> Hey Junior member, quit picking on old people. I'm in my 60's and single hand my boat - its also in its 60s. Its easier to sail than the boat I raced for ten years. I doubt you could get the 100# anchor and chain back in the boat without the windlass any better than I could. I've put 40,000+ miles on this boat and despite two heart attacks and a valve replacement, I'm still on the boat. We did the 1500 this year (first in class) but with six crew onboard - three much younger than me (at my wife's insistence). Age is not the limiting factor - its preparation and experience - 35 years of sailing. I've seen younger sailors on smaller boats with less experience get into more trouble than us "old salts".


JohnE, I think he's saying "Piss Off Junior" (the SN equivalent to the SA FON)...oh, and "show us your ventricle's valves!"

Seriously speciald, I hope to sail in your wake. You're livin' right.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> But, I will stand by my original assertion, I see a LOT of cruisers out there today in boats of a size that could quickly overwhelm their physical ability to cope with the forces involved in the sort of conditions you'll likely find sailing offshore, when things start going downhill, and stuff like autopilots and Leisure-Furls begin to fail, or develop problems&#8230; And, IMHO, that's not good - especially when a relative lack of experience is factored in&#8230;


I agree. My point is that one can garner experience over time by going sailing or by explicitly practicing.

Just by way of example, this is why I believe that on most recreational boats a bow thruster is a BAD IDEA™. They aren't powerful enough to help when conditions are really bad and their use in more benign conditions robs the helmsman of practice.

That isn't to say that life isn't more difficult at 30 kts than 15 kts. It is. But practice helps, and helps a lot. My life would get pretty ugly if I lost the a/p so I have practiced sailing with a locked wheel and trimming. Things still aren't pretty even at 15 kts but I won't be surprised at what I can and can't accomplish.

My reefing policy is quite different with a 135 forward than a 100, and with and without a staysail rigged. All that is pretty well worked out as a result of practice.

I agree that there are lot of folks out there with boats that are too big for them to handle in deteriorating conditions with failing equipment. My point is that one can move the bar by dint of practice and thought.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> I agree. My point is that one can garner experience over time by going sailing or by explicitly practicing.
> 
> Just by way of example, this is why I believe that on most recreational boats a bow thruster is a BAD IDEA™. They aren't powerful enough to help when conditions are really bad and their use in more benign conditions robs the helmsman of practice.
> 
> That isn't to say that life isn't more difficult at 30 kts than 15 kts. It is. But practice helps, and helps a lot. My life would get pretty ugly if I lost the a/p so I have practiced sailing with a locked wheel and trimming. Things still aren't pretty even at 15 kts but I won't be surprised at what I can and can't accomplish.
> 
> My reefing policy is quite different with a 135 forward than a 100, and with and without a staysail rigged. All that is pretty well worked out as a result of practice.
> 
> I agree that there are lot of folks out there with boats that are too big for them to handle in deteriorating conditions with failing equipment. My point is that one can move the bar by dint of practice and thought.


Exactly&#8230;

But you're overlooking one key factor, Dave&#8230;You obviously love to SAIL, and will always be looking for way to improve your skills, and your boat's peformance&#8230; However, you do realize you're in the minority among modern cruisers in that regard, right? (grin)

Let's face it, many cruisers aren't in it for the SAILING these days, they do it only reluctantly, when conditions are absolutely ideal, or when a passage is longer than their range under power&#8230; They like the IDEA of sailing as sold by the glossy sailing rags, but when it comes down to actually doing so, well, no so much&#8230; As a result, I think it's a bit of a stretch to imagine too many of them actually getting out there "practicing" and improving their sailing skills, no?

Surely, you know by now that I'm nothing more than a broken record on the subject of Kroozers Never Sailing, right? (grin)


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Exactly&#8230;
> 
> ....
> Let's face it, many cruisers aren't in it for the SAILING these days, they do it only reluctantly, when conditions are absolutely ideal, or when a passage is longer than their range under power&#8230; They like the IDEA of sailing as sold by the glossy sailing rags, but when it comes down to actually doing so, well, no so much&#8230; As a result, I think it's a bit of a stretch to imagine too many of them actually getting out there "practicing" and improving their sailing skills, no?
> ...


Beneteau has understood that and that's why they are investing in a new line of sailingboats, the Sense line, boats that are made to sail in perfect conditions and with almost no heel (7 to 10º). The ones that went first on that direction were the guys from "Feeling" with the 52 and the 55ft. Both sailboats have *TWO ENGINES*.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> But you're overlooking one key factor, Dave&#8230;You obviously love to SAIL, and will always be looking for way to improve your skills, and your boat's peformance&#8230; However, you do realize you're in the minority among modern cruisers in that regard, right? (grin)


Caught again. *grin*

I'd like to think - optimist that I am - that if we (royal we?, hopeful we?) can convince other cruisers to sail more and practice more that they would sail more. It just isn't that hard and is generally more comfortable as conditions deteriorate (and they will).

Of course practice is best on OPB, which is why I think preparation for cruising should include racing on OPBs. *grin*


----------



## TakeFive

JonEisberg said:


> ...Let's face it, many cruisers aren't in it for the SAILING these days, they do it only reluctantly, when conditions are absolutely ideal, or when a passage is longer than their range under power&#8230; They like the IDEA of sailing as sold by the glossy sailing rags, but when it comes down to actually doing so, well, no so much&#8230; As a result, I think it's a bit of a stretch to imagine too many of them actually getting out there "practicing" and improving their sailing skills, no?


Do you realize what a snotty, condescending comment this is?

We get 45 pages of people blasting the Rule 62 captain for going out in conditions and/or itinerary that (allegedly) exceeded his skills and experience, so having handily crucified the guy and others like him, now you'll go after those at the other end of the spectrum who are such wimps that they couldn't possibly be "real" sailors.

Sorry, but I just don't buy into this crap. There aren't enough people pursuing this wonderful sport (and buying our hand-me-downs  ), so we should be encouraging them all to get out there under whatever conditions they consider enjoyable. You seem have a very narrow definition of what "real" sailors are, and look down your nose at anyone else.

You've made some educational, insightful posts in your short time here, and I look forward to seeing more of those. But one of the pitfalls of Internet message boards is their tendency to develop a "club" environment where a few people band together and try to make others feel inferior. That's not the kind of place that I want to hang around.

When it comes to sailing, IT'S ALL GOOD. I hope this place will continue to welcome everyone - daysailers, cruisers, racers ... even stinkpotters. (Well maybe I'm going a little too far there. :laugher )


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah, but he's right. Have you seen the engine hours on used boats these days?


----------



## Melantho

RhythmDoctor said:


> When it comes to sailing, IT'S ALL GOOD.


Not when someone dies. If Rule 62 had just run up on the rocks, it would have generated only 10 pages of skipper roasting. Since the Grim Reaper was involved in this case it deserves greater scutiny.

I suspect that we won't learn much more about what really happened, since there is probably a well-placed lawyer telling all involved to not talk...ever.


----------



## SVAuspicious

RhythmDoctor said:


> We get 45 pages of people blasting the Rule 62 captain for going out in conditions and/or itinerary that (allegedly) exceeded his skills and experience, so having handily crucified the guy and others like him, now you'll go after those at the other end of the spectrum who are such wimps that they couldn't possibly be "real" sailors.


We are reading things differently, you and I.

A lot of people are saying that Rule 62 should not have attempted to run the inlet they chose in the dark or in the weather conditions extant.

Some of us are saying that decision shouldn't have been relevant because running inshore was in and of itself a poor decision.

I agree there is an undercurrent of "wrong boat" that always shows up in threads about a production boat - you can ignore those. In most cases the boat is stronger than the crew anyway.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Really great discussion guys and gals!

As a newb, i'm totally riveted to this thread!

Oh, i'm a day sailor just getting his keel wet and I haven't taken offense to any of this discussion!


----------



## Yorksailor

It is obvious from Jon's earlier posts that he is a very knowledgable sailor and in his posts he states what many think.

Some of the most competent people I know, both in life and sailing, are people I meet cruising and once passed the "charter boat islands' they are the majority. However, I also meet people who think that learning seamanship is just too much trouble and they are a constant danger to themselves and others.

I do not belittle the beginer...In the last 15 yrs I have taken over 100 beginers offshore so that they could improve their skills both in formal training and as my crew.

However, it is imporrtant that those less experienced learn that while sailing is fun it is not a game to be taken lightly.

If you are going to go offshore and take others with you it is important that you develop the skills to be safe in all but the most extreme circumstance; which the conditions that Rule 62 experienced were certainly not...

It is also important that you learn to sail at a skill level that allows you to manage the boat under sail in all conditions and be able to get yourself safely back to port without the engine or the chart plotter.

Phil


----------



## svsirius

I'm not sure there are many more new points to be learned on this thread. SVAuspicious, Jon E, Bill T etc. have all nicely pointed out some of the key lessons. While I try and stay out of the diatribe [and don't always succeed] offshore sailing is different as is passage making. Those of us that have done a fair number of 'outside' miles have quickly learned some key lessons.

While I may disagree with some of the folks on the boat size discussion I fully agree on the navigation, skills etc ones.

My motion is that this thread be locked for now unless something new comes to light then we start over from that point.


----------



## AE28

RhythmDoctor:

THANKS and well said!!!

At this point, I think the consensus of this group is that the skipper of Rule 62 should be hung from a yard arm or should walk the plank.

I'm still anxious to hear his side.


----------



## AE28

svsirius said:


> My motion is that this thread be locked for now unless something new comes to light then we start over from that point.


Second the motion!


----------



## Jeff_H

As a moderator, I do not believe that there is a reason to lock this thread at this point. I have been following this thread when I can. I think that by and large there has been a reasonable discussion here which has looked at the general lessons which might be learned from a tragedy such as this, as well as some specifics, rightly or wrongly inferred from the limited factual information that the posters have available. 

Discussions of tragedies are always tough. As sailors we all feel for the loss of a fellow sailor. It is especially heart-wrenching to hear of the loss of someone reportedly as courageous, vibrant, and generous as Laura has been described. But in my humble opinion, if we, as fellow sailors can learn from her tragedy then her death may be less in vain. 

Of course, there is a thin line between piling on speculative criticsm of the skipper of the boat in question, and trying to wrestle with the broader lessons that perhaps should have been known by that skipper and which can be a learning experience if it results in a serious, respectful, and responsible discussion of what facts we have. 

Many of the denizens of this discussion, are experienced seaman with many offshore miles under their keels. And while you may not agree with their point of view, (and they might not even agree with each other) I suggest that it is helpful to at least consider what these well meaning posters have to have to say. Closing the thread will close that opportunity. 

Respectfully,
Jeff_H 
SailNet Moderator


----------



## TakeFive

Melantho said:


> ...Since the Grim Reaper was involved in this case it deserves greater scutiny...


I agree, and have stated in other messages on this thread that we all can learn a lot from this tragedy and the comments of more experienced skippers. I think 46 pages qualifies as greater scrutiny. And even though I wince at the speculative accusations made at the skipper without actual facts to back them up, the speculation still has useful educational value for me. I just try to absorb the key learnings and choose to withhold judgment against the captain because of the lack of facts.


Melantho said:


> ...If Rule 62 had just run up on the rocks, it would have generated only 10 pages of skipper roasting...


This site has gone over 10 pages on things as mundane as anchor design, and close to 10 pages on fender selection.  A beaching on the rocks, even a non-fatal one, would still generate a pretty substantial debate, as it should.

My main beef is with the condescending attitude toward those who choose to stay well within their capabilities by going out only in completely safe conditions, or motoring whenever there is any doubt. If what they are doing is safe, why make fun of them? So what if their boat was designed more for interior comfort than for offshore capabilities? So long as they use the boat within its designed parameters, let them have their fun - and welcome their participation here. And if this segment of the sailing marketplace is big enough that designers tailor their boats to meet it, good for them! It's good for all of us for them to stay in business and meet whatever demands the marketplace is making.


----------



## JonEisberg

RhythmDoctor said:


> Do you realize what a snotty, condescending comment this is?
> 
> We get 45 pages of people blasting the Rule 62 captain for going out in conditions and/or itinerary that (allegedly) exceeded his skills and experience, so having handily crucified the guy and others like him, now you'll go after those at the other end of the spectrum who are such wimps that they couldn't possibly be "real" sailors.
> 
> Sorry, but I just don't buy into this crap. There aren't enough people pursuing this wonderful sport (and buying our hand-me-downs  ), so we should be encouraging them all to get out there under whatever conditions they consider enjoyable. You seem have a very narrow definition of what "real" sailors are, and look down your nose at anyone else.
> 
> You've made some educational, insightful posts in your short time here, and I look forward to seeing more of those. But one of the pitfalls of Internet message boards is their tendency to develop a "club" environment where a few people band together and try to make others feel inferior. That's not the kind of place that I want to hang around.
> 
> When it comes to sailing, IT'S ALL GOOD. I hope this place will continue to welcome everyone - daysailers, cruisers, racers ... even stinkpotters. (Well maybe I'm going a little too far there. :laugher )


Fair enough, I can certainly see how it may sound that way to some. Let me amplify my comments, I'm simply describing what I have seen with my own two eyes over the years&#8230;

First off, I'm talking about *Cruising Sailors*, here&#8230; More specifically, the typical cruising snowbirds I see heading up and down the East Coast, and venturing into the Bahamas and Caribbean. That's a far cry from a representation of "all cruising sailors", or course - but that group probably does come closest to representing the sort of demographic the recreational marine industry is targeting, and the sort of extended cruising many of us here are likely to begin with&#8230; A trip down the East coast for a winter Bahamian or Caribbean sabbatical is probably about as close as it gets for many people to enrolling in "Cruising 101", and I've gotten to witness a lot of sailors making their first foray into extended cruising beyond the comfort range of their home waters&#8230;

You'll have to just trust me on this, but there is one thing that has become abundantly clear to me&#8230; This type of cruiser is spending considerably less of their time under sail, than they were a decade or two earlier&#8230;

The frequency with which I see cruisers motoring or motorsailing nowadays in ideal sailing conditions simply boggles the mind&#8230; Now, if someone prefers to motor throughout the Bahamas instead of sailing, that's their own business, of course&#8230; but it indicates to me one of the primary shifts we've seen occur in the makeup of the cruising community. Namely, an increasing percentage who are attracted to cruising *as a lifestyle*, as opposed to those drawn to it largely as an opportunity to experience *sailing, as an activity* - coupled with everything else that cruising has to afford, of course&#8230;

Again, nothing inherently wrong with that&#8230; But I think it does help explain why cruisers are sailing less today, the pleasure of sailing per se is just not as important to them, as it was more typically in years past for lifelong sailors, who morphed into cruisers&#8230;

There are many and varied reasons for this, of course&#8230; First and foremost, the advent of Yanmar and other lightweight, compact diesel engines which have become commonplace in the last 20 years&#8230; Before such powerplants became popular, the typical cruising boat was woefully underpowered, one often had no option other than actually SAILING into a 15 knot headwind&#8230; Sadly, today most cruising boats are better performers under power than they are under sail, even in the most favorable conditions&#8230;

The manner in which many boats are burdened with gear is the next big inhibition to the enjoyment of sailing. The extent to which whatever performance the boat may have originally possessed has been degraded, it's no surprise they're being mostly treated as trawlers&#8230; Concessions to comfort such as full cockpit enclosures can restrict one's ability to properly sail a boat to a surprising degree, and greatly increase the likelihood that one will opt to keep plowing down the Ditch under power, rather than jumping outside for a day or an overnight when conditions favor doing so...

The burgeoning electrical burdens placed on their battery banks that many cruisers are heading out there also contribute to sailing less&#8230; The phenomenon of "Well, we've got to run the engine to charge the batteries anyway, so&#8230;" is very real, and surprisingly common&#8230;

But nothing speaks more to the lesser priority placed on sailing among cruisers today, IMHO, than the relative rarity of seeing light air sails being put to use&#8230; Now, it could be just me, but I think one of the greatest sailing pleasures to be had is the use of free-flying sails, on a perfect day&#8230; And yet, the rarity of cruisers out there I see running under a spinnaker or Code 0, it really is astonishing&#8230; Throughout each of my last 3 trips south for the winter, I could count the number of asymetricals being flown by another cruising boat on one hand&#8230; One of those trips, from NJ down through the Bahamas, down to Jamaica, across to the Bay Islands, Rio Dulce, Belize, the Keys, and back up to NJ - I saw not a SINGLE spinnaker or Code 0 being flown by another boat&#8230; Every year, SAIL or CRUISING WORLD will have an article on the "new" asymetricals, or continuous line furler... and yet, I don't know who's using them, but it sure isn't cruisers (beyond something like the photo op at the start of the Baja Ha-Ha, or similar (grin))

What's really inexplicable, to me, is that so often one of these sails will make the difference between motoring, and choosing to sail&#8230; And yet, today's cruiser seems far more inclined to make his big annual boat show purchase a fancy new chartplotter, or a more powerful and efficient Max-Prop, than something like a Code O that will enable him to keep sailing in borderline conditions&#8230;

Again, it's really no concern of mine whether others out there choose to sail, or not&#8230; But I would prefer to see people enjoy their cruising, and stick with it longer, I think there really is a beautiful purity to doing as much of it under sail as possible that more people would come to appreciate if they simply gave themselves the chance&#8230; Not to mention, motoring everywhere is much harder on the boat's machinery, results in more problems to deal with, down time for repairs, and so on&#8230; I see lots of boats stuck in places waiting for alternators or exhaust elbows to be shipped in&#8230; but those waiting for replacement furling drums or battens, not so much&#8230; And, of course, dealing with these sort of mechanical issues as a result of increased run time, and complexity of a boat's systems, is one of the main reasons people often choose to bail on their cruising dream sooner, rather than later&#8230;

Well, as I've said, I'm a broken record on this issue, best not get me started&#8230; (grin)


----------



## Jeff_H

Wearing a different hat than as a SailNet moderator, I would also like to touch on the content of this discussion a little. As we sit here thinking about this tragedy it may seem easy to assign fault. Those with experience with Atlantic Inlets understand the full implication of an onshore breeze and an outgoing current. For them it is easy in the abstract to point fingers at the skipper and say he should have known better. 

He probably should have, he even may have. But not being aboard, and not knowing the circumstances, and feeling in my heart that terrible self-inflicted sense of loss, pain, and guilt that I can only imagine that the skipper must feel having had one crew lost and several nearly lost, I am not comfortable being pointedly critical of the man in a public forum such as this. 

Any of us who have spent a lot of time on boats know that no matter how experienced we each are, we will at some point have a lapse in judgement that will place us, and our vessel in serious harm's way. With experience, we might have the sense to avoid danger and have fewer lapses, and might have the toolset to take a potentially dangerous mistake and make it less dangerous. We might survive by skill or luck and hopefully look back and learn. It is a matter of being human. 

As my good friend Jon Eisberg, (a person who has more sea miles than anyone that I personally know) and I have discussed at length, the idea that when we were learning to sail, it was assumed that new sailors would do an apprenticeship of sorts; some mix of perhaps taking classes, doing reading, sailing lots of hours in increasingly more complex sailing conditions, and sailing with more experienced sailors. And out of that, you learned and became increasingly competent. 

As I have said here many times, these days there are a lot of people coming into the sport, who are in a headlong rush to go "Out There", and yet eschew the concept of making a remotely diligent effort to become broadly knowledgable sailors before setting forth in harms way. If they are lucky, they will survive long enough to learn to be good sailors, or they will lose interest before harming themselves or other. 

This is an important lesson to impart, but it may not be the lesson to be learned here, since I do not think that we know how experienced this skipper was. 

There is a tendancy for boats to become increasingly complex, carrying equipment that makes the near-imposible, doable. And we as modern sailors have become increasingly dependent on these tools. I think that it is a valid point that it is easy to develop a kind of electronic-mechanically induced hubris. Growing up sailing before any of these convenmiences, and sailing boats which are still pretty primatively equipped, I have increasingly observed in myself how easy it is to do something daring, perhaps boarding on stupid, out of this sense of over-confidence and over reliance on these gifts of progress. It happens to all of us. 

It is a good lesson to bear in mind. And it may be exactly what happened in this case, but again the lesson of not being over dependent on modern equipment may not be the lesson to be learned here, since I do not know whether over-dependence on electronics was a factor in this case. 

But then again, this may simply have been a lapse in judgement, a seriously tragic one, but one just the same. As I said before, if you sail long enough, you will make a serious and near life threatening mistake. I apologize to Jon Eisberg who has heard this story that I repeat here. 

Many years ago I was asked by a friend to deliver an old wooden boat from Savannah to St. Augustine. This was in the days before electronic navigation as we know it today, and before small boats carried as we called then "ship to shore" radios. GPS, Loran, and VHF radios did not exist yet, compact radar units were unavailable. Electronic instruments were still primative and considered exotic. Slab reefing and roller furling were still pretty rare and exotic. This was before satillite weather, or computer crunched weather predictions, and so weather windows were not something that was seen as being predictable. 

But, the weather service was predicting a warm snap and 10- 15 knot northerlies, and so we figured that we would be broad-reaching the whole way and would probably cover the 170 miles or so in something less than two days. We figured wrong. 

We had a lovely beam reach out the river but almost immediately the sky clouded over and the wind swung to the west and before we knew it we were beating out into the Atlantic in big seas and high winds. (Being a time before electronic wind instruments, I could only guess that we were in 20 knot winds gusting somewhere around 30 knots at time, but 30 something years later its hard to say.) 

And it was cold and it was wet. These were the days when thermal underwear was cotton and foul weather gear leaked and did not breath and pretty soon we were all soaked to the skin, rash covered and borderline hypothermic. There was not a dry spot or dry piece of clothes on the boat. We were all experiencing bouts of seasickness. At one point I spent an absurd number of hours steering trying to control my seasickness. We were all probably dehydrated as well. 

But we were out there, and out there for days. In that era, the only forms of navigation were either dead reckoning, celestial, and if you were close to shore, you could use a radio direction finder. It had been cloudy for three days straight and so sun or star sites were out, and as sick as we all were, I am not sure that the skipper could have crunched the numbers (in the days before electronic calculators). We had our DR, but we had very little confidence in it since we had crossed the Gulf Stream a few times, and were not sure how much of the night was spent in the Gulf Stream. 

In any event after over three days at sea we arrived at St. Augustine at dusk. And there the helmsman picked up what he assumed was the seabuoy and started in. As we approached the buoy we were surrounded by breakers. We quickly realized that we were approaching the middle of the chanel where there were spoils but before we could do anything we took to bottom. 

That boat had a harsh weather helm and so we used a 'Manila Mike' (a line lead from the tiller to the windward winch) to take the stain off the helmsman, and when we took to bottom the rudder hit and the tiller split. Now we had this short sharpiedged tiller whipping back and forth across the cockpit, threatening to amputate anything that got in the way. We lasso'd the end of the tiller stump and lashed a 2x4 to the stub and beat back out to sea. 

Of course we were leaking badly, and had taken green water down the companionway and so now we were bailing for all we were worth with an ancient navy pump and eventually with a bucket. As night fell, we picked up the seabuoy again, and although we believed running the channel in the dark was nuts, we ran it just the same. Running that channel was one of the scariest things I have ever done. Under the conditions, it was dead wrong. It was dangerous and stupid, and we knew it. But we were considered staying at sea more dangerous so in we came. It was a lapse in judgement of grand proportions. We lucked out and made it in. Had we not, and had it been today, I am sure it would have been easy to critique this boneheaded move on a thousand levels. But it made sense at the time. And somehow when all hell breaks loose, you have to make a decision, and hope its the right one. It might mean being tied up in St. Augustine harbor, eating in a nice restaurant, and sleeping like a baby wet clothes and all. Or it might mean perishing in an Atlantic Inlet. Sitting here, I cannot point my finger at anyone who honestly made their best call and got it wrong. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## tdw

I have no idea who this Jeff_H person is but he does a nice post doesn't he ?


----------



## AE28

RhythmDoctor said:


> And even though I wince at the speculative accusations made at the skipper without actual facts to back them up, the speculation still has useful educational value for me. I just try to absorb the key learnings and choose to withhold judgment against the captain because of the lack of facts.


Well said - thank you.


----------



## AE28

tdw said:


> I have no idea who this Jeff_H person is but he does a nice post doesn't he ?


Yes, he does!

Hard to understand, after reading the story of his own personal experience in his post #459, why he wouldn't be leading the charge to shut this thread down until we've heard from the the captain of _Rule 62_.


----------



## Faster

AE28 said:


> ...until we've heard from the the captain of _Rule 62_.


I suspect that in the litigious climate that exists today, that side of the story will not come out for some time.

All I can say is, I'd hate to be in his (the skipper's) shoes right now.....


----------



## chef2sail

Well said Jeff....


----------



## JonEisberg

Terrific post, as always, Jeff... Good of you to weigh in on this one, your perspective is always valued greatly, and your stories never get old...

And, thanks from refraining to mention that the overwhelming percentage of sea miles under my belt were aboard stinkpots, and that perhaps the scariest "sea story" I have to offer took place a few hundred feet above sea level, on the protected and normally placid waters of the Erie Canal... (grin)


----------



## Pamlicotraveler

Jeff_H said:


> Running that channel was one of the scariest things I have ever done. Under the conditions, it was dead wrong. It was dangerous and stupid, and we knew it. But we were considered staying at sea more dangerous so in we came. *It was a lapse in judgement of grand proportions. We lucked out and made it in.* Had we not, and had it been today, I am sure it would have been easy to critique this boneheaded move on a thousand levels.
> Jeff


This thread needs more of this type of humility. I say "but for the grace of God, go I" because at some point we all make decisions that in hindsight are boneheaded. They don't usually end up as a catastrophe, but occasionally they do.


----------



## HDChopper

Exellent post Jeff !!


----------



## smackdaddy

AE28 said:


> Yes, he does!
> 
> Hard to understand, after reading the story of his own personal experience in his post #459, why he wouldn't be leading the charge to shut this thread down until we've heard from the the captain of _Rule 62_.


Simple. We wouldn't have gotten his great post had the thread been shut down when requested.

These events are great learning opportunities as has been said. They lead to really informative discussion - even if much of it is speculation. No reason to shut it down.

It's easy not to click if it bothers you.


----------



## Izzy1414

I guess it's clear now with whom it would be best to crew with when it hits the fan ... obviously guys like IKena, who are so prepared for everything that they never have a lapse in judgment rather than an admitted risk taking offender like Jeff, right?   Another benefit to threads like these is allowing readers to put a relative value on all the contributions of certain posters based on their responses to the really tough questions. Skill and humility are not mutually exclusive. Thanks, Jeff.


----------



## AE28

smackdaddy said:


> It's easy not to click if it bothers you.


Yes, it would be, except that I keep hoping a factual account of the event will appear.


----------



## landmineop

It is highly unlikely that whatever lawyer is involved will allow that to happen for a LONG time. There are undoubtedly too many lawsuits involved for that to happen for years.


----------



## skipgundlach

SVAuspicious said:


> We are reading things differently, you and I.
> 
> A lot of people are saying that Rule 62 should not have attempted to run the inlet they chose in the dark or in the weather conditions extant.
> 
> Some of us are saying that decision shouldn't have been relevant because running inshore was in and of itself a poor decision.
> 
> I agree there is an undercurrent of "wrong boat" that always shows up in threads about a production boat - you can ignore those. In most cases the boat is stronger than the crew anyway.


Amen, particularly in light of its being salvaged off the beach. My pix links showed the nature and location of the damages.

I wonder if they had to step up to get in the life raft...

L8R

Skip


----------



## Leocat66

Jon, I totally support your postings. I am an old guy with much experience and a true sea boat. I find that I am becoming more and more interested in less and less hard work in my sailing. I prepare better and am interested in fewer surprises. I do my best to seek out lower wind speeds and smaller seas for my passages as I have nothing to prove to anyone. I've done it all, time to relax and enjoy. You sir are a true gentleman.


----------



## IKena

We can really appreciate the quality participation of many experienced sailors, in this long enough discussion. Many aspect of sailing has been discussed, so much that we may even forget what we are debating about. 

From mistakes of skippers, life at sea, personal stories, to comments about the current lifestyle of some sailors. True, we certainly need all kind of sailors out there to give some colors to our sailing world. But there is one kind we need for sure, it is the safe sailors.

They are the ones who takes extra precautions. Overly prudent, they are not in for the fame, but try their best to teach the new generation about responsible sailing. I was lucky to have met one who taught me everything. And no, he had never done far passages, no he did not have tens of thousand miles of sea under the keel. The only single important lesson he taught me, was anticipation. Anticipation is what is need to be successful and avoid tragedies.

And it is a tragedy we are talking about, not just a lost of a boat, but a lost of life. Let's not forget that somebody trusted her life to somebody else. This is sometime overlooked, but it is the utmost responsibility of the skipper.

As we take on crew, we need to understand the implications, and the real danger that is lurking out there. And one needs to ask himself why he needs crew in the first place. 

To all of you going out there at sea, fair winds, and anticipate.


----------



## sailingdog

I think what my father told me about cars and driving applies here... He said something to the effect that* when you accept passengers, you are responsible for them and their safety is your responsibility--they are putting their lives in your hands and trusting you to take care of them. *This is true whether the vehicle is an automobile or a sailboat. The buck stops with the captain (or driver).


----------



## MARC2012

I am with ae28,few facts re wtf happened & less speculation.marc


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Beneteau has understood that and that's why they are investing in a new line of sailingboats, the Sense line, boats that are made to sail in perfect conditions and with almost no heel (7 to 10º). The ones that went first on that direction were the guys from "Feeling" with the 52 and the 55ft. Both sailboats have *TWO ENGINES*.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo, haven't you heard? The Sense 50 was the sensation of the Annapolis show this year, and Jeanneau is literally turning boating into "child's play"&#8230;

YouTube - 360 DOCKING BY JEANNEAU

Some may note the delicious irony that it apparently never even occurred to Jeanneau to bother bending on a suit of sails on that boat&#8230;

Or, the far sadder one, that the boat shown is the same model as RULE 62&#8230;

A couple of things catch my eye, watching that vid&#8230; Note the amount of rolling moment induced simply by the initial burst of thruster and the rotating saildrive, and how "lightly" she appears to sit upon the water&#8230; Of course, RULE 62 likely sat considerably lower on her lines, presumably fully loaded with cruising gear, but still&#8230; There is a lot of freeboard on that boat, I'm once again struck by the height of the cockpit above the water, and how open and exposed it is in general&#8230;

Again, a boat that spins 360s so easily within its own length is not likely to have much inherent directional stability in rough or confused conditions offshore, it should be no surprise it made big demands the autopilot initially, and the helmsmen subsequently&#8230; I know some here disagree that the type or style of boat had anything to do with this tragedy, but seeing this video only further confirms my opinion that a design of this nature definitely would have been a considerably more uncomfortable and exhausting ride than that aboard a heavier, more moderately proportioned boat designed primarily for offshore sailing&#8230;


----------



## btrayfors

I think Jeanneau should introduce two new features (which I'm sure they're already working on):

1. *An I-Pod app* which does all the hard finger work for you...no need even for a kid to do the docking; and

2. *An Internet interface* which allows you to sail the boat from the comfort of your home or office, or from the bar alongside the dock.

Note as the video ends the middle-age crew disembarks alone, presumably leaving the kid (their grandson??) to handle the docklines, cleanup, etc. before he returns to the joystick, pushes the button, and brings up his favorite video game.

Simply amaaaazing, these Frenchies 

OK, BendyToy, try to top that!

Bill


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Paulo, haven't you heard? The Sense 50 was the sensation of the Annapolis show this year, and Jeanneau is literally turning boating into "child's play"&#8230;
> 
> YouTube - 360 DOCKING BY JEANNEAU
> 
> Some may note the delicious irony that it apparently never even occurred to Jeanneau to bother bending on a suit of sails on that boat&#8230;
> 
> Or, the far sadder one, that the boat shown is the same model as RULE 62&#8230;
> 
> A couple of things catch my eye, watching that vid&#8230; Note the amount of rolling moment induced simply by the initial burst of thruster and the rotating saildrive, and how "lightly" she appears to sit upon the water&#8230; Of course, RULE 62 likely sat considerably lower on her lines, presumably fully loaded with cruising gear, but still&#8230; There is a lot of freeboard on that boat, I'm once again struck by the height of the cockpit above the water, and how open and exposed it is in general&#8230;
> 
> Again, a boat that spins 360s so easily within its own length is not likely to have much inherent directional stability in rough or confused conditions offshore, it should be no surprise it made big demands the autopilot initially, and the helmsmen subsequently&#8230; I know some here disagree that the type or style of boat had anything to do with this tragedy, but seeing this video only further confirms my opinion that a design of this nature definitely would have been a considerably more uncomfortable and exhausting ride than that aboard a heavier, more moderately proportioned boat designed primarily for offshore sailing&#8230;


Jonh,

I have said it but to clarify your comment on my post, I have to say it again:

I don't think that this accident, that happened in moderate sea conditions, has anything to do with the boat. The Jeanneau 46ds is perfectly capable of handling more than moderate conditions. I know the boat and its stability curve and it is perfectly adequate for offshore passages in moderate conditions. I mean if the boat was rigged for that: It should include storm sails, a detachable inner stay for a small front stay sail or storm sail, and life lines. It is not the boat that I would have chosen, but it was more than enough for the conditions.

If people were thrown out of the boat by a wave it was because they were nor adequately harnessed to the boat, if they chose to approach a difficult passage in the dark, well....that beats me, it is the Captain that has to explain that, but that's a very difficult explanation.

When I have said that Benetau is making boats like the Sense series (that sail poorly against the wind) what I mean is that they are acting correctly, because they are giving to most of the sailors the boat they want.

There is nothing wrong with the boats on the market. There are boats for every sailor, Beneteau, as the leader of mass production boats is just providing the market with what most sailors want: Boats that can be comfortable and easily sailed on mild conditions but that are nor adapted for rough conditions (Sense series). That's what most sailors want and that's why the boat is a success.

If you want a more seaworthy boat, well, Beneteau makes also the First 45 and the First 50, both very good offshore boats. If sailors chose to buy 15 Beneteau (Oceanis) for each First, it is just because they don't want an offshore boat, but a basically a more inexpensive coastal boat with some offshore capabilities and a much bigger interior (high free-board and beam).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ronbo1

* Rule 62's tragedy may result in future offshore sailors rethinking the suitability of their boats for when things turn ugly.

Ronbo*


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Jonh,
> 
> I have said it but to clarify your comment on my post, I have to say it again:
> 
> I don't think that this accident, that happened in moderate sea conditions, has anything to do with the boat. The Jeanneau 46ds is perfectly capable of handling more than moderate conditions. I know the boat and its stability curve and it is perfectly adequate for offshore passages in moderate conditions. I mean if the boat was rigged for that: It should include storm sails, a detachable inner stay for a small front stay sail or storm sail, and life lines. It is not the boat that I would have chosen, but it was more than enough for the conditions.
> 
> If people were thrown out of the boat by a wave it was because they were nor adequately harnessed to the boat, if they chose to approach a difficult passage in the dark, well....that beats me, it is the Captain that has to explain that, but that's a very difficult explanation.
> 
> When I have said that Benetau is making boats like the Sense series (that sail poorly against the wind) what I mean is that they are acting correctly, because they are giving to most of the sailors the boat they want.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the boats on the market. There are boats for every sailor, Beneteau, as the leader of mass production boats is just providing the market with what most sailors want: Boats that can be comfortable and easily sailed on mild conditions but that are nor adapted for rough conditions (Sense series). That's what most sailors want and that's why the boat is a success.
> 
> If you want a more seaworthy boat, well, Beneteau makes also the First 45 and the First 50, both very good offshore boats. If sailors chose to buy 15 Beneteau (Oceanis) for each First, it is just because they don't want an offshore boat, but a basically a more inexpensive coastal boat with some offshore capabilities and a much bigger interior (high free-board and beam).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I don't entirely disagree, obviously that boat is more than capable of making such a trip, I'm not suggesting otherwise&#8230; My point is simply that such a design is going to be hard on the crew when the going gets tough, and more quickly contribute to potential sickness or fatigue than would a boar likely to have a slower, "softer" motion in a seaway&#8230;

Obviously, something is very wrong with either the choice of boat, the choice of crew, or some combination thereof, when half the ship's complement was - according to the reports we've heard - significantly impaired by seasickness from the trip's outset&#8230;

Again, perhaps it's just me, but the ergonomics of the deck and cockpit on this thing scare the hell out of me, in considering the prospect of sailing it in a blow, offshore&#8230; Not exactly the sort of decision I want to have to make when going forward on the weather deck at an extreme angle of heel, whether to actually walk on the deck itself, or the side of coaming and raised salon... Anyone know, does it come with a non-skid window option for passagemaking? (grin)


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> 
> Obviously, something is very wrong with either the choice of boat, the choice of crew, or some combination thereof, when half the ship's complement was - according to the reports we've heard - significantly impaired by seasickness from the trip's outset&#8230;


I agree, but again, I don't think it has to do with the boat.



JonEisberg said:


> Again, perhaps it's just me, but the ergonomics of the deck and cockpit on this thing scare the hell out of me, in considering the prospect of sailing it in a blow, offshore&#8230; Not exactly the sort of decision I want to have to make when going forward on the weather deck at an extreme angle of heel, whether to actually walk on the deck itself, or the side of coaming and raised salon... Anyone know, does it come with a non-skid window option for passagemaking? (grin)


Yes not the ideal boat, but again you have to consider:

These kind of hulls heel a lot less than old designed hulls (lots of form stability).

Contrary to older boat rigs, this one is conceived to be handled completely from the cockpit, including reefing, even when they have not a furling mainsail. That don't exclude completely the need to go forward but make it a very rare need.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

IKena said:


> Overly prudent, they are not in for the fame....


Crap. That rules me out.


----------



## Faster

PCP said:


> These kind of hulls heel a lot less than old designed hulls (lots of form stability).


This is interesting... here we have a proven offshore veteran in discussion with a connoisseur of yacht design development. Good on both of you for your contributions.

My $.02 (CDN) on the point above is that I'm wondering if that strong form stability doesn't indeed become a liability in short, steep seas in a similar fashion to the snappy behaviour of catamarans in waves. There'd be less 'roll' to dampen the motion of the boat in these seas as the hull form would tend to follow the surface pattern more aggressively.. It's not difficult to see this causing increased discomfort, seasickness and even decreased security to cockpit crew not properly clipped in. The longer 'effective lever' at the extreme beam has got to put more catapulting action onto an object or a person at the end of that 'arm'....


----------



## PCP

Probably yes. This has been discussed a lot. In some situations you will have more acceleration but a heavier boat will tend to perpetuate that up and down movement forever. That was not what I was referring neither do I have disputed that claim made by John even if there are people that find more comfortable the motion of a modern boat, compared with the motion of an heavier and older boat.

I was just pointing out that when sailing, that kind of hull, I mean the kind of hull that is now used on almost all modern cruisers with a lot of beam and a large transom, is made to sail with maximum efficiency at 15º of heel. On my boat the sailing position was most of the time between 25 and 30º and that was the ideal heeling in what regards sail efficiency. 

What I was saying is that it is a lot easier to go forward with 10 or 15º of heel than with 25 or 30º 

By the way, in what regards rolling and damping the modern broad and flat transom plays a big role, if compared with an all rounded hull with more ballast on the keel. 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## xxuxx

*I'd like to hear from the experts on what boat they would pick?*

With all this blah blah blah on boat design, I would like to hear what boat the so-called experts would pick to do the caibe 1500? And don't say cape dory or shannon.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Yes not the ideal boat, but again you have to consider:
> 
> These kind of hulls heel a lot less than old designed hulls (lots of form stability).


That's true, but in certain conditions, that only serves to further expose all that flat bottom to the water surface, and can exacerbate pounding, etc&#8230; Of course, such boats are not really designed to sail close to the wind in big seas, but every once in awhile, one has no choice&#8230;



PCP said:


> Contrary to older boat rigs, *this one is conceived to be handled completely from the cockpit, including reefing*, even when they have not a furling mainsail. That don't exclude completely the need to go forward but make it a very rare need.


Yes, I have some experience with boats so "*conceived*"&#8230; Hence, my admitted obsession with decks that permit safe movement about them, even when one should not have to be doing so, in theory&#8230; (grin)



Faster said:


> My $.02 (CDN) on the point above is that I'm wondering if that strong form stability doesn't indeed become a liability in short, steep seas in a similar fashion to the snappy behaviour of catamarans in waves. There'd be less 'roll' to dampen the motion of the boat in these seas as the hull form would tend to follow the surface pattern more aggressively.. It's not difficult to see this causing increased discomfort, seasickness and even decreased security to cockpit crew not properly clipped in. *The longer 'effective lever' at the extreme beam has got to put more catapulting action onto an object or a person at the end of that 'arm'....*


And that is why I feel these double helms are a poor idea on an offshore boat&#8230;

No question, 2 wheels are far sexier than one - they better match the look of such a boat, and definitely have their advantage at anchor, or at a Med mooring so common in Europe, and certainly at the boat shows&#8230;

But, in terms of subjection a helmsman at the point of greatest motion and exposure to the elements, the only worse place on deck to place one would be at the bow&#8230;

Sure, we all know the autopilot was supposed to drive RULE 62 most of the way to the islands - but as we have seen, it doesn't always work out that way&#8230;


----------



## PCP

I am not an expert, at least in nothing related to boats, but I would say that the choice of the ideal boat is something that will depend on the size of the crew and on the particular sailing tastes of each sailor. Certainly there will be more adapted boats than others, but you will get very different boats anyway.

I guess that there is something of a competition in that event, so if you want to win it, you will enter in a different boat than if your objective is to make it to Bermudas the more comfortably as you can 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

xxuxx said:


> With all this blah blah blah on boat design, I would like to hear what boat the so-called experts would pick to do the caibe 1500? And don't say cape dory or shannon.


Well, I'm certainly no expert, all I know is what works for me&#8230;

Since you're not limiting my budget, an Alden like this is one of the first that comes to mind&#8230;










There's many a good good reason why such a boat makes the cover of that book&#8230; In reality, however, it's just one of the prettier one of scores of boats I'd be comfortable choosing for such a passage...

I'll take mine in black, with a windvane on back&#8230;


----------



## PCP

I would take an Elan 350 and I would solo sail it.










Regards

Paulo


----------



## sailingmum

*Maritime inquiry & Thanks to Jeff !*

I wonder who knows about International or Maritime inquiry in the Bahamas. I did a cursory search but thought I'd ask here. I would think there would be a formal and public maritime accident report to be followed up with a maritime inquiry. Curious if anyone here has any knowledge about this and what the time frame might be. 
Jeff ~ glad this thread not closed. Thanks.


----------



## btrayfors

Investigations - The Bahamas Maritime Authority


----------



## SVAuspicious

I find it interesting that the discussion veers back to the boat. In my opinion the crew, including the skipper, are much more important than the boat.


----------



## sailingdog

Considering the fact that the boat didn't make the decision to try and enter the the reef during a rage....the boat wasn't the problem. What they did with it was.



SVAuspicious said:


> I find it interesting that the discussion veers back to the boat. In my opinion the crew, including the skipper, are much more important than the boat.


----------



## btrayfors

Absolutely! And the chances of us ever finding out what actually happened are about the same as the Redskins winning the Super Bowl this year 

Bill


----------



## sailingdog

It could happen... the Cubs could win the World Series too... 



btrayfors said:


> Absolutely! And the chances of us ever finding out what actually happened are about the same as the *Redskins winning the Super Bowl this year*
> 
> Bill


----------



## Vasco

SVAuspicious said:


> I find it interesting that the discussion veers back to the boat. In my opinion the crew, including the skipper, are much more important than the boat.


Agree. I don't know why some posters go on and on about the boat. I don't think any "bluewater" boat would have fared any better than the Jeanneau. Actually the boat looked pretty good after it fetched up on the beach. Contrary to the erroneous header in this thread Rule 62 did not sink. In my opinion the decision to try and run the cut during a rage boiled down to one factor, total ignorance of what a rage is and when it occurs.

Any discussion regarding fatigue and seasickness and speculation that they wouldn't have been as sick or tired in another type of boat is patently absurd. If you are prone to seasickness, when conditions worsen you will get sick on a 500 foot ship without stabilizers. Having been seasick during my first two years at sea I can attest to that.

Now sometimes you can be that sick that you wish you were dead. But running a cut in a rage is more than wishing to be dead.


----------



## xxuxx

*Too much blah blah blah*

One poster even wants to be in an Alden??? Do they even make those things anymore? I agree, it didn't matter what boat Dick Ross was sailing, it had no bearing on the outcome of his sheer stupidity: Entering a cut at night in a Rage. PERIOD. Please close the thread now.


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> I find it interesting that the discussion veers back to the boat. In my opinion the crew, including the skipper, are much more important than the boat.


I agree, of course, but only up to a point&#8230; I'll add what I feel is an important caveat, which I think becomes relevant to this discussion, and gets to the heart of the point I'm trying to make&#8230;

Assuming an *experienced* crew, for sure the crew is always the critical element, their skills and knowledge will usually be able to offset or overcome problems arising from the shortcomings of a boat&#8230; However, the balance of that equation can shift considerably when you're talking about *sailors with lesser experience*, it is then that various attributes/characteristics of various boats can, indeed, become more important, and begin to "override" the skill of the sailors aboard&#8230;

For example, it's pretty obvious at a glance that RULE 62 was not a boat that would have likely to heave-to naturally, or with ease&#8230; Who knows, perhaps the skipper did attempt to heave-to at some point, but was unsuccessful? If that were indeed the case, well, that would be an example of the boat "trumping" the crew's level of experience, when a more experienced crew would have been more likely to succeed&#8230;

Similarly, a boat like RULE 62 is gonna be very demanding of an autopilot offshore, more than a more moderate or "traditional" design&#8230; As a result, expertise in an element of seamanship such as sail trim will become more critical aboard such a boat, than it would aboard a design more forgiving of imbalance in sail trim&#8230; Such imbalance on a boat like RULE 62 would have only increased the work the autopilot had to do, and thus increased the potential for problems - whereas, a less skilled crew might "get away with" more were they aboard a more moderate, or "forgiving" design&#8230;

However, my point in raising the design aspects of the boat in question has always been this: I think it's pretty obvious that crew discomfort and resultant exhaustion were prime contributors to this tragedy - that was the reason they cited for abandoning the rally, after all&#8230; Had they been aboard a more moderate design, and been more comfortable in the conditions they experienced, perhaps the effects of their discomfort might not have become so pronounced, is all&#8230;

Just one gasbag's opinion, of course&#8230; (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg

xxuxx said:


> *One poster even wants to be in an Alden??? Do they even make those things anymore?* I agree, it didn't matter what boat Dick Ross was sailing, it had no bearing on the outcome of his sheer stupidity: Entering a cut at night in a Rage. PERIOD. Please close the thread now.


LOL!

It's outside the scope of this thread, of course, but perhaps some other time you can elucidate the shortcomings of such a boat for sailing offshore?










FWIW, John G. Alden is tied with Carleton Mitchell at the top of the list of multiple Newport-Bermuda Race winners, with 3 wins apiece&#8230; However, I'm sure he never learned much about what characteristics, design, or construction elements might make a decent offshore sailing yacht, right?


----------



## smackdaddy

xxuxx said:


> One poster even wants to be in an Alden??? Do they even make those things anymore? I agree, it didn't matter what boat Dick Ross was sailing, it had no bearing on the outcome of his sheer stupidity: Entering a cut at night in a Rage. PERIOD. Please close the thread now.


Yo, lighten up Crankypants. I mean, on the one hand, you're right (as are others above) that it was the decision, not the boat, that caused the tragedy.

However, there are many, many factors that led to that decision. That's what is being discussed. And it's a pretty damn good discussion.


----------



## doublewide

I have enjoyed this discussion. I was on passage to Tortola when Rule 62 hit the reef. During that time, once we got across the Stream, the seas were at least 15 feet from the NW, and very regular, with a 14 second interval. If the skipper of Rule 62 had continued SE, keeping those big seas on his quarter instead of heading SW with the seas on his beam, then his ship would have had a very comfortable motion, and three things would have happened: the crew would have been less seasick and exhausted, they would probably have made better decisions, and they would have wound up in Tortola.

I agree that the boat didn't cause the shipwreck, but I think she contributed to crew failure, with those low cockpit coamings, lack of adequate handholds, narrow side decks, open transom, and exposed helm stations.

Consider also the interior. We don't know what provision the skipper made for rigging lee cloths, but the promotional photos of this boat make me wonder where the crew could possibly have obtained rest. The master's bunk looks like a big hockey puck. I doubt that one could stay in that bunk, much less sleep, with 15 foot swells on the beam. The crew must have been rolling their guts out. Before going offshore it is important to set the boat up so the crew can rest securely. Failure to do so will lead to crew exhaustion.


----------



## svsirius

doublewide said:


> I agree that the boat didn't cause the shipwreck, but I think she contributed to crew failure, with those low cockpit coamings, lack of adequate handholds, narrow side decks, open transom, and exposed helm stations.
> 
> Consider also the interior. We don't know what provision the skipper made for rigging lee cloths, but the promotional photos of this boat make me wonder where the crew could possibly have obtained rest. The master's bunk looks like a big hockey puck. I doubt that one could stay in that bunk, much less sleep, with 15 foot swells on the beam. The crew must have been rolling their guts out. Before going offshore it is important to set the boat up so the crew can rest securely. Failure to do so will lead to crew exhaustion.


This is probably the first post on the boat having a factor that I agree with. Does not matter how stable the platform or to what degree it was built to the 'old' cruising style, if you have not made sure you have good sea berths etc. you will get no rest and decision making will go downhill quickly.

For example my boat was built back when wide open spaces were not the norm however making sure we had good handholds and lee cloths for every berth was a task. We added additional lee cloths so centerline queen aft could be two offshore berths, both settee's in the saloon had lee cloths etc. In fact off the wind the aft stateroom queen was one of the best spots in the house.

But most important as said above and many times before if the skipper had not made the turn to the Bahamas everyone would probably be safe in the BVIs.


----------



## sailingdog

svsirius said:


> But most important as said above and many times before if the skipper had not made the turn to the Bahamas everyone would probably be safe in the BVIs.


The turn to the Bahamas wasn't the issue IMHO...it was the final turn to enter the reef passage in a rage that was. There were options in the Bahamas that would have been safe in those conditions.


----------



## AboardIndigo

One of the benefits of a forum such as this is that the time between a fatal incident and the benefit of understanding the potential causes and learning from it is greatly reduced.

This underscores the old tenet that 'in bad weather it's usually safer to stay out unless there's a damn good reason not to' for me.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Assuming an *experienced* crew, for sure the crew is always the critical element, their skills and knowledge will usually be able to offset or overcome problems arising from the shortcomings of a boat&#8230; However, the balance of that equation can shift considerably when you're talking about *sailors with lesser experience*, it is then that various attributes/characteristics of various boats can, indeed, become more important, and begin to "override" the skill of the sailors aboard&#8230;


With all due respect Jon I think we are coming at the same point from different directions. Crews and owners seem to focus on spending money on boats and gear. If they spent money instead on guided experience two things would evolve: 1. the "cut and paste" sailors who pontificate at length (not you Jon) would rapidly lose credibility and 2. they would be in a position to make better decisions based on education and experience.

Oh - and anyone that doesn't think that making a right turn and heading for anywhere in the Bahamas wasn't the causal factor needs to go back to Step 1. Period dot. Sure there were less bad choices that could have been made than the particular inlet that led to tragedy. The fact is that a poor choice was made to head for the Bahamas when staying in deep water and away from land was the better answer.

On this subject, since we don't have all the facts and we weren't all there, we can only evaluate what we do know. We don't know if Mr. Ross actually made the decision to run to the Bahamas. We only know that the decision was made. On a boat with friends and family the chain of command can be complicated. All we know is that the boat changed course and (second-hand) they reported that decision on the rally SSB Net. Demonstrably a bad choice.

I sat in Little Creek the day the Carib 1500 left (not part of the rally, just coincidentally heading to BVI at the same time) and made a different choice. I went home. Next week I'm going to make the run. The devil is of course in the details, but policy on the boat will be "when in doubt go out."


----------



## rockDAWG

Just wonder 

1. If the coastguard has completed their investigation of this incident
2. If the Laura's family has spoken to the crews and captain of Rule 62. 

I understand that the captain and crews have no obligation to keep us informed on the internet. But to the family, they should and they must. It is the right thing to do. 

My deepest condolence to the family of Laura. May her tragedy teach us a lesson, so many will live.


----------



## smackdaddy

doublewide said:


> IConsider also the interior. We don't know what provision the skipper made for rigging lee cloths, but the promotional photos of this boat make me wonder where the crew could possibly have obtained rest. The master's bunk looks like a big hockey puck. I doubt that one could stay in that bunk, much less sleep, with 15 foot swells on the beam. The crew must have been rolling their guts out. Before going offshore it is important to set the boat up so the crew can rest securely. Failure to do so will lead to crew exhaustion.


Great post double. And a great follow up by sirius.

Is there a thread on SN (or good resource elsewhere) that discusses how to rig lee cloths on newer boats? Sirius' post about rigging lee cloths for a centerline berth (seemingly a bit more a challenge than a quarter berth) got me wondering how you'd do it.


----------



## SVAuspicious

smackdaddy said:


> Is there a thread on SN (or good resource elsewhere) that discusses how to rig lee cloths on newer boats? Sirius' post about rigging lee cloths for a centerline berth (seemingly a bit more a challenge than a quarter berth) got me wondering how you'd do it.


On my boat, the lee clothes are attached to fittings below the settee in the salon and attach to fittings, including the overhead handrail, overhead. Aft around the centerline berth the lee clothes go to fittings on the inside of the transom and on the overhead near the forward bulkhead of the aft cabin. Those work great. We also end up with people sleeping on the floor in the salon and the walkthrough. Those end up being the most popular places. Camping pads work great there.

I often end up on the floor somewhere on deliveries of boats that aren't necessarily fitted out well for sailing offshore for days on end.


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> LOL!
> 
> It's outside the scope of this thread, of course, but perhaps some other time you can elucidate the shortcomings of such a boat for sailing offshore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, John G. Alden is tied with Carleton Mitchell at the top of the list of multiple Newport-Bermuda Race winners, with 3 wins apiece&#8230; However, I'm sure he never learned much about what characteristics, design, or construction elements might make a decent offshore sailing yacht, right?


Take a look at the boats that today (not 20 or 30 years ago) win the Newport-Bermuda race. That's a good begining. They are very different from that one.

Then you have to consider that a boat that is massively seaworthy but that it is conceived to be sailed with a crew of 10 is not normally a good option for a solo or small crew. It is a better choice to look at the Ocean racers that are conceived to be solo sailed or with a duo crew. That's better but not enough because those boats are very powerful and demand expert sailors to tame that power. You should look at the boats that are designed for being ocean raced by a small amateur crew (solo or duo)...and voilá, you have arrived to the boat that I had posted, the Elan 350.

Regards

Paulo

PS. I will not be able to reply for some days, I am going to France.

A Merry Christmas to everybody


----------



## speciald

In my humble opinion, an off shore boat should have a number of design attributes - 1) high stability - righting moment, 2) deep, not flat forefoot ahead of keel to ease entry, 3)Weight (tanks,etc.) centered over keel to limit hobby-horseing, 4) a narrow stern, 5) a deep cockpit with a high bridge deck, 6) all control lines in cockpit, 7) Solid hulls at least to the water line, 8) wide and flat decks. Unfortunately many newer boats have gone in other directions such as carrying the beam aft as far as possible, flattening the forefoot for speed, wide, open cockpits, cored hulls, fuel tanks under aft berth, no flat surfaces forward. Many of these design features are made to increase internal volume at rest and make the boats easier to sell not sail.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> On my boat, the lee clothes are attached to fittings below the settee in the salon and attach to fittings, including the overhead handrail, overhead. Aft around the centerline berth the lee clothes go to fittings on the inside of the transom and on the overhead near the forward bulkhead of the aft cabin. Those work great. We also end up with people sleeping on the floor in the salon and the walkthrough. Those end up being the most popular places. Camping pads work great there.
> 
> I often end up on the floor somewhere on deliveries of boats that aren't necessarily fitted out well for sailing offshore for days on end.


Cool. Thanks ausp.

As for the fittings, did you install them? And, if so, what do they look like and how are they anchored/water-proofed?


----------



## Plumbean

PCP said:


> Take a look at the boats that today (not 20 or 30 years ago) win the Newport-Bermuda race. That's a good begining. They are very different from that one.


The 2010 winner was Carina, a McCurdy and Rhodes design. This was her second overall win, the first one coming 40 years earlier.

2008 and 2006 were won by Sinn Fein, a Cal 40 built some 45 years ago.

Not that the Bermuda Race is the definitive answer on any of this, but the old designs do pretty well at it.


----------



## Melantho

JonEisberg said:


> Paulo, haven't you heard? The Sense 50 was the sensation of the Annapolis show this year, and Jeanneau is literally turning boating into "child's play"&#8230;


One of my regular crew spent some time offshore in the Sense 50. His opinion was the boat is designed for a dockside party for 30, not offshore passages.


----------



## smackdaddy

Melantho said:


> One of my regular crew spent some time offshore in the Sense 50. His opinion was the boat is designed for a dockside party for 30, not offshore passages.


I'd hit it.






However, it definitely looks like a poodlefied-condo - not a tuffy. Look at the dude working from the leeward to windward wheel at about 1:30. Looks like he's climbing Everest. You want to do that in 10' seas? With a gimpy knee? And a poodle?

Fuggedaboudit.

(PS - What's with the up/down thing going on at about 0:42? Is this the whole freakin' house-top compressing? Or just a bad video angle of the tv/heavy-seas-backstop?)


----------



## speciald

Non - Sense!!


----------



## sailingdog

High stability and righting moment are two totally different things. A cruising catamaran has high stability, but little righting moment once it gets knocked down. Many older narrower design monohulls have little initial stability, but stiffen up as they heel and will self-right just fine.

Solid hulls are not necessary, and may be weaker than properly constructed cored hulls.

A deep cockpit is a bad idea, unless it is fairly small. Too large a cockpit makes the danger of being pooped far greater.



speciald said:


> In my humble opinion, an off shore boat should have a number of design attributes - 1) high stability - righting moment, 2) deep, not flat forefoot ahead of keel to ease entry, 3)Weight (tanks,etc.) centered over keel to limit hobby-horseing, 4) a narrow stern, 5) a deep cockpit with a high bridge deck, 6) all control lines in cockpit, 7) Solid hulls at least to the water line, 8) wide and flat decks. Unfortunately many newer boats have gone in other directions such as carrying the beam aft as far as possible, flattening the forefoot for speed, wide, open cockpits, cored hulls, fuel tanks under aft berth, no flat surfaces forward. Many of these design features are made to increase internal volume at rest and make the boats easier to sell not sail.


----------



## IKena

I am not sure why so much distaste for the Jeanneaus. 

They are definitely good boats, even though not my style. And I'm definetely conservative as most gents are here.

The boat has nothing to do with the incident. If the crew & captain were not experienced enough to sail that kind of boat offshore, then that's the problem here. A 45ft boat is a lot of a boat to handle if it was their first offshore passage. And if it was not their first offshore passage, they should know how the boat behave.


----------



## tdw

Am I the only one here who thinks that some of these posts are utterly inappropriate for this thread ?


----------



## MacGyverRI

tdw said:


> Am I the only one here who thinks that some of these posts are utterly inappropriate for this thread ?


I'll 2nd that....


----------



## TomMaine

*My first post!*

I've been following this thread since Rule 62 had it's unfortunate accident. I've had a lot of questions, many of which were asked here. This incident was very sad but should be discussed logically. Thanks for doing that.

It was a poor choice to head to that cut. I know that. But that's all I really know. However, I've learned quite a bit from this thread. This incident after discussion like this, will be hard to forget.

I don't think it's about the boat. (Hi Jon  )


----------



## SVAuspicious

smackdaddy said:


> As for the fittings, did you install them? And, if so, what do they look like and how are they anchored/water-proofed?


The fittings are stainless steel rings about 1" in diameter fixed by long wood screws so that the load is principally in sheer. They work great.


----------



## JonEisberg

speciald said:


> In my humble opinion, an off shore boat should have a number of design attributes - 1) high stability - righting moment, 2) deep, *not flat forefoot ahead of keel to ease entry*, 3)Weight (tanks,etc.) centered over keel to limit hobby-horseing, 4) a narrow stern, 5) a deep cockpit with a high bridge deck, 6) all control lines in cockpit, 7) Solid hulls at least to the water line, 8) wide and flat decks. Unfortunately many newer boats have gone in other directions such as carrying the beam aft as far as possible, *flattening the forefoot for speed*, wide, open cockpits, cored hulls, fuel tanks under aft berth, no flat surfaces forward. Many of these design features are made to increase internal volume at rest and make the boats easier to sell not sail.


Gotta confess, I'm a bit relieved to see - with posts like yours and doublewide's - that I may not be the only one here that might not subscribe to the notion that all boats are created equal, or that things like the ergonomics of decks and interiors don't matter 500 miles SE of Hatteras in mid-November, or that one style of boat could not have possibly contributed to the degree of discomfort and exhaustion which plagued the crew of RULE 62 more than any other type of design&#8230; (grin)

When I consider the suitability of such a boat for offshore, those flat, shallow hull sections you mention are perhaps the first thing I see&#8230; they defy one of the most important indicators of what makes a good bluewater boat, IMHO - which can be best summed up in 3 simple words:

*Silence is Golden&#8230;*

Sailing such a boat in big or confused seas offshore is bound to be a very *noisy* affair&#8230; And, very few among the cacophony of sounds a relatively lightly-constructed, flat-bottomed boat are going to produce will be pleasant&#8230; In fact, the unceasing noise well could have induced considerable fear among an inexperienced crew who had never dealt with it before, or for such a prolonged period, and such concern whether the boat could continue to withstand a continuation of the sort of the shocks being imparted on such a hull and rig could have been instrumental in their decision to bail out of the rally&#8230; Just a hunch, of course, but it most certainly could have exacerbated the crew's discomfort, and fatigue&#8230;

IMHO, the Noise Factor is one that is an often underestimated aspect of passagemaking, it can really get to you after awhile&#8230;The most exhausting passage I have ever experienced was directly a result of this sort of thing&#8230; Oddly, it was an unseasonablyly light-air passage from Montego Bay back to Florida, via the Yucatan Channel, and for almost 3 days we endured the slatting and backfilling of a huge main and spinnaker in a lazy, leftover swell&#8230; With an 80' carbon fiber stick tuned tighter than a drum, the noise and shock loads transmitted throughout the entire boat were incredible&#8230; Just 2 of us aboard, but no matter how tired either of us became, any sort of real rest or sleep was an impossibility, we were both on the verge of becoming dangerously impaired by fatigue, when we thankfully concluded we had the fuel to fire up the engine, and motor the rest of the way to Key West&#8230;

The pic below is of the most seakindly yacht I have ever had the pleasure to sail&#8230; No coincidence, she was also the quietest, and her demure nature turned a trip around Hatteras in late January into a relative walk in the park&#8230;










Of course, much of that has to do with the extraordinary quality of the work of the builder, Lyman-Morse&#8230; But I think most of it derives from the lines originally drawn by those guys at Sparkman & Stephens&#8230;










I'm sure many - including my buddy Jeff H, who has already forgotten more about boats and their design than I will ever know - will look at such a design as hopelessly outdated, with its big overhangs, pinched stern, and so on&#8230; Well, all I know from my experience with the beautiful FAIRWEATHER, is that *it works*&#8230; I like to think the overall "softness" of the lines are the reason she was such a pleasure to sail, and placed so little demand on the crew in general, but I'll leave that to the experts to determine&#8230;

FAIRWEATHER very well may have been the last boat to have been shown at the Annapolis show that actually features something as pathetically passe' these days as dedicated pilot berths&#8230; One of the most exquisite pleasures I've ever known offshore, crawling into one of those things at the start of an off-watch - even more luxurious and decadent than slipping into a First Class Pullman berth on the Orient Express, I'll bet&#8230;










She's for sale, BTW, if anyone's interested&#8230; She'll take good care of you and your crew in any situation, but that's not to suggest she still won't be pretty High Maintenance&#8230; (grin)

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...rrency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=1877&url=


----------



## souljour2000

AboardIndigo said:


> One of the benefits of a forum such as this is that the time between a fatal incident and the benefit of understanding the potential causes and learning from it is greatly reduced.
> 
> This underscores the old tenet that 'in bad weather it's usually safer to stay out unless there's a damn good reason not to' for me.


 Well said. Point taken.I hope to well remember that tenet...this thread discussion may save a life or lives...glad we have not deleted it as some proposed..though I realize it might be very hard to read for some who may have known the persons involved and/or the brave lost sailor. Here' that maxim again as "AI" posted it...

"In bad weather it's usually safer to stay out unless you have a damn good reason not to"


----------



## RTB

JonEisberg said:


> *Silence is Golden&#8230;*
> 
> Sailing such a boat in big or confused seas offshore is bound to be a very *noisy* affair&#8230; And, very few among the cacophony of sounds a relatively lightly-constructed, flat-bottomed boat are going to produce will be pleasant&#8230; In fact, the unceasing noise well could have induced considerable fear among an inexperienced crew who had never dealt with it before, or for such a prolonged period, and such concern whether the boat could continue to withstand a continuation of the sort of the shocks being imparted on such a hull and rig could have been instrumental in their decision to bail out of the rally&#8230; Just a hunch, of course, but it most certainly could have exacerbated the crew's discomfort, and fatigue&#8230;


Not to necessarily argue your point, but to me it is a bit exaggerated. Have you ever sailed a catamaran on a long passage?

I just sailed from Florida to Colombia earlier this year. We were on a 46' cat. The first time I heard pounding, it scared the piss out of me. However, after a couple of days, I became used to the sound. As with any boat, you grow accustomed to it's voices. On a cat, you can slow down or change course slightly and quieten things down. Wouldn't this be equally true of a mono?

My point is, that I don't think this will drive the crew into hysteria nor increase their fatigue. Don't get me wrong, a nice quiet ride would be nicer, but isn't going to going to get me there any safer. I doubt this had much to do with Rule 62's eventual crashing on the reef. Just my 2 cents.

Ralph


----------



## IKena

As a matter of fact, the pounding will be more annoying close to shore, or in a bay with steep short wave (a few feet are enough) than far offshore with regular swell, like the 15 ft swell (14 sec) they encountered.


----------



## Barquito

> 15 ft swell (14 sec) they encountered.


Would there have also been shorter wind waves on top of the 14 sec swell? Those might launch a surf-board-like boat at the peak?


----------



## ronbo1

JonEisberg's example of a great offshore boat Fairweather, a Sequin built by Lyman Morse is validated with the 46' Sequin, Mystery, finishing among the leaders of this year's Carib1500. 

The winner overall was a HR 43, another well-designed and built offshore boat. 

Ronbo


----------



## LakeSuperiorGeezer

If Rule 62 was equiped with the forward scanning sonar such as the Echopilot or Interphase, the captain would have seen the under water reef in real time. I think the Echopilot gold was $800 on sale and the bronze like $500 so not that expensive, but few boats have forward looking sonar. Anyone have experience with forward scanning sonar?
EchoPilot - 3d Forward Looking Sonar
Interphase: Manufacturer of Forward Looking Sonars, Navigational Chart Plotters, WAAS/GPS and Fish Finders


----------



## speciald

Received an email yesterday -"s/v Secret of Life, a Bennetua 46. Ken and Cindy Zigmund of Geneva Ohio were enroute from Brunswick Ga to St. John this past Sunday and not far from there when the boat took on water and sank. 
Reportedly a failed shaft packing."

This couple peviously sailed the 1500. They were picked uo by a freighter North of St. Johns. The boat was abandoned and allowed to sink


----------



## smackdaddy

speciald said:


> Received an email yesterday -"s/v Secret of Life, a Bennetua 46. Ken and Cindy Zigmund of Geneva Ohio were enroute from Brunswick Ga to St. John this past Sunday and not far from there when the boat took on water and sank.
> Reportedly a failed shaft packing."
> 
> This couple peviously sailed the 1500. They were picked uo by a freighter North of St. Johns. The boat was abandoned and allowed to sink


Jeez. Some bad mojo in the Carib right now.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jeez. Some bad mojo in the Carib right now.


Damn, you can say that again&#8230;

Certainly has been an unlucky year for owners of boats from Groupe Beneteau, the First 45S CELADON was abandoned by an apparently panicked delivery crew 90 miles east of the Outer Banks a few weeks ago, when they thought she was sinking&#8230;

Here's the listing on Yachtworld for SECRET 0' LIFE:

2001 Beneteau Oceanis 461 Sail New and Used Boats for Sale -


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Damn, you can say that again&#8230;
> 
> Certainly has been an unlucky year for owners of boats from Groupe Beneteau, the First 45S CELADON was abandoned by an apparently panicked delivery crew 90 miles east of the Outer Banks a few weeks ago, when they thought she was sinking&#8230;
> 
> Here's the listing on Yachtworld for SECRET 0' LIFE:
> 
> 2001 Beneteau Oceanis 461 Sail New and Used Boats for Sale -


Wasn't the Celedon the one where there was like 3" of water in the bilge and they essentially punched out? Do you know if it was a packing gland issue as well?

It really hurts to see beautiful boats like these going down.


----------



## CalebD

So JonEisenberg, are you heading south again this year?

On topic.
I believe it was the Celadon where the delivery crew took the SPOT or other tracking device with them when they abandoned ship much upsetting the owner.


----------



## SVAuspicious

LakeSuperiorGeezer said:


> Anyone have experience with forward scanning sonar?


Yes. In most conditions by the time something shows up it is way too late to do anything useful. In conditions in which the boat is bouncing around the image isn't very useful without stabilization and processing that don't exist in recreational units. In highly aerated water the image isn't useful at all.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Wasn't the Celedon the one where there was like 3" of water in the bilge and they essentially punched out? Do you know if it was a packing gland issue as well?
> 
> It really hurts to see beautiful boats like these going down.


Yeah, that's the one&#8230; Very fishy story from the get-go, below this is the CG photo from the rescue, where conditions were reported to be 12' seas, and 40 knot winds&#8230; well, directly beneath the prop wash of the CG helo, MAYBE&#8230; (grin)










Unclear whether the 3" water depth was in the bilge, or over the floorboards&#8230; (this is another one where it's gonna be a LONG time before any "facts" emerge, the delivery crew appears to have disappeared) At any rate, it appears the boat remained floating for almost 2 weeks, the hydrostatic EPIRP wasn't triggered until recently&#8230; Extremely frustrating experience for the owner, CELADON sounded like a very well fitted-out boat&#8230;

And Caleb is right, the dumbass crew took the SPOT with them when they abandoned CELADON... It was their own personal property, after all...


----------



## JonEisberg

CalebD said:


> So JonEisenberg, are you heading south again this year?


Hi Caleb - yeah, that's the plan, but I'm afraid I may have once again mis-judged the timing of my getaway, I could sure use a bit of a thaw&#8230;

This recent cold snap was not originally forecast to last as long as it did, and it seemed to me that the overnight lows have been running considerably colder than forecast... As a result, I'm pretty well frozen in at the moment, and have at least a mile of this sort of ice before open water... I was really shocked last week, a significant portion of my area of Barnegat Bay froze up literally overnight...










I could probably get out now if I really had to, there's been some moderation the past few days and the ice has softened up a bit. I'm fairly hopeful about next week, some slightly milder weather is forecast, with some rain and wind, that's all good...

Someday before I die, I'm gonna have to try heading south in the fall, like normal people do&#8230; (grin)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


>


Dude! You're not going to take THAT thing offshore are you???? Are you crazy???

(Just kidding.)

PS - I want to hear more about this sail:










I smell a BFS! You can post it with all the other greats *HERE.*


----------



## btrayfors

Jon,

Don't try it until ALL the ice is gone! Thin ice can be deadly.

Some years ago the Commodore of our Yacht Club in Washington DC decided he was gonna go south...the hell with the ice in the channel.

Power boat. He got a few hundred yards off the dock before his boat sank on him, the bottom having been nicely sliced by the thin ice!

By the way, the picture you posted shows winds which, IMHO, are not over 15-17 knots! At 15 knots, white caps begin to form. 

I agree with you, the case of the Celadon is perplexing...something not right there. And, just like Rule 62, we're unlikely to EVER get the real story.

Happy holidays....I enjoy your posts. Keep 'em coming!!

Bill


----------



## JaredC

Anyone know where this "Celadon" is from? There's a boat of the same name on our local racing schedule.


----------



## sailingdog

The SPOT wouldn't help for tracking an unattended boat, as it shuts down after 24 hours of tracking and needs to be reset.



CalebD said:


> So JonEisenberg, are you heading south again this year?
> 
> On topic.
> I believe it was the Celadon where the delivery crew took the SPOT or other tracking device with them when they abandoned ship much upsetting the owner.


----------



## CalebD

JonEisberg said:


> Hi Caleb - yeah, that's the plan, but I'm afraid I may have once again mis-judged the timing of my getaway, I could sure use a bit of a thaw&#8230;
> 
> This recent cold snap was not originally forecast to last as long as it did, and it seemed to me that the overnight lows have been running considerably colder than forecast... As a result, I'm pretty well frozen in at the moment, and have at least a mile of this sort of ice before open water... I was really shocked last week, a significant portion of my area of Barnegat Bay froze up literally overnight...
> 
> ...
> 
> Someday before I die, I'm gonna have to try heading south in the fall, like normal people do&#8230; (grin)


Well Jon, your reputation as a polar bear sailor is pretty legendary, at least on some forums. It is nice to see you posting here as well as your other online haunts. I am pretty sure you do not like to 'blow your own horn' so I'll only add my impressions.
For the benefit of sailnet members who do not cyber kruze elsewhere Jon Eisenberg is an accomplished delivery captain and writer. There are a few articles he has written that were published in Cruising World; here is one of them: An Insider's ICW | Cruising World
Jon seems to enjoy being the last boat down to the Bahamas in winter and having the smallest boat (LOA) in any anchorage. Jon also likes to use those big white billowy things that go up the stick instead of his engine. 
I'd better stop there as it might seem that I am fawning and awestruck to have someone of his caliber here at sailnut.com.
Maybe you'll leave for the Bahamas next year in balmy Novermber???
My best.


----------



## TakeFive

btrayfors said:


> Jon,
> 
> Don't try it until ALL the ice is gone! Thin ice can be deadly.
> 
> Some years ago the Commodore of our Yacht Club in Washington DC decided he was gonna go south...the hell with the ice in the channel.
> 
> Power boat. He got a few hundred yards off the dock before his boat sank on him, the bottom having been nicely sliced by the thin ice!
> ...


Did he survive?


----------



## tonywall

*ARC departure from Norfolk*

I delayed a voyage from NYC Harbor scheduled for November 7 because the "Intensifying low" heading SE from Nova Scotia was producing 20ft plus seas with 20-30 knots wind from NE.
All of the inlets NJ and Md were reporting "dangerous to untenable" conditions, and I felt it was imprudent to undertake a voyage with no options in the event of crew or equipment problems.
Further, when the south-bound 20 ft seas (no big deal in themselves) conjoin with the northern wall of the Gulfstream, you can expect extremely dangerous breaking seas.
Several sailors were lost that week.
Since the conditions were so well reported, why could the ARC not have postponed departure?
I have several Pacific and Atlantic crossings under my belt, and am very aware of the hazards of wind, wave and current oppositions in the Gulfstream,
which is not to be underestimated.
Captain Tony


----------



## doublewide

"Since the conditions were so well reported, why could the ARC not have postponed departure?"

Conditions were better south of Hatteras than they were further north that week. It was uncomfortable but not dangerous in the Gulf Stream off Cape Fear.


----------



## PCP

speciald said:


> In my humble opinion, an off shore boat should have a number of design attributes - 1) high stability - righting moment, 2) deep, not flat forefoot ahead of keel to ease entry, 3)Weight (tanks,etc.) centered over keel to limit hobby-horseing, 4) a narrow stern, 5) a deep cockpit with a high bridge deck, 6) all control lines in cockpit, 7) Solid hulls at least to the water line, 8) wide and flat decks. Unfortunately many newer boats have gone in other directions such as carrying the beam aft as far as possible, flattening the forefoot for speed, wide, open cockpits, cored hulls, fuel tanks under aft berth, no flat surfaces forward. Many of these design features are made to increase internal volume at rest and make the boats easier to sell not sail.


I can agree with high stability, easy entry, centered weight, control lines on the cockpit and wide and flat decks but there are other requirements that you point that contradict improvements permitted by modern hull design, for example: Narrow stern and beam brought aft, or solid hulls to the waterline.

Large sterns and beam brought aft are not a concession to interior space (larger entries are) but a way to improve directional stability and overall stability, specially on a down run ride. We all have seen images (or have steered ) boats that running with waves needed a good hand at the wheel and even so, sometimes things become nasty, when the boat rolling was in tune with the wave movement.

That is a thing of the past in a modern hull. Wide sterns and beam brought aft have just permitted to stop that rolling and now you can go safely fast downwind under autopilot, a dream on older boats.

The downside of this improvement are larger and open cockpits, but it is not the cockpit that provides you with safety, but the way your life lines are attached to the boat. A double one, attached to the boat on each side of the wheel will provide you all the safety you need

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Plumbean said:


> The 2010 winner was Carina, a McCurdy and Rhodes design. This was her second overall win, the first one coming 40 years earlier.
> 
> 2008 and 2006 were won by Sinn Fein, a Cal 40 built some 45 years ago.
> 
> Not that the Bermuda Race is the definitive answer on any of this, but the old designs do pretty well at it.


Came on, you can not be serious. Under the adequate rating even a XV century old sailboat could win that race

Ratings are made to prevent better and faster boats to win races and to give old boats and museum pieces a fair chance. An absurdity in my opinion.

It was obvious that I was talking about pure performance on the water and not the one that is dictated by a piece of paper.

Take a look again and look what boats won the race in real time in each category (on the sea and not on the paper) and you will see what I am talking about.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Melantho said:


> One of my regular crew spent some time offshore in the Sense 50. His opinion was the boat is designed for a dockside party for 30, not offshore passages.


I don't dispute that. The boat would do fine on a downwind leg, but that's all.

I am not saying it is a bad design. It seems to be a great boat, for the use that it is intended and that is after all the way most of the sailors use their boats: Time at the Marina and some sailing when the wind is not strong and normally from behind. It is a Sense boat, since it is that way most boats use their boats

That's not the way I use mine, so it's a non Sense for me (and some others) but we are a minority.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## billyruffn

tonywall said:


> Since the conditions were so well reported, why could the ARC not have postponed departure?


Two points:

1. The ARC leaves from the Canary Islands. It's the Caribbean 1500 that leaves from Norfolk (although I read somewhere that the CRA (sponsor of the 1500 was sold to the ARC organization???)

2. The Carib 1500 was delayed a week when they started on 8 November. The first delay was due to hurricane Tomas. They might have delayed another week, by which time the winds and seas of the week of 8 Nov would have subsided, but.....

(And here's a few things that need to be considered to when joining a rally....)

....sponsors have commercial arrangements some of which are time sensitive. For example: staff are hired for the event. They may be paid by the day, or might be paid for the "event", but when you delay a rally by two weeks, it may increase the cost of staff. It may cause staff to drop out, because they have other commitments. On both the start and the finish lines arrangements have been made for dockage, social events, facilities rental, etc. etc. Multi-week delays may increases costs to the sponsor and may complicate the management of the event on both ends.

....long delays create problems for skippers who may find that their crews begin to evaporate as the delay gets longer. A one week delay might be manageable, but I would imagine that a two week delay in the start would make it impossible for many boats to hold onto crew. Boats sailing shorthanded is a risk factor.

I do not mean to imply by any of the above that decisions relative to the timing of the start of any rally are made for commercial reasons -- to the contrary, I think safety is the highest concern of all involved, but that being said, long delays can complicate decision-making for both rally organizers and individual skippers/boats.

There's no simple solution to the challenges posed by late autumn departures from the NE US to the Caribbean. In an ideal world you'd have a experience crew that had no schedule constraints and you'd wait for the ideal weather window. But waiting a week or two never guarantees a window will present itself. The longer one delays the departure south, the shorter the interval between cold fronts passing off the US east coast becomes while the intensity of these weather systems increases.

A partial solution to the problem may be found in the choice of a departure point. In my view, Norfolk may be an optimal for two reasons -- you're far enough south that the time to warm weather is shortened by several days, and Norfolk's proximity to the Gulf Stream and the Stream's width off Cape Hatteras means that most boats will be across within 36 hours of the departure.


----------



## Minnewaska

billyruffn said:


> ...
> 1. The ARC leaves from the Canary Islands. It's the Caribbean 1500 that leaves from Norfolk (although I read somewhere that the CRA (sponsor of the 1500 was sold to the ARC organization???)......


I wonder if they meant the ACR (Atlantic Cup Rally), which is the reverse trip back from Tortola to Va.


----------



## btrayfors

No, it's clear in the context that Capt. Tony misspoke...said ARC when he meant Carib 1500. Don't we all do that sometimes?


----------



## JonEisberg

RTB said:


> Not to necessarily argue your point, but to me it is a bit exaggerated. Have you ever sailed a catamaran on a long passage?
> 
> I just sailed from Florida to Colombia earlier this year. We were on a 46' cat. The first time I heard pounding, it scared the piss out of me. However, after a couple of days, I became used to the sound. As with any boat, you grow accustomed to it's voices. On a cat, you can slow down or change course slightly and quieten things down. Wouldn't this be equally true of a mono?
> 
> My point is, that I don't think this will drive the crew into hysteria nor increase their fatigue. Don't get me wrong, a nice quiet ride would be nicer, but isn't going to going to get me there any safer. I doubt this had much to do with Rule 62's eventual crashing on the reef. Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Ralph


No, my only experience with a large cat was on a 10 day charter in Croatia, that was enough for me&#8230; (grin) They certainly have their advantages for cruising, no question - they're simply not for me&#8230;

You're right, I've probably overstated the noise aspect, though I still feel the sort of noise a boat like RULE 62 could produce in certain conditions could raise concerns with an inexperienced crew&#8230; I suppose the point I was really trying to make was simply that - at least for me - the exacerbated pounding that will be characteristic of boats with such extensive flat hull sections is a big reason why I don't care for such a design for offshore&#8230;

As always, your mileage may vary, of course&#8230; (grin)


----------



## JonEisberg

TomMaine said:


> I don't think it's about the boat. (Hi Jon  )


Hi Tom&#8230; uh, shouldn't you be out snowboarding, or something? (grin)



btrayfors said:


> Jon,
> 
> Don't try it until ALL the ice is gone! Thin ice can be deadly.


Thanks, Bill&#8230; but fortunately, I have a bit of prior experience dealing with ice&#8230;

This was a piece of crap that I ran down to the Miami Boat Show years ago&#8230; First day of the worst delivery I've ever done, and this was probably the BEST day of the trip&#8230; (grin)










Surprisingly, one of the most likely problems one is likely to have in ice is engine overheating. Depending on the location of your engine intake, it's very easy for your sea strainer to quickly become plugged with shards of ice, or slush&#8230; On the day pictured above, I was only running one engine at a time, and was still having to jump down to clear the strainer every 5 minutes or so&#8230; A real PITA, took me several hours just to move a few miles through that stuff&#8230;

Your're right, however, _thin _ ice is the greatest risk&#8230; the sort that can form overnight in the freshwater near a place like Great Bridge on the ICW can be like a razor&#8230; A few years ago, I sat at Atlantic Yacht Basin for a couple of days, waiting for a southbound tug & tow to follow on down to Coinjock, that sort of ice could have really done a number on my hull&#8230;

Needless to say, my departure has been further delayed by the recent blizzard&#8230; My part of the Jersey Shore got pounded, 33" inches of snow and huge winds that have blown the water out of my corner of Barnegat Bay, I'm not going anywhere soon - or at least until the water comes back in&#8230;



















A bit frustrating, because riding the heels of this storm down to Norfolk would have afforded some great sailing&#8230; But, there's some significant warming forecast over the next few days here, and with another cold front approaching this weekend, hopefully that will be my ticket to ride&#8230;


----------



## PCP

Here people are complaining about the cold (8º) but looking at your photos I fell quite lucky.

Hope that the ice goes away quickly. 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TomMaine

*Boats in the snow.*

Hi Jon, yes we are snowboarding today. After looking at your boat in the snow, the idea is making a lot of sense. 

Good luck on your trip down and I look forward to some vicarious warm weather cruising through you.


----------



## doublewide

I have commented earlier in this discussion about how seasickness and exhaustion probably contributed to Rule 62's skipper's poor decision making. The reader may be interested in reading a study that demonstrates the effects of sleep loss on performance, viz.: Roehrs T, Burduvali E, Bonahoom A, Drake C, Roth T. Ethanol and sleep loss: a "dose" comparison of impairing effects. Sleep. 2003;26:981-985

To summarize, sleep loss was shown to be more potent than ethanol in its sedative effects (8 hours' sleep-loss equals 10 – 12 United States beers) and comparable to ethanol in its effects on reaction time, psychomotor skill, and memory (8 hours' sleep-loss equals 4 -5 United States beers.) 

We would never think of giving our crew 5 or 10 beers while sailing offshore, yet if we allow them to become sleep-deprived, we are doing essentially the same thing. Skippers should remember the importance of keeping the crew fit and rested. I insist that my crew sleep during their hours off watch, and I do the same. We ensure that there is a secure sea berth for each crew member.

For the same reason, we treat seasickness aggressively, and we run a dry ship. We want to be alert and we want to make good decisions. As the late Vince Lombardi said, “fatigue makes cowards of us all.” He was talking about the importance of conditioning for football players, and a similar principle applies to offshore sailors.

On our November passage to Tortola we had four crew in a 3-watch rotation, so each crew member had every fourth day off. That day, the crew member was responsible only for resting, cleaning the saloon, preparing our evening meal, and improving crew morale. It was the best watch schedule we have ever tried. We had no problems with crew fatigue. Does anybody else have a favorite watch schedule?


----------



## Plumbean

PCP said:


> Came on, you can not be serious. Under the adequate rating even a XV century old sailboat could win that race
> 
> Ratings are made to prevent better and faster boats to win races and to give old boats and museum pieces a fair chance. An absurdity in my opinion.
> 
> It was obvious that I was talking about pure performance on the water and not the one that is dictated by a piece of paper.
> 
> Take a look again and look what boats won the race in real time in each category (on the sea and not on the paper) and you will see what I am talking about.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Well, no, it wasn't obvious, and hey, I own one of those museum pieces, so I'm biased ... 

The discussion was about what makes a good ocean going boat, though, and I don't think line honors in the Bermuda Race (or any ocean race) is necessarily a good starting point, namely because these boats are built for speed and are not necessarily easy to handle or comfortable. I believe Speedboat won line honors for 2010. Is she relevant to what makes a good ocean going boat? I'm sure she is in some respects, but most of us don't sail with 22 crew members (or have the ability to pay for them). Sure she is fast, but that is only one consideration -- obviously a big consideration for racing, but not so much for cruising. For most of us, the corrected time winners are probably more realistic of a starting point, and the ones that are still going after 40 years are probably still going in part because they are good ocean going boats to begin with. But like I said, I don't think finish times in an ocean race are necessarily a good barometer, and I'm biased ...


----------



## PCP

Plumbean said:


> Well, no, it wasn't obvious, and hey, I own one of those museum pieces, so I'm biased ...


I am quite sure that your boat is not a museum piece. I had one that could qualify as so (70 year's old traditional boat) and I had great memories of those days. I was not trying to denigrate older boats only trying to say that modern designs are just better performers (and that is not only valid for boats but for cars or airplanes). That does not mean that an older car or an older boat are not up to the job and there are some great old cars and some great old boats out there .



Plumbean said:


> The discussion was about what makes a good ocean going boat, though, and I don't think line honors in the Bermuda Race (or any ocean race) is necessarily a good starting point, namely because these boats are built for speed and are not necessarily easy to handle or comfortable. I believe Speedboat won line honors for 2010. Is she relevant to what makes a good ocean going boat? I'm sure she is in some respects, but most of us don't sail with 22 crew members (or have the ability to pay for them). Sure she is fast, but that is only one consideration -- obviously a big consideration for racing, but not so much for cruising.


Yes I agree with most of what you say, but I was replying to this post:



JonEisberg said:


> LOL!
> 
> It's outside the scope of this thread, of course, but perhaps some other time you can elucidate the shortcomings of such a boat for sailing offshore?
> ...
> FWIW, John G. Alden is tied with Carleton Mitchell at the top of the list of multiple Newport-Bermuda Race winners, with 3 wins apiece&#8230; However, I'm sure he never learned much about what characteristics, design, or construction elements might make a decent offshore sailing yacht, right?


And regarding the points you raise regarding the unsuitably of some of the characteristics of an offshore racer to a cruising boat, I have said:



PCP said:


> Take a look at the boats that today (not 20 or 30 years ago) win the Newport-Bermuda race. That's a good begining. They are very different from that one.
> 
> Then you have to consider that a boat that is massively seaworthy but that it is conceived to be sailed with a crew of 10 is not normally a good option for a solo or small crew. It is a better choice to look at the Ocean racers that are conceived to be solo sailed or with a duo crew. That's better but not enough because those boats are very powerful and demand expert sailors to tame that power. You should look at the boats that are designed for being ocean raced by a small amateur crew (solo or duo)...and voilá, you have arrived to the boat that I had posted, the Elan 350.


And in there I was addressing some of the points you have raised.(and with which I agree).



Plumbean said:


> For most of us, the corrected time winners are probably more realistic of a starting point, and the ones that are still going after 40 years are probably still going in part because they are good ocean going boats to begin with. .....


Here I don't agree. A winner on corrected time can be a racer. It was what happened in the last Sydney-Hobart, it can also be a bad boat with just a too low rating and that's why I was saying that any old boat with a lower rating than its sailing capacities can win a race on compensated time. That just does not mean anything about the boat pure performance. For choosing a seaworthy cruising boat with a good sail performance you can use offshore race results (especially if it is an oceanic or a tough race), but not on compensated.

Take a look at the Sydney-Hobart (a tough one) classification and chose the cruising boats (with the size you want) that have made well on the overall classification, preferably a mass production boat, or an older boat that you can find on the market. The boats that best fit that criteria would be the First 45 "Victorie" and the First 40 "Paca", both late generation Beneteaus. Both boats have good cruising interiors, and the 45 has even a great interior and are not expensive boats. Both will perform very well under reduced crews, or even solo....and this year's race edition was one of the worse from the last decade with winds over 50K and huge seas

http://www.beneteau.com/UserFile/Image/Panoramiques_Flash/dec07/beneteau-first-45.html
Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

PCP said:


> ...
> Take a look at the Sydney-Hobart (a tough one) classification and chose the cruising boats (with the size you want) that have made well on the overall classification, preferably a mass production boat, or an older boat that you can find on the market. The boats that best fit that criteria would be the First 45 "Victorie" and the First 40 "Paca", both late generation Beneteaus. Both boats have good cruising interiors, and the 45 has even a great interior and are not expensive boats. Both will perform very well under reduced crews, or even solo....and this year's race edition was one of the worse from the last decade with winds over 50K and huge seas
> 
> http://www.beneteau.com/UserFile/Image/Panoramiques_Flash/dec07/beneteau-first-45.html
> Regards


Regarding this, Osmundl has posted a relevant post here:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/70871-sydney-hobart-2010-a-7.html#post682055

I would also like to call your attention to this family (2) that are cruising on the Antarctic sea with a First 40.7:

giebateau.web-log.nl: 030 Bestemming Antarctica

Take a look at the photos

They say that on the time they have been there six boats went down and they have been on winds over 60K. They had no problems. They are heading for Japan and after that, Alaska.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hi Tom&#8230; uh, shouldn't you be out snowboarding, or something? (grin)
> 
> Thanks, Bill&#8230; but fortunately, I have a bit of prior experience dealing with ice&#8230;
> 
> This was a piece of crap that I ran down to the Miami Boat Show years ago&#8230; First day of the worst delivery I've ever done, and this was probably the BEST day of the trip&#8230; (grin)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, one of the most likely problems one is likely to have in ice is engine overheating. Depending on the location of your engine intake, it's very easy for your sea strainer to quickly become plugged with shards of ice, or slush&#8230; On the day pictured above, I was only running one engine at a time, and was still having to jump down to clear the strainer every 5 minutes or so&#8230; A real PITA, took me several hours just to move a few miles through that stuff&#8230;
> 
> Your're right, however, _thin _ ice is the greatest risk&#8230; the sort that can form overnight in the freshwater near a place like Great Bridge on the ICW can be like a razor&#8230; A few years ago, I sat at Atlantic Yacht Basin for a couple of days, waiting for a southbound tug & tow to follow on down to Coinjock, that sort of ice could have really done a number on my hull&#8230;
> 
> Needless to say, my departure has been further delayed by the recent blizzard&#8230; My part of the Jersey Shore got pounded, 33" inches of snow and huge winds that have blown the water out of my corner of Barnegat Bay, I'm not going anywhere soon - or at least until the water comes back in&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit frustrating, because riding the heels of this storm down to Norfolk would have afforded some great sailing&#8230; But, there's some significant warming forecast over the next few days here, and with another cold front approaching this weekend, hopefully that will be my ticket to ride&#8230;


Hey Jon, did you ever get out and head south? Or are you still stuck?


----------



## Arclight

so much for weather routing


----------



## xxuxx

*Weather routing....HA!!!!*

It should be called "whether routing". Wether or not, you will receive higher numbers. If it says winds 25 to 30.....always think 40!! Same for the seas.........10-15.....think 20-25 footers. The winds and waves are always under-quoted.


----------



## jimhuggins0350

*Must agree*

Followup-We are in no position to try and judge what happen or didn't happen in liferaft. Just too many unknown facts at this time. Can't point fingers at the three that lived and assume they could have saved the one lost.



billyruffn said:


> XXUXX,
> 
> I think either you're tired from losing sleep and aren't thinking/writing clearly or you're stepping over a line. What we have in your last post are rhetorical questions followed by what appear to be assertions of fact. Unless you have information that the rest of us do not (and I seriously doubt you do), what you have presented is speculation followed by uninformed opinion. To wit, with my comments in bold:
> 
> If it's time to point fingers, permit me to point one in your direction: what you have said is uninformed by the facts, most probably extremely unkind to the people involved, and IMHO has no place in a forum like this. XXOXX, chill! Get some sleep. Come back when you have something better to offer.


----------



## LandLocked66c

So no updates then. It's been some time, has there been any legal activity concerning this story? I attempted some googling with nothing really turning up...


----------



## MARC2012

I was looking for something also.marc


----------



## xxuxx

*Now is it time.............?????????*

...And you won't find anything re: this Captain Ross. He is alive, his wife is alive and Laura is dead. Hmmmmmm.......ask yourself why?????? Answer: Poor judgement, poor Captaining (crossing a cut in the night and in a rage no less). It is very sad and unfortunate but the blame lies with only one person, the Captain.


----------



## Leocat66

Captain Ross, you sir, have an obligation, to all sailors, to explain what happened out there. You sir are responsible to explain exactly what you encountered and why you reacted as you did. Your failure to do so is an affront to us all.


----------



## TakeFive

Leocat66 said:


> Captain Ross, you sir, have an obligation, to all sailors, to explain what happened out there. You sir are responsible to explain exactly what you encountered and why you reacted as you did. Your failure to do so is an affront to us all.


How do you know that he didn't? He may have done so to the appropriate authorities. I don't think he has any obligation to subject himself to posting on a hostile message board - and you KNOW that is what it would become. I'm not aware of anything in maritime law that says he has to feed the curiosity of internet lurkers.


----------



## smackdaddy

RhythmDoctor said:


> How do you know that he didn't? He may have done so to the appropriate authorities. I don't think he has any obligation to subject himself to posting on a hostile message board - and you KNOW that is what it would become. I'm not aware of anything in maritime law that says he has to feed the curiosity of internet lurkers.


+1.


----------



## ingasguns

until someone that was there comments,, i believe we have 57 pages of opinions, comments, and speculations... good judgments make the marina most often,,, bad judgments make the marinas but sometimes the news... for one to say what should have been done , without being there,,, that one,,, then,,, could predict to all what should be done...


----------



## Ajax_MD

Leocat66 said:


> Captain Ross, you sir, have an obligation, to all sailors, to explain what happened out there. You sir are responsible to explain exactly what you encountered and why you reacted as you did. Your failure to do so is an affront to us all.


You have got to be kidding me. He is under no obligation to submit before the Court of Public Opinion for a "virtual lynching" over the internet. You can bet your a$$ that I won't be sumitting a report to you if I ever have a mishap.


----------



## chef2sail

Get real. In no way do I beleive he should explain that here. The only person/ entity he is responsible to is any legal entity investigating this or his own maker. If he has any type of conscience he is distraught overe the possible contributions he made willingly or not to the death of one of his crew. He will have to live with that himself.

Leocat66 he has no obligation to you, me or other sailors in this matter. I do not want to hear your ameteur criticisms or Monday morning quarterbacking of what happened.

This thread has had many knowlegeable contributors which has helped myself and others in thinking of what to do to prevent this situation/ scenario and how to handle it if we got into a similar fix. You are not one of them and your rant would serve as no learning experience to myself.

Dave


----------



## sailingdog

*Actually, the one and only group of people the captain of Rule 62 does owe an explanation to is the lost crew member's family.* They are the ones who deserve an explanation of his thoughts and reasoning that led to the death of their loved one.


----------



## xxuxx

*I guess next in line would be me.......*



ingasguns said:


> until someone that was there comments,, i believe we have 57 pages of opinions, comments, and speculations... good judgments make the marina most often,,, bad judgments make the marinas but sometimes the news... for one to say what should have been done , without being there,,, that one,,, then,,, could predict to all what should be done...


Since the people that were there are mute, and Laura can't speak anymore, the next people in line would be the people that came after the disaster, the rescuers and the people who spoke with them right after the ordeal. I was so upset over this mishap that I sailed to the Abacos, interviewed the people who participated in rescuing the husband, wife and the guy from Maine. What happened was tragic to say the least; whatever happened to: "the captain goes down with the ship"?? This captain did not go down with the ship and he is no hero. In fact his ship did not go down. It lost its keel, rudder and mast but still was afloat. It had a throw ring and line to throw to Laura who was caught outside the breakers. Does anyone know that piece of information??? She was heard screaming for help outside the breakers. Does anyone know that piece of information??? While the captain owes us nothing, I stand by my previous statement: There is one person to blame and that person is the captain because he used poor judgement coming into a cut in the the Abacos at night and in a rage. Period.


----------



## billyruffn

I'm in the Caribbean at present and over the last month or so I've had the opportunity to speak on two separate occasions with several people who participated in the 1500 this year. I was told two things that I don't think have been mentioned in the thread thusfar. 

First, apparently (and I say apparently because my information is at least second hand, and perhaps third or fourth...), at least some of the crew of Rule 62 were very sea sick for several days before the grounding. In addition, at least one of the crew was suffering significant emotional distress such that the two medical doctors who were at sea with the fleet and who were in communication with Rule 62 were (as described to me) very concerned with the emotional state of one crew member. (Note: I did not speak with the MDs, so this information may be second/third/fourth hand from people who did speak with them after the rally). 

If true, the above would indicate that the skipper had more to deal with than your average case of "mal de mer". If you've ever been on a boat offshore when someone is freaking out (and I have), you'll know that it's a serious, perhaps life threatening, situation in itself. The divert to the Bahamas may have been more than a case of a tired crew seeking comfort, but rather the most expeditious means of dealing with a severly stressed, emotionally distressed crew member. 

Second, I have it from two different sources in separate conversations that the evening Rule 62 went aground that one of the women aboard the boat (no one knows which one) reported to the evening radio net words to the effect that "We've arrived" or "We're here". Obviously, the report was premature and perhaps what the radio operator intended to convey was that the boat had arrived off the coast, and perhaps was about to enter the cut. That said, both the people I spoke with intrepreted the report from Rule 62 as meaning that they had safely arrived in the Bahamas. This addresses the concerns that some have expressed regarding the responsibility, if any, the rally organizers may have had in this affair. Techinally, Rule 62 left the rally several days before they went aground when they announced that they were dropping out and heading for the Bahamas. I was told that the rally staff at sea encouraged them to continue on, but that it was their decision to make. The fact that Rule 62 continued to be followed on the radio net after they dropped out, and that they made a report which multiple sources intrepreted as meaning they had safely arrived, I think pretty much absolves the rally organizers from any responsibility for what happened.

On a happier note, I'm looking forward next week to the visit of our august SN contributor, Bene505. Brad and his wife are coming down for a few days in the sun and you can rest assured that we will not be running any reef cuts at night. I can absolutely guarantee that at sunset each night we will have the hook in the sand, a rum drink in hand, and eyes peeled for a green flash.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Crazy stuff! 

So who else has been at sea with someone going crazy? How do you console/control them?


----------



## xxuxx

*Dealing with a crew ....losing it emotionally at sea*

I try and calm them down using logic, weatherfaxes and reminding them what they signed: a crew agreement. My agreement states that they would absorb all costs related to a major passage detour. This would include, but not only limited to, marina costs, food, fuel, captains time $400/day etc etc. Somehow they find a way of coping until we reach our original destination.


----------



## smackdaddy

billyruffn said:


> I'm in the Caribbean at present and over the last month or so I've had the opportunity to speak on two separate occasions with several people who participated in the 1500 this year. I was told two things that I don't think have been mentioned in the thread thusfar.
> 
> First, apparently (and I say apparently because my information is at least second hand, and perhaps third or fourth...), at least some of the crew of Rule 62 were very sea sick for several days before the grounding. In addition, at least one of the crew was suffering significant emotional distress such that the two medical doctors who were at sea with the fleet and who were in communication with Rule 62 were (as described to me) very concerned with the emotional state of one crew member. (Note: I did not speak with the MDs, so this information may be second/third/fourth hand from people who did speak with them after the rally).
> 
> If true, the above would indicate that the skipper had more to deal with than your average case of "mal de mer". If you've ever been on a boat offshore when someone is freaking out (and I have), you'll know that it's a serious, perhaps life threatening, situation in itself. The divert to the Bahamas may have been more than a case of a tired crew seeking comfort, but rather the most expeditious means of dealing with a severly stressed, emotionally distressed crew member.
> 
> Second, I have it from two different sources in separate conversations that the evening Rule 62 went aground that one of the women aboard the boat (no one knows which one) reported to the evening radio net words to the effect that "We've arrived" or "We're here". Obviously, the report was premature and perhaps what the radio operator intended to convey was that the boat had arrived off the coast, and perhaps was about to enter the cut. That said, both the people I spoke with intrepreted the report from Rule 62 as meaning that they had safely arrived in the Bahamas. This addresses the concerns that some have expressed regarding the responsibility, if any, the rally organizers may have had in this affair. Techinally, Rule 62 left the rally several days before they went aground when they announced that they were dropping out and heading for the Bahamas. I was told that the rally staff at sea encouraged them to continue on, but that it was their decision to make. The fact that Rule 62 continued to be followed on the radio net after they dropped out, and that they made a report which multiple sources intrepreted as meaning they had safely arrived, I think pretty much absolves the rally organizers from any responsibility for what happened.
> 
> On a happier note, I'm looking forward next week to the visit of our august SN contributor, Bene505. Brad and his wife are coming down for a few days in the sun and you can rest assured that we will not be running any reef cuts at night. I can absolutely guarantee that at sunset each night we will have the hook in the sand, a rum drink in hand, and eyes peeled for a green flash.


Wow - thanks for the update BR. This explains a lot - even if it's second hand info.

Enjoy the rum - and get some video of that green flash will you?


----------



## Leocat66

chef2sail said:


> Get real. In no way do I beleive he should explain that here. The only person/ entity he is responsible to is any legal entity investigating this or his own maker. If he has any type of conscience he is distraught overe the possible contributions he made willingly or not to the death of one of his crew. He will have to live with that himself.
> 
> Leocat66 he has no obligation to you, me or other sailors in this matter. I do not want to hear your ameteur criticisms or Monday morning quarterbacking of what happened.
> 
> This thread has had many knowlegeable contributors which has helped myself and others in thinking of what to do to prevent this situation/ scenario and how to handle it if we got into a similar fix. You are not one of them and your rant would serve as no learning experience to myself.
> 
> Dave


Dave, you must be related to the Captain in question. You are right, he has absolutely no obligation to explain his actions or lack thereof to anyone here or on any forum. That said, explaining your actions, which had the ultimate result would be that which is called character, which is apparently sadly lacking with Captain Ross. Sadly, his silence, has produced this Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Many have gone before him, and have caused the death or injury of others and have had the character to explain what happened so that others could be cautioned.

I for one would like to hear Captain Ross give his account. He may be a man who did all in his power, with his experience, to make the best decisions under the circumstances. Instead of that we are left to assume the worst about him. As a result of his silence he will be tried here and every place else, and will be judged guilty by most.

You are very rude to suggest that my or anyone else's opinion is amateur and that you alone are intelligent enough to have valid professional questions or statements or opinions on this issue.


----------



## sck5

Sounds like YOU tried him and found him guilty. As for me, I think what you wrote is silliness.


----------



## Leocat66

I would like to know more. I would like to feel that I have given this man a truly fair shake in my heart. He is preventing all of us from doing that. I do not know enough to judge him fairly. Many here have judged him, read all of the comments. Many of the preceding comments from others are very harsh.


----------



## HeartsContent

I am confused how any rational person would expert anyone to worry what the SailNet internet forum sea lawyers, with too much time on their hands, think of anything?

It sure wouldn't be high on my list. 

It's a sad event and a notice that there are inherent dangers that can strike at any time, to anyone.


----------



## smackdaddy

Leocat66 said:


> Dave, you must be related to the Captain in question. You are right, he has absolutely no obligation to explain his actions or lack thereof to anyone here or on any forum. That said, explaining your actions, which had the ultimate result would be that which is called character, which is apparently sadly lacking with Captain Ross. Sadly, his silence, has produced this Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Many have gone before him, and have caused the death or injury of others and have had the character to explain what happened so that others could be cautioned.
> 
> I for one would like to hear Captain Ross give his account. He may be a man who did all in his power, with his experience, to make the best decisions under the circumstances. Instead of that we are left to assume the worst about him. As a result of his silence he will be tried here and every place else, and will be judged guilty by most.
> 
> You are very rude to suggest that my or anyone else's opinion is amateur and that you alone are intelligent enough to have valid professional questions or statements or opinions on this issue.


Dude, let's assume he has an attorney...which, at this point, is a pretty safe assumption. What do you think that attorney's counsel will be? "Tell Leo whatever he wants to know...in a public forum...because he thinks you should...and will publicly harsh your character if you don't."

We would all love to hear Ross' account. But in light of the circumstances, I think he would be insane to toss it out here.

Also - this "I can't give him a fair shake because he hasn't allowed me to" is a bogus argument. It's like the "I beat the old lady senseless because she was dumb enough to walk down my alley" argument.

Give me a break.


----------



## blt2ski

Along with, I see no where where C2S is related to captain Ross! So by saying he is or assumed to be so, is also spreading wrong info! 

As said, this will probably be like other incidents like this, wreck deaths etc, 1-2 yrs down the road, we "MAY" figure out the what or what did not happen. Until then, "ANY" armchair swag'ing of what happened is useless. 

marty


----------



## MacGyverRI

Why doesn't this get locked???


----------



## TakeFive

sck5 said:


> Sounds like YOU tried him and found him guilty. As for me, I think what you wrote is silliness.


+1








[EDIT: Oops, I did not realize that there was another page of responses. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse over beating a dead horse! :laugher ]


----------



## Leocat66

Thanks Marty, it is nice to secure a truly civil, non sarcastic response from a senior member. Thank You.


----------



## JonEisberg

With the exception of certain details, such as the timeline of taking to the liferaft, etc, it's no great mystery what led to the loss of RULE 62 and one of her crew&#8230; I don't understand this apparent need to hear the skipper's side of the story, why would anyone assume it would be "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", anyway? There's no hidden secret, or explanation that unlocks the key to the final decisions made that night, or justifies the risk that was taken&#8230; It was but another example common to so many tragedies of this type, that crew simply wanted off of that boat ASAP, and were desperate enough to place all their eggs in the basket of modern technology available to them&#8230; Just my opinion, of course&#8230;

What really mystifies me about this incident, however, is the virtual sailing/cruising media blackout that has ensued in its wake&#8230; Aside from an initial mention in LATITUTE 38, I have seen *no mention whatsoever* of this event in publications such as CRUISING WORLD, SAIL, SOUNDINGS, or OCEAN NAVIGATOR, to name but a few&#8230; Especially in a publication like SOUNDINGS, which covers to a great extent all manner of maritime incidents - one can search the archives of SOUNDINGS and read accounts of the most commonplace rescues of duckhunters rescued in the Chesapeake after their Jon-boat capsized, for example&#8230; But nowhere does any reference to the loss of RULE 62 even exist&#8230; Their current issue features a story on the recent loss of the BERSERK in Antarctica, CRUISING WORLD has a Goodlander piece on the killing of the crew of the QUEST by Somali pirates, but across the board of sailing publications, it's as if this event simply never occurred&#8230; Very odd, it seems to me&#8230;

I'm not by nature a conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but wonder if there is some reason for this one, some degree of "pressure" being applied from some source to keep this one quiet, and the fact that various sailing forums such as this one have been the sole venue for the discussion of this story, one that obviously serves as a cautionary tale for all sailors out there, and all can learn from&#8230;


----------



## Minnewaska

It may not be in publications for the same reasons. There isn't enough investigative information to do more than speculate on the parts that readers are most interested in. 

I'm as curious as the next guy to hear more details, which is why I come to this thread each time I see a new post. However, I do not feel entitled to any more information and almost wish this thread would be closed so that I wouldn't have to read the same old debate over and over in this thread. That may not be a thread closing violation.

The lost sailor was a friend of a colleague of my wife's. They don't have more info, so I don't think we're going to get any.


----------



## Leocat66

Jon, I agree this is strange, the silence is deafening. I am reading a book at this time on the 1998 Sydney to Hobart tragedy, "A HARD CHANCE". In that case, many died. Skippers also took crews and boats into known survival conditions, against better judgment in most cases. They had every aid available to warn them but proceeded anyway. Some ran for the safe harbor of Eden, many continued after learning of Hurricane conditions in Bass Strait during the race. We know all there is to know about that event from books, videos and interviews. It seems that there was legal exposure in such an event also. That did not cause the story to be, well, hidden, for lack of a better term.


----------



## LandLocked66c

This thread doesn't need to be closed... It's interesting and has provided further info on occasion. 

The truth always comes out, it's just a matter of time. Eventually someone will talk or be allowed to talk.


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> It may not be in publications for the same reasons. There isn't enough investigative information to do more than speculate on the parts that readers are most interested in.


Fair enough, but that fails to explain why other, similar tragedies have been noted...

Fatty's story in CRUISING WORLD on the killing of the QUEST crew is little more than pure speculation as to what occurred aboard that boat... And, we still know very little about the final events that led to the loss of BERSERK in Antarctica, but that hasn't stopped SOUNDINGS from running a full feature story on the tragedy...

The Caribbean 1500 is perhaps the most well-known such rally to American cruisers, and widely regarded as one of the best ways for aspiring bluewater cruisers to venture offshore, and make their first passage... The event has been widely covered in the sailing media in past years, the "race" results often noted in various publications, etc... But now, after the first shipwreck and loss of life occurs in the rally's 20-year history, and no one deems that even worthy of mention?

Purely coincidental, perhaps, but it certainly strikes me as more than a bit odd...


----------



## lancelot9898

JonEisberg said:


> The Caribbean 1500 is perhaps the most well-known such rally to American cruisers, and widely regarded as one of the best ways for aspiring bluewater cruisers to venture offshore, and make their first passage... The event has been widely covered in the sailing media in past years, the "race" results often noted in various publications, etc... But now, after the first shipwreck and loss of life occurs in the rally's 20-year history, and no one deems that even worthy of mention?
> 
> Purely coincidental, perhaps, but it certainly strikes me as more than a bit odd...


I would bet that there are threats of law suits by the Caribbean 1500 and possibly others such that these publications are very hesitiant to do any speculation what so ever.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> The Caribbean 1500 is perhaps the most well-known such rally to American cruisers, *and widely regarded as one of the best ways for aspiring bluewater cruisers to venture offshore*, and make their first passage... The event has been widely covered in the sailing media in past years, the "race" results often noted in various publications, etc... But now, after the first shipwreck and loss of life occurs in the rally's 20-year history, and no one deems that even worthy of mention?
> 
> Purely coincidental, perhaps, but it certainly strikes me as more than a bit odd...


What kind of training do these participants go through and/or are required to have for the race? And how are these newbs "looked after" during the race.

I ask because I've read that once the fleet gets spread out on the way down, one boat may not see another for the rest of the trip.

If so, that leaves a lot of responsibility on a newbie skipper. It just seems this idea of safety in a pack might be a little overblown.

Anyone able to shed light on this?


----------



## PalmettoSailor

JonEisberg said:


> What really mystifies me about this incident, however, is the virtual sailing/cruising media blackout that has ensued in its wake&#8230; Aside from an initial mention in LATITUTE 38, I have seen *no mention whatsoever* of this event in publications such as CRUISING WORLD, SAIL, SOUNDINGS, or OCEAN NAVIGATOR, to name but a few&#8230; Especially in a publication like SOUNDINGS, which covers to a great extent all manner of maritime incidents - one can search the archives of SOUNDINGS and read accounts of the most commonplace rescues of duckhunters rescued in the Chesapeake after their Jon-boat capsized, for example&#8230; But nowhere does any reference to the loss of RULE 62 even exist&#8230; Their current issue features a story on the recent loss of the BERSERK in Antarctica, CRUISING WORLD has a Goodlander piece on the killing of the crew of the QUEST by Somali pirates, but across the board of sailing publications, it's as if this event simply never occurred&#8230; Very odd, it seems to me&#8230;
> 
> I'm not by nature a conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but wonder if there is some reason for this one, some degree of "pressure" being applied from some source to keep this one quiet, and the fact that various sailing forums such as this one have been the sole venue for the discussion of this story, one that obviously serves as a cautionary tale for all sailors out there, and all can learn from&#8230;


Perhaps their waiting for some factual information to write a story on? (So they can mangle the facts of course).

I would think that eventually there would be some sort of report from the Bahamian"s?


----------



## lancelot9898

smackdaddy said:


> And how are these newbs "looked after" during the race.
> 
> I


I have friends who participated in the 1500 about 6 years ago who were very unhappy with the lack of communication with the 1500 after the lead boats had finished the trip. Apparently there were award ceremonies being held all the while there were still boats out there trying to finish at the back of the pack. My friends were not newbies to long distance cruising by any means.


----------



## speciald

The 1500 maintains a radio schedule until the last boat finishes the Regatta. Some boats finish after everyone else has gone home. They also have transponders on all the boats that broadcast each boats progress. The organiserd also maintain technical support by SSB and sat phone.The award ceremony is usually about 3 days after the first boats arrive. They do not have a "chase boat" hearding the straglers in to port. The only thing that I have suggested is that they have continuous SSB monitoring of boats in trouble; what else can they do? By the way, by private communication, I was told that Rule 62 had lost all electronics before they approached the Bahamas. That seems to me to be another reason not to attempt land fall at night.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Caribbean 1500 is perhaps the most well-known such rally to American cruisers, and *widely regarded as one of the best ways for aspiring bluewater cruisers to venture offshore, and make their first passage*... The event has been widely covered in the sailing media in past years, the "race" results often noted in various publications, etc... But now, after the first shipwreck and loss of life occurs in the rally's 20-year history, and no one deems that even worthy of mention?
> 
> Purely coincidental, perhaps, but it certainly strikes me as more than a bit odd...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of training do these participants go through and/or are required to have for the race? And how are these newbs "looked after" during the race.
> 
> I ask because I've read that once the fleet gets spread out on the way down, one boat may not see another for the rest of the trip.
> 
> If so, that leaves a lot of responsibility on a newbie skipper. It just seems this idea of safety in a pack might be a little overblown.
> 
> Anyone able to shed light on this?
Click to expand...

I should probably try to clarify what I wrote there&#8230;

I was basically addressing the sort of "notoriety" the 1500 has achieved over the years, it's pretty obvious many modern cruisers think such events are the best way to get their feet wet, and pay a fairly hefty price to do so&#8230; Many people apparently feel it's worth it, there is a high rate of repeat customers among the participants, and then there is the added social aspect of the whole deal&#8230; there is certainly no shortage of accounts from participants who enjoyed their rally experience immensely, and would repeat it in a heartbeat&#8230;

I've never done the rally myself, so I'm only able to repeat what I've heard anecdotally&#8230; The organizers do appear to offer a fairly thorough check of the fleet beforehand, and the safety and weather briefings sound pretty comprehensive, and conducted by some very reputable people&#8230;

However, I just happen to disagree personally with some of the supposed advantages of rallies that are often touted. IMHO, the "safety in numbers" aspect of these cattle drives is vastly oversold. To me it seems completely wrong-headed to head offshore with even the fleeting expectation or hope that you may benefit from assistance of other vessels in the vicinity. My feeling is that the greater likelihood is that I might be called upon to come to the assistance of someone else, and perhaps place my own vessel and crew at some risk they would not otherwise be exposed to if out there alone&#8230; Simply put, if one is not ready - or _feel they are ready_ - to undertake an offshore passage on their own, well&#8230; then they are not ready, period&#8230;

I happened to stop in the Bluewater Yachting Center last fall on a delivery during the week prior to the original scheduled departure, and had the opportunity to walk the docks, and check much of the fleet&#8230; Perhaps many of the boats were better prepped by the time they set sail, but I saw plenty of things I didn't like to see on boats heading offshore&#8230; SUV tenders hung from stern davits, lots of fuel jugs lining the decks, and so on&#8230; In short, the sort of stuff that can quickly create problems offshore. Compared with the look of the fleet prior to the start of the Newport-Bermuda Race, for example, well &#8230; there is simply no comparison, those boats are ready to go _to sea_&#8230;

The 1500 fleet took a considerable risk upon departure last year, leaving in the conditions they did&#8230;. Putting a fleet of boats inshore of the Stream down the coast to Hatteras in the winds and seas they did, I think they were lucky no one got into trouble through there&#8230;. One boat made the unfathomable decision to bail out and enter Oregon Inlet, I would have hoped the rally organizers would have tried to dissuade them from doing so at all costs, but I'm not so sure&#8230; They went in anyway, the boat suffered serious damage after being dropped on the bar, and by their own admission, were lucky to have survived&#8230; All because they were simply unwilling to suffer another night of the sort of "discomfort" they had experienced the first night out&#8230; I'm not saying I would not have departed Hampton in the same situation, but if I had, I'd sooner be out there alone, with only myself to worry about, than to be part of a large fleet wherein I might be compelled to lend assistance&#8230;

Just one curmudgeon's opinion, as always&#8230; (grin)


----------



## sck5

I went on the 1500 last fall and in fact was the next boat in the roll call after Rule 62 and so heard all of their communications (at least those that were made during the twice daily roll call) I have nothing more to add to that than what I have already said previously in this thread but I will say this

- The organizers pound home OVER AND OVER that the decision to go is UP TO THE CAPTAIN and that while the rally makes every effort to help and to answer questions they are NOT RESPONSIBLE in any way shape or form. On our boat we didnt see another ship or boat for a 6 day stretch and that was pretty normal. Nobody should imagine that they are anything but on their own whether they are in a rally or not. Certainly, if you thought otherwise you had to be really good at not listening to what the rally organizers told you, in addition to not reading anything you signed.

- Of COURSE the 1500 fleet doesnt look like the Bermuda race fleet. The reason is that the 1500 isnt a race - it is a rally. Cruisers do indeed carry jerry jugs on their decks because they might need to motor more than their tankage allows - if you are in a race you arent motoring at all. I would agree that there some people who did things that I wouldnt do (like leave the dinghy on the davits) but if they did so it was against the advice of the rally organizers.

Again, the rally people were absolute great at giving advice and sharing experience. But they also made it crystal clear that advice and experience was all they were sharing. The decision to sail is each captain's.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Jon, I enjoy your posts here and on CSBB. I'd sail with you anytime. Perhaps that means we are similarly deluded. *grin*

It is indeed rare that bad things will happen over a long enough time period that someone can come help you. I think it is even more rare that a participant in a rally based on "safety in numbers" will be able to render meaningful assistance in ugly conditions. 

I was planning a trip to the BVI last fall on my own boat that happened to coincide with the rally. I left Annapolis the day the rally was supposed to leave Hampton. By the time I reached Little Creek (a much better launching point to head offshore than Norfolk or Hampton) the rally had delayed their start.

A couple of days later, with Tomas wandering around the Caribbean, a huge Nor'Wester off Nova Scotia, and no less than three gales off the US East Coast, I headed back to Annapolis. The Rally launched. A number of rally boats did not go, including Between The Sheets who led their class for several years. Almost everyone who went was okay, but there were huge boat damages and a death. 

I think I made the right choice.

Chalk me up as just another curmudgeon with lots of miles--mostly on delivery--offshore. *grin*


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks for the feedback guys. That's exactly what I was thinking. I have no doubt that the rally organizers make sure that all the details are covered. But, I tend to agree with Jon that the underlying collective notion of the rally, rightly or wrongly, is the implied safety of making your first passage in a "group". (I took a quick look at the site and don't see where they specifically make this claim.)

This notion could mean trouble from the outset - especially in a very questionable start like they had. For example, if you're a newb and the other boats are headed out into stuff that made guys like Ausp head back home - you're going to follow. Because it's supposed to be "safe". And things are going to be bad. Then what?


----------



## chef2sail

No DAve...you were prudent. You weighed the risjks and rewards an d took the course of safety.

Dave


----------



## LandLocked66c

Still nothing out there about the owners, no lawsuits no nothing...


----------



## TQA

smackdaddy said:


> It just seems this idea of safety in a pack might be a little overblown.


Of course it is overblown. The safety thing is 90+% psychological. OK you have a weather net and a locator but gribs can be downloaded via a sat phone and positions relayed ashore.

It is not unheard of for one pack member to rescue another but would they not have done so anyway if close by? One would hope so.

Anyway none of the above relates to the thread topic. They tried an entrance at a time they should not have done so. Deep water is safe water and thats where they should have been.


----------



## rockDAWG

LandLocked66c said:


> Still nothing out there about the owners, no lawsuits no nothing...


As sad as it may be, lawsuit is not justified regardless what the captain or organizer did or didn't do. Every sailor or captain should know the risks and must accept it. Stop blaming others to seek financial compensation when something go wrong.

I am sure the lawyers may have other thing to say.


----------



## TakeFive

LandLocked66c said:


> Still nothing out there about the owners, no lawsuits no nothing...


Just because there is nothing in the blogosphere to satisfy lurkers' curiosity does not mean that nothing was resolved. Maybe (hopefully) the matter was settled privately (both morally and financially). That's the way it should happen when no laws are broken.


----------



## rockDAWG

RhythmDoctor said:


> Maybe (hopefully) the matter was settled privately (both morally and financially). That's the way it should happen when no laws are broken.


Unless you know more we do, I hope there is NO financial settlement in this case. Suggestion this without fact is just wrong.

If there was a settlement, it will be the beginning of the end of "Crew Want". No captains have any right mind will offer any crew position knowing he will be sued. This will be a sad day because not all sailors have money and resources to own his/her boat.

Why do we always have to blame someone for our misfortune. Do our homework, do your own risk assessment, blame GOD but don't blame the captain, put the gun in his head and fight for our survival.

If we have not done that, we die instead of the Captain. Don't get upset, it is fate. However, if the Captain did some criminal act and causes Laura to lose her life. Yes, I should go about him. But there is no trace of evident.

I am not being insensitive to the family of Laura, it is a tragedy and not necessary.



> Just because there is nothing in the blogosphere to satisfy lurkers' curiosity


Honestly, I am not being nosy, I truly want to know more than just not going into Marsh harbor at night in a rage. I may have to face this situation, and I want my crews and myself come out alive.


----------



## TakeFive

rockDAWG said:


> Unless you know more we do, I hope there is NO financial settlement in this case. Suggestion this without fact is just wrong.
> 
> If there was a settlement, it will be the beginning of the end of "Crew Want". No captains have any right mind will offer any crew position knowing he will be sued. This will be a sad day because not all sailors have money and resources to own his/her boat...


I know nothing. That's why I started my post with "maybe."

I was not suggesting that a financial settlement was called for, just that if there was one maybe it was done privately. And as long as it was private, it will not set a precedent that interferes with you desire for free crew.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Meant nothing more than I was "surprised" in this day and age that there wasn't some kind of lawsuit. That is all...


----------



## LandLocked66c

It has now been a year...


----------



## xxuxx

*Rule 62*

Don't get me started. Again.
I would love to hear an accurate account of what happened and what could have been done differently, in hindsight. I believe we could get that from the crew from Maine. I think his name was Dave? I wish he would post an accurate account of their trials and tribulations.

meanwhile the caribe 1500 is happening as we speak. New owners, new fleet watcher. 
Go to: Caribe1500.com to watch it unfold. Their is a nice duel between Fat Car (a morelli designed cat) and Blackbird ( a Tripp designed maxi racer)


----------



## LandLocked66c

Yep, Bummer no new info has come to light. This story, in particular, really makes me want to know how the events unfolded.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Getting close to the anniversary... This is one story that will always stick with me... Not trying to cause drama, just remembering the event...


----------



## rockDAWG

I remember Rule 62 almost everyday in the last two years. When I was on route to BVI in last year C1500 at the closest point to Bahamas, I faced toward Marsh Harbor, said a little prayer for Laura's family and asked the Water God for his mercy. I found peace within.


----------



## HighNDry

Apparently the lawsuit stemming from this tragedy is still churning. What's very interesting is that it was filed under the Jones Act. That doesn't cover volunteer, unpaid crew on yachts but it does cover paid crew. Laura's estate is claiming that she was paid crew because she was given airfare and meals, interviewed for the position, and given orders as a crew member.

I can't post links but you can find them at raleyraleylawfirm dot com.

*Raley & Raley Wins Motion in Laura Zekoll Jones Act Death Case*

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 13:42 -- craley
After 16 months of discovery and defense motions aimed at dismissing the case, Raley & Raley just received a very favorable Order of Remand from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in a Jones Act case filed on behalf of the Estate of Laura Zekoll. Ms. Zekoll was lost at sea and killed on November 13, 2010 near Lynyard Cay, Abacos, Bahamas, when her employer, Richard Ross, the Captain of the sailing vessel RULE 62, attempted to enter the unlit and unmarked North Bar Channel at night in what locals call a "rage sea". Capt. Ross had never navigated this area and had very limited experience sailing in the open ocean. Angela T. Cushwa, as Administrator of the Estate of Laura Zekoll, Deceased v. Richard H. Ross, Case No. 1:11-cv-03485-CAP.

*January 9, 2013: Northern District of Georgia Remands Jones Act Case handled by Raley & Raley to Fulton County State Court
*
In a 12-page Order entered on January 9, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a Motion to Remand filed by Raley & Raley on behalf of their Client, the Estate of Laura Zekoll.

On November 13, 2010, Ms. Zekoll was swept overboard and killed when her employer, the Captain of the S/V RULE 62, attempted to enter the unlit and unmarked North Bar Channel, Lynyard Cay, Abacos, Bahamas at night in a violent sea state.

Jones Act cases are not removable from State Court to Federal Court. Raley & Raley filed the case in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The Defendant, Richard Ross, removed the case to Federal Court, alleging that Ms. Zekoll was not a Jones Act seaman.

The District Court ultimately granted the Motion to Remand filed by Raley & Raley on behalf of the Zekoll Estate, holding that "...the Plaintiff here has put forth facts that could, if true, demonstrate that Zekoll was hired as a crew member for the Rule 62, meaning that she was acting as a sea-based worker at the time of the accident. The plaintiff avers that (1) Ross paid Zekoll compensation in the form of airfare and meals, (2) interviewed her for the crew position, and (3) gave her orders as a crewmember while the ship was underway...Given these allegations, the court concludes that the defendant has not met his burden to show that the plaintiff has fraudulently pled a Jones Act claim. These facts, if true, could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that Zekoll's connection to the Rule 62 was substantial both in its duration and nature. Therefore, this case should be remanded to state court as a non-removable Jones Act claim." Angela T. Cushwa, as Administrator of the Estate of Laura Zekoll, Deceased v. Richard H. Ross, Case No. 1:11-cv-03485-CAP.


----------



## rockDAWG

It hurts every time when I think about Rule 62. I feel the pain of Laura's family. I was told that she was the last minute replacement crew after the previous crew (also a she) could not participate in C1500. 

But anyway, Suing the Captain is just wrong. We all know the risks when we sign on the voyage. Making other responsible for the death is troublesome for me. It is going to have a profound impact on future in crewing and captaining either pay or not. 

But it is easy for me to say, I respect their decision/action.


----------



## billyruffn

My guess is that this is a case of an ambulance chasing lawyer working on a contingency fee....and now he's been reduced to grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage what investment he may have in the case. Fortunately, he found a judge that didn't know squat about offshore sailing and was willing to fall for the "employment" argument.



> The District Court ultimately granted the Motion to Remand filed by Raley & Raley on behalf of the Zekoll Estate, holding that "...the Plaintiff here has put forth facts that could, if true, demonstrate that Zekoll was hired as a crew member for the Rule 62, meaning that she was acting as a sea-based worker at the time of the accident. The plaintiff avers that (1) Ross paid Zekoll compensation in the form of airfare and meals, (2) interviewed her for the crew position, and (3) gave her orders as a crewmember while the ship was underway...Given these allegations, the court concludes that the defendant has not met his burden to show that the plaintiff has fraudulently pled a Jones Act claim. These facts, if true, could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that Zekoll's connection to the Rule 62 was substantial both in its duration and nature. Therefore, this case should be remanded to state court as a non-removable Jones Act claim."


A close read of the above suggests he may have won a motion, but he's still a long way from winning the case.

I've offered crew airfares and meals on several occasions and my insurance company doesn't consider that "paid crew". When I made a contribution to a crew member's sailing charity to enable him to join me for a three month passage, the insurance company did consider that he was paid crew and I had to pay a $300 supplement to the base policy to cover potential liabilities arising from his presence on the boat.

This is a tragedy of the first order. The lessons have been learned and nothing is going to bring Laura home from the sea. IMHO, it's long past time to let it begin to fade from our memories.


----------



## chef2sail

billyruffn said:


> My guess is that this is a case of an ambulance chasing lawyer working on a contingency fee....and now he's been reduced to grasping at straws in an attempt to salvage what investment he may have in the case. Fortunately, he found a judge that didn't know squat about offshore sailing and was willing to fall for the "employment" argument.
> 
> A close read of the above suggests he may have won a motion, but he's still a long way from winning the case.
> 
> I've offered crew airfares and meals on several occasions and my insurance company doesn't consider that "paid crew". When I made a contribution to a crew member's sailing charity to enable him to join me for a three month passage, the insurance company did consider that he was paid crew and I had to pay a $300 supplement to the base policy to cover potential liabilities arising from his presence on the boat.
> 
> This is a tragedy of the first order. The lessons have been learned and nothing is going to bring Laura home from the sea. IMHO, it's long past time to let it begin to fade from our memories.


Yep same with the Bounty


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> It hurts every time when I think about Rule 62. I feel the pain of Laura's family. I was told that she was the last minute replacement crew after the previous crew (also a she) could not participate in C1500.
> 
> But anyway, Suing the Captain is just wrong. We all know the risks when we sign on the voyage. Making other responsible for the death is troublesome for me. It is going to have a profound impact on future in crewing and captaining either pay or not.
> 
> But it is easy for me to say, I respect their decision/action.


For the Bounty too right?


----------



## Minnewaska

No, the Bounty is entirely different. The Bounty's skipper was a paid professional that led his crew to their death the moment he and only he decided they were going to leave the dock. Rule 62 seems to be a tragedy caused by inexperience.


----------



## ftldiver

I've been through north bar in abaco. 

Nobody that's been though there would try it at night in a rage. 

Cap't didn't know what to expect, trying to improve the conditions of the sick crew, made a bad decision. 

if he was prepared, he would have gone back north to N MOW channel. that is pretty much and all weather cut.

so sad...


----------



## rockDAWG

chef2sail said:


> For the Bounty too right?


IT is not an easy decision. I think Bounty situation is quiet different from Rule 62. Bounty LLC is an organization and Rule 62 is a privately Mom and pap operating pleasure boat.

If I perished in the sea, I don't want my wife to sue my sailor buddy who was kind enough to give me a ride regardless what happened. **** happens, we must bear all the risk on our own shoulder. However My legal council Schumberg and Goldstein would think differently.

Likewise, if have need a crew and **** happens, he died. I don't want his family go after my nest egg. A few weeks ago, I indeed post a thread regarding how to protect ourselves from frivolous lawsuit. Even if you win, you will lose big time.

If Laura's family wins the case, no owner will want to take on any crews and no captain can afford to hire crew or vise verse.


----------



## chef2sail

Negligence is negligence. When you take the responsibility of being the Captain you must do it seriously. You are stating you are the most experienced on board and ultimately make the final decisions. In life you get held accountable. Whether you think that's fair or not. Waldbridge should be one of the ones held accountable for his actions as his decisions ultimately caused Christians death. Captain of the Rule...same. His choice ultimately may have led to her death. Let 12 average citizens decide whether he should be responsible. He lucky he hasn't been charged with involuntary manslaughter. A corollary is the driver of a car and their responsibility. If they crash it and make an error and kill someone what happens?

As far as delivery captains, the ones I have gone with do accept they are ultimately responsible for their crews. That's why they are crazy IMHO if they don't carry insurance. If they screw up they should expect to be sued just like everyone else in society. You kill my daughter through irresponsible actions, yes I am coming after you. No it wont bring her back, yes it will prevent you from doing it again.

Maybe this issue is one which separates the wannabe delivery captains from the true professionals who are willing to take this responsibility seriously. I would hope they have some kind of professional insurance. Of course to get that I am sure they would need to be credentialed. 

If I hurt a guest on my boat through irresponsible actions...they can sue me. Its why I also have insurance.


----------



## tommays

+1 

In life you have to be willing to accept responsibility for your actions 

Its a big problem here with fatal car accidents when very high speed driving is involved because from a criminal standpoint its difficult to file charges

As the dad of a successful prosecutor every trial is all about people unwilling to be responsible for there actions no matter how many they killed


----------



## rockDAWG

chef2sail said:


> Negligence is negligence. When you take the responsibility of being the Captain you must do it seriously. You are stating you are the most experienced on board and ultimately make the final decisions. In life you get held accountable. Whether you think that's fair or not. Waldbridge should be one of the ones held accountable for his actions as his decisions ultimately caused Christians death. Captain of the Rule...same. His choice ultimately may have led to her death. Let 12 average citizens decide whether he should be responsible. He lucky he hasn't been charged with involuntary manslaughter. A corollary is the driver of a car and their responsibility. If they crash it and make an error and kill someone what happens?
> 
> As far as delivery captains, the ones I have gone with do accept they are ultimately responsible for their crews. That's why they are crazy IMHO if they don't carry insurance. If they screw up they should expect to be sued just like everyone else in society. You kill my daughter through irresponsible actions, yes I am coming after you. No it wont bring her back, yes it will prevent you from doing it again.
> 
> Maybe this issue is one which separates the wannabe delivery captains from the true professionals who are willing to take this responsibility seriously. I would hope they have some kind of professional insurance. Of course to get that I am sure they would need to be credentialed.
> 
> If I hurt a guest on my boat through irresponsible actions...they can sue me. Its why I also have insurance.


I posted a question not long ago, asking if any professional delivery captains carry professional liability insurance just like doctors, surgeons, nurses, and etc. I got no response. It appears that most are defer to the boat insurance of the owner. To me either they are very poor and just so uninformed.

No one (including you) knows the details of Rule 62, if the fault is from the Captain.

We become the nation of blame. So you go out to kill yourself and you can sue the NWS and CG not saving you fast enough. Where the Hell it will end?


----------



## chef2sail

rockDAWG said:


> I posted a question not long ago, asking if any professional delivery captains carry professional liability insurance just like doctors, surgeons, nurses, and etc. I got no response. It appears that most are defer to the boat insurance of the owner. To me either they are very poor and just so uninformed.
> 
> No one (including you) knows the details of Rule 62, if the fault is from the Captain.
> 
> We become the nation of blame. So you go out to kill yourself and you can sue the NWS and CG not saving you fast enough. Where the Hell it will end?


You are right...I don't know what happened. That's why there are courts to decide. Someone evidently thinks that the Captain is liable. I don't know if he is. Time will tell.

If it was my daughter killed and I couldn't get information or thought it was the Captains fault I probably would sue also.

Not sure about the delivery captains insurance question. I recall the one gent with the C&C 40 from NE doesn't believe in it.

Many of us carry insurance. Not just doctors, lawyers etc. In my business owners as well as some managers carry insurance in case you get a whole bunch of people sick through mishandling of food.

I say let the courts decide the liability in Rule 62 and hope it doesn't get thrown out on some non-related technicality.

Dave


----------



## rockDAWG

chef2sail said:


> You are right...I don't know what happened. That's why there are courts to decide. Someone evidently thinks that the Captain is liable. I don't know if he is. Time will tell.
> 
> *If it was my daughter killed and I couldn't get information or thought it was the Captains fault I probably would sue also.*
> 
> Not sure about the delivery captains insurance question. I recall the one gent with the C&C 40 from NE doesn't believe in it.
> 
> *Many of us carry insurance. Not just doctors, lawyers etc. In my business owners as well as some managers carry insurance in case you get a whole bunch of people sick through mishandling of food.*
> 
> I say let the courts decide the liability in Rule 62 and hope it doesn't get thrown out on some non-related technicality.
> 
> Dave


I would do the same thing if the owner and other survivor refused to answer or give details of the account. But I assume that the owner must have details to the Laura's family. The situation for Rule 62 is that the owner was inexperienced and suffered prolong fatigued. It is impossible to make the right decision.

Everyone (boater) carries general liability insurance. When sh*t hits the fan, this is not enough, he or she can default to their umbrella insurance. But those general liability insurance does not cover the boat owner for his negligence. If you are rich, they will go after your nest egg.

I am so surprised that most if not all professional delivery captains do not have professional liability insurance to cover their asses. Even the plumbers and carpenters carry professional liability.


----------



## TakeFive

chef2sail said:


> ...I say let the courts decide the liability in Rule 62 and hope it doesn't get thrown out on some non-related technicality.


I think that it's very interesting that this has made its way to the courts, and not just settled outside court by the insurance company, as are the vast majority of liability cases. My speculation is that this means the plaintiff and his attorney are demanding much more $$$ than the insurance is willing to pay and/or the insurance company believes the Jones Act does not apply.


----------



## jameswilson29

rockDAWG said:


> I posted a question not long ago, asking if any professional delivery captains carry professional liability insurance just like doctors, surgeons, nurses, and etc. I got no response. It appears that most are defer to the boat insurance of the owner. To me either they are very poor and just so uninformed.


I doubt it. I suspect they do not wish to reveal the existence of insurance on a public forum because it would invite lawsuits. I would also guess many of them operate their business through an LLC or other entity to reduce their personal liability and may have employed other asset protection strategies so their personal assets are not at risk.

As a lawyer, I carry professional E&O insurance, although I am not required to. You can check whether an attorney in Virginia has E&O by going to the Virginia State Bar website and look up the attorney's name. (You can also find out whether a lawyer has been disciplined or is in good standing.) We are required to reveal whether we have insurance and the public has a right to know, according to our regulations.

It seems the professional delivery captain business has little, if any, similar regulation.



rockDAWG said:


> We become the nation of blame. So you go out to kill yourself and you can sue the NWS and CG not saving you fast enough. Where the Hell it will end?


I agree. Personal responsibility is eroding in the U.S. More people do see themselves as helpless victims. I blame the outrageous verdicts on the jurors, not the lawyers. Many people seem to have no idea of proportionality in awarding damages, particularly against corporate entities.

However, many on this listserv seem content to avoid or dismiss their potential liabilities as captain of a vessel. They also seem to minimize the fault of the captains when we critique these mishaps, as if the mere fact of going to sea in a vessel absolves one of all responsibility for any mishap.


----------



## Shinook

I've had a few people tell me that insurance is a waste of money and I should just tell the marina I have it, without actually acquiring it. I'm blown away at how many people consider that acceptable practice.

There's no way I'd operate any type of vehicle or piece of equipment without some kind of liability insurance. It's far too risky, even if something isn't your fault at all, you can be held liable. In cases like this, a lapse in judgement could cost you significantly.



rockDAWG said:


> We become the nation of blame. So you go out to kill yourself and you can sue the NWS and CG not saving you fast enough. Where the Hell it will end?


I remember a case a few years ago where a guy flew his airplane into a thunderstorm and died in the inevitable crash. The NTSB concluded he was at fault for the accident entirely. The widow sued the aircraft manufacturer, the FAA, the FBO the airplane was based at, and any mechanic that touched the airplane in the last 2 years. I don't know if she was successful, but I do know that no one in her crosshairs came out unscathed. I've seen similar happen several times.

I am actually surprised that similar hasn't happened to boat manufacturers over the years, not that I've seen anyway. Usually in aviation you see the aircraft manufacturer listed in lawsuits for just about every accident.


----------



## rockDAWG

JW29, you have a point. I can't see how they can operate with some protection. If I eventually go insane and decide to purchase a boat, it will be under the company name or a new company. 

The biggest problem in the US for this type frivolous lawsuit is when you win in court, you loss big time at your pocket. Been there done that, no fu*king fun.


----------



## JonEisberg

rockDAWG said:


> I am so surprised that most if not all professional delivery captains do not have professional liability insurance to cover their asses. Even the plumbers and carpenters carry professional liability.


Seems quite a stretch to make such an assumption, based solely upon one or two responses on a sailing forum...

James has it right, and I suspect I've been somewhat indiscreet in being as forthcoming as I was about my own attitude on this... However, the yacht delivery business may not be a particularly good career choice for worrywarts, and I have taken FAR greater risks over the years, than running boats for some of them absent liability protection (grin). And, having earned the bulk of my 'fortune' over 30 years by standing or kneeling within a few meters of F1 and Indy cars traveling at speeds in excess of 200 mph, I've always figured my time spent delivering yachts to be pretty sedate and relaxing, and posing relatively little 'risk', in comparison...



rockDAWG said:


> The biggest problem in the US for this type frivolous lawsuit...


While it's certainly disappointing to hear of this latest development, it's hardly surprising, and I doubt this one rightfully fits into the category of being "frivolous"... Despite the fact that Mr Ross was an 'amateur', his decision that night was every bit as indefensible as that made by Walbridge on the BOUNTY...

There was talk here in the aftermath of RULE 62, that the facts would come out in the "investigation" that would be conducted by the Bahamians... Has anyone seen, or heard of such a report? Hmmm, I didn't think so...

Unfortunately, these are the rules we have long been playing by in America, and the family/estate of Laura Zekoll cannot be entirely faulted for taking advantage of them... And sadly, aventyr60 has it right, in declining to enlist Americans as crew on his boat...


----------



## Minnewaska

jameswilson29 said:


> I.....I would also guess many of them operate their business through an LLC or other entity to reduce their personal liability


Dig back to torts class and tell me how forming an LLC would make any difference, if you are hired as a delivery skipper and personally cause a loss. An LLC can only limit liability, when it is the defendant. If you are at the helm, you are the defendant, not the LLC. If you have personal assets, which is the variable, you should have them insured, unless you can afford to lose them.



> I blame the outrageous verdicts on the jurors, not the lawyers..


:laugher Of course you do counselor.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

I could accept it a little better if they brought a normal wrongful death suit, but this bogus strategy of stretching a law in place to protect paid professonal crew to cover this case, both rubs me wrong and creates the potential to damage the entire sport of sailing.

We all know the difference between paid crew and offering to partially offset someones expenses, but should this case set a precedent it will have wide reaching detrimental effect.


----------



## jameswilson29

Minnewaska said:


> Dig back to torts class and tell me how forming an LLC would make any difference, if you are hired as a delivery skipper and personally cause a loss. An LLC can only limit liability, when it is the defendant. If you are at the helm, you are the defendant, not the LLC. If you have personal assets, which is the variable, you should have them insured, unless you can afford to lose them.


Thank you for recognizing I am not a personal injury lawyer or a business formation lawyer, so I am not expert in this area, but I do deal with creditor-debtor law and debt allocation in divorce. (I don't know what your background is, although sometimes you seem to be quite knowledgeable about law. I would guess you have a law degree, but never practiced outside of serving as in-house counsel.)

I did not write "eliminate" liability, I wrote "reduce" it.

You conduct business through the LLC, so the LLC is the defendant. The classic formation is a holding company and an operating company. The holding company holds any assets, the operating company runs the business. The boat owner signs a written contract with the LLC. The captain is simply an employee of the operating company, as are any crew. Of course, someone may still sue the captain for negligence or intentional torts.

If the captain is wealthy, he has already conveyed his personal assets into an irrevocable trust with spendthrift provisions for estate planning purposes, so no creditors can go after them. Further, the captain has wisely executed a prenuptial agreement and any necessary, subsequent marital agreements with the admiral so he has already allocated the risks of any domestic liabilities, not in an attempt to impoverish or disinherit his spouse, but just to be fair and eliminate a costly divorce. The captain does not really own anything personally, so although he is not "judgment proof", he is "execution proof".



Minnewaska said:


> :laugher Of course you do counselor.


----------



## billyruffn

Although Wikipedia is not always the best source, here's what they have on the relevant section of the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act):



> Seaman's rights
> 
> The U.S. Congress adopted the Merchant Marine Act in early June 1920, formerly 46 U.S.C. § 688 and codified on October 6, 2006 as 46 U.S.C. § 30104. The Act formalized the rights of seamen.
> 
> It allows injured sailors to make claims and collect from their employers for the negligence of the ship owner, the captain, or fellow members of the crew.[4] It operates simply by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at 46 U.S.C. § 688(a), which provides:
> 
> "Any sailor who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply..."
> 
> This allows seamen to bring actions against ship owners based on claims of unseaworthiness or negligence. These are rights not afforded by common international maritime law.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 (1995), has set a benchmark for determining the status of any employee as a "Jones Act" seaman. Any worker who spends less than 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters is presumed not to be a seaman under the Jones Act. An action under the Act may be brought either in a U.S. federal court or in a state court. The seaman/plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, a right which is not afforded in maritime law absent a statute authorizing it.


I'm wondering if the legal pro's who frequent these pages would say about the following two hypothesises:

1/ The reason the plaintiffs are seeking to try this under the Jones Act is that it took place in the territorial waters of a foreign sovereign state and therefore US courts may not have jurisdication, other than under the terms of international maritime law, which as we see above doesn't afford the same rights as US law would.

2/ The plaintiffs will have a tough time overcoming the USSC ruling that:



> Any worker who spends less than 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters is presumed not to be a seaman under the Jones Act.


Thoughts anyone?

PS And then I found this on Wiki:


----------



## CaptOrganized

Well it seems as if Laura was covered by the Jones Act according to a convoluted decision by US District Judge Charles Parnell Jr on 09 Jan 2013. (search Cushwa Ross Leagle).

Shortly after, the case was settled out of court and we will probably never get all the facts. (See Raley web site, no details)

Were does that leave us boat owners who take "volunteer" crew cruising after Judge Parnell's decision.

Do we form LLC's, get waivers signed...?


----------



## Minnewaska

I only know this much. If you are aboard your own vessel, it makes zero difference whether the boat is owned by an LLC. You will be sued personally for your actions. Just as if you made those same action if you rented the boat. Folks misunderstand the corporate veil, which will protect an owner of a corporation from liability caused by someone else.


----------



## Slayer

If I am a passenger in your car, and I am injured as a result of your negligence, I can sue you for my damages. The same holds true if I am a guest in your home. I don't understand maritime law, but what is surprising about this ruling? Whether I am a volunteer crew or just a guest out on a day sail shouldn't you the captain be accountable for his/her negligence? Did this ruling allow her family to sue where they otherwise would have been unable to? And does her classification as a seamen give her family more rights?


----------



## xxuxx

Minnewaska said:


> I only know this much. If you are aboard your own vessel, it makes zero difference whether the boat is owned by an LLC. You will be sued personally for your actions. Just as if you made those same action if you rented the boat. Folks misunderstand the corporate veil, which will protect an owner of a corporation from liability caused by someone else.


This is true. In fact, the owner/captain, Dick Ross, was not blue water experienced and was extremely seasick which in turn affected his decision making abilities. The vessel, if I recall, was a 45' Jenneau named "Rule 62". I was one of the last people to speak with Laura on the dock before departure. Our vessel departed late but still encountered the heavy seas while arriving in the Abacos. Extremely poor discision making on the part of an inexperienced blue water captain to enter the Lynard Cay cut in a rage, at night. For me this case is no contest.


----------



## Angie Cushwa

With the recent events of El Faro, I take the same position as I did with my sister, Laura Zekoll, and her senseless death. _Laura was a working Crew Member aboard Rule 62; she had Standing Orders._ Her death, and the deaths of The Crew of El Faro's 33, should haunt those who are at fault. However, they don't care. Neither Laura's death, or likewise the respected El Faro Crews' happened by any mistake. Their lives were cut short due to cowardness and arrogance. Lastly, lack of seamanship heads the order. When someone is killed and then captains, corporate heads, and fleet directors beg out in silence, not taking full responsibility, the family(s) must take charge to the full extent of the law. Anyone who thinks it is about the money, for the mourning family in pursuit of holding those responsible who killed their loved one, is much much more than sorely mistaken. I owned a 30 ft C&C named Ariel for ten years, and my dear Laura learned to sail on that vessel. There was not in 2010, nor has there ever been an acknowledgment or moment of silence held by the Caribbean 1500 Rally. No one gave our family the decency of a phone call. The authorities in both Laura's case, and in the El Faro Crew have not integrity. My prayers go out to the families left in the wake of this needless and horrific tragedy. Again, none of these individuals should have died. Not only are they gone, but the family's do not even have the closure to see and touch their beloved one last time, or even have a burial site. Sudden death brings on shock and an array of complications. We left behind are the ones haunted, conjuring up pictures our loved ones terror. We never found Laura. I'm sorry but I would be remiss if I did not say those are shark infested waters. That is the haunting of mind imagery I was left with. My heart aches for these families, may God comfort them and be with them all. Angie Cushwa


----------



## xxuxx

Absolutely heartbreaking!! ....and totally an unnecessary death. Entering the Lynard Cay cut at night in a rage, for the first time, what was this inexperienced bluewater captain thinking? I wonder if he even knew he was prone to seasickness, which in turn, confused his ability to think rationally. If I had met Laura sooner, she could have sailed with us, an all girl crew, and she would have been safe! God Bless her! Rest in peace.


----------

