# The sinking of "RAW FAITH"



## priscilla (Mar 20, 2000)

How many of you guys would sail to Bermuda on this bucket...in November...with one other guy? Visit the website RAWFAITHADVENTURES.COM and and read about the strange voyage of "Raw Faith".


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

How strange...was JUST watching this video about it.

Coast Guard rescues "pirate" ship


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

*D.i.y.*

At least no one was lost, yet!

Down


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

This joker has been running this boat on a broken shoestring for YEARS, and running his mouth about it for just as long. this is not the first time he has had to be rescued by the coasties.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

bljones said:


> this is not the first time he has had to be rescued by the coasties.


But it may be the last...


----------



## Melantho (Dec 28, 2009)

This guy's name isn't Reid by any chance?


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

From the USCG Press Release:
"The crew of the vessel stated they had two life rafts, one survival suit and a hand-held radio on board. A Coast Guard helicopter crew from Cape Cod attempted to deliver additional safety gear to the crew of the Raw Faith, but weather conditions did not permit. Currently weather on scene is 25-30 knot winds with seas running 10-15 feet...."

Jaysus.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Here's a twist. Some scuttlebutt posted elsewhere:
"The RawFaith has been at the docks belonging to the National Park Service. Though he was given permission to use the docks, now he says he doesn't have the crew to leave, he wants to stay the winter. They want him out of there, so they called the Salem Harbormaster. They had a little shouting match, and the Harbormaster arrested the good captain for trespassing. I believe he yelled at the HM something along the lines of, "You won't be happy till I take the boat out to sea and sink her..."

He has till the 9th of December to leave or the case goes to court. He says he'll gladly leave, but he doesn't have crew, and he has to wait for the weather. We've heard the story before, now he wants to head to Bermuda, but has to wait for the right wind direction. The HM doesn't want him to send him out to sea, but if he can't stay at the NPS dock, there's no place else in Salem for her to stay. Salem's HM asked me how big a crew he'd need and I think I said at least 6..."


Hmmmmmm....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

bljones said:


> This joker has been running this boat on a shoestring for YEARS, and running his mouth about it for just as long. this is not the first time he has had to be rescued by the coasties.


I am assuming she is salvage now. Apparently, it was taking on water. Who knows, maybe even a very nice and new reef?

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh, so the boat was brought back in to safety?


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

*From "Boats of Shame" thread*



bljones said:


> I'm surprised that Raw Faith has not shown up on the list yet:


Raw Faith and a crew of two left from Salem Harbor, MA bound for Bermuda on December 5. The crew were rescued by the USCG after the ship became disabled off the coast of Nantucket on Dec 7.

Coast Guard Rescues Crew Of 'Raw Faith' - Video - WMTW Portland

The ship is reported to have structural damage (how can one tell) and CG have NOT taken the ship in tow (and probably won't), and are currently deciding what to do with the vessel. The Coast Guard Cutter Reliance will remain on scene with the RawFaith.

I think that the Atlantic could use a new reef, right about where she is. Too bad that she has fuel aboard...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Cruisingdad said:


> Oh, so the boat was brought back in to safety?


Nope. She's on the bottom...

UPDATE: Maine-made tall ship, Raw Faith, sinks. Crew safe | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

The whole things smells a bit like carp.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I looked through the site and apparently it did sink. I don't know the whole story behind it, but I will say I feel sorry foranyone that would put their entire life work into something then lose it that quickly. Especially on a boat, which we all seem to build especially close attachments to. 

Obviously she was not very sea worthy, or he missed some critical components somewhere. 20-25 and 10-15 waves should not be that threatening.

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## mdbee (May 2, 2007)

Hopefully the USCG used it for target practice and most of the fuel burned up to protect the little fishes. 

At least this keeps the USCG for having to rescue the crew time and time again.

Can you believe they actually had a epirb??


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

88 ft boat.
2 man crew.
1 survival suit.
No engine.

The skipper/builder was a menace and damned lucky nobody has died as a result of his arrogance.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

bljones said:


> 88 ft boat.
> 2 man crew.
> 1 survival suit.
> No engine.
> ...


+1

Karma!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

bljones said:


> 88 ft boat.
> 2 man crew.
> 1 survival suit.
> No engine.
> ...


+2

This guy completely disregarded proven and accepted boat building practices, safety and sound engineering yet insisted he was the one being maligned.

There have been THREE USCG rescues since 2004 of the Raw Faith!! THREE!!!!!!

None of these rescues were in weather that should have even ruffled the feathers of an 88 foot vessel hell a good sailor could have sailed a Mac through this... I for one am glad the hulk sank before killing anyone, let alone a poor innocent handicapped child, which was the original intent of the skipper.

Can you say DELUSIONAL with a side order of Seroquel or Zyprexa.......


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

She hasn't sunk yet...

May I suggest a Viking Funeral for the vessel?









Or perhaps this;


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

eherlihy said:


> She hasn't sunk yet...


Quote:
_*
"The Coast Guard reported just before 9 a.m. that the vessel sank with no one aboard about 118 miles southeast of the island, and asked that all mariners transiting the area keep a lookout and report sightings of any debris."*_


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Something tells me we are going to see the skipper working the church circuit shortly, telling his tale of woe and adventure and soliciting donations to do it all over again.

The worst part is that he is gonna get donations. People love the story of a lone man following a dream against all odds , fighting the authorities determined to end his quest...
hell this guy could end up becoming a Tea Party spokesman.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> Is it me, or does anyone else see Bozo in the pic above?


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Maine Sail said:


> Quote:
> _*
> "The Coast Guard reported just before 9 a.m. that the vessel sank with no one aboard about 118 miles southeast of the island, and asked that all mariners transiting the area keep a lookout and report sightings of any debris."*_


In this case, that's GREAT NEWS!








- Credit USCG



> Coast Guard Petty Officer Connie Terrell said the 118-foot, three-masted ship went down at about 7:30 a.m. in approximately 6,000 feet of water.
> 
> "It's not considered a hazard to navigation and there are no plans for salvage since it's so far down," Terrell said.


"No plans for salvage":laugher


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

bljones said:


> hell this guy could end up becoming a Tea Party spokesman.


Ha ha ha


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I hope the USCG sends this idiot a bill for the rescue. The boat was clearly not seaworthy and he has a track record of needing rescues.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Actually, I suspect that he purchased a "spacious traditional sailing yacht" and will be "sailing the exotic Indonesian archipelago and beyond." I hear that he's looking for female crew...


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

eherlihy said:


> Actually, I suspect that he purchased a "spacious traditional sailing yacht" and will be "sailing the exotic Indonesian archipelago and beyond." I hear that he's looking for female crew...


LOLZ! nice!


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

Originally Posted by bljones 
hell this guy could end up becoming a Tea Party spokesman



YeahJohn said:


> Ha ha ha


Hey HEY;:hothead easy there. I want to know what is so hillarious about wanting to pay less than the current 1/2 of my paycheck in taxes???


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Given this, I would question what really happened to RawFaith. It could have easily been an intentional scuttling/bogus MAYDAY call...



bljones said:


> Here's a twist. Some scuttlebutt posted elsewhere:
> "The RawFaith has been at the docks belonging to the National Park Service. Though he was given permission to use the docks, now he says he doesn't have the crew to leave, he wants to stay the winter. They want him out of there, so they called the Salem Harbormaster. They had a little shouting match, and the Harbormaster arrested the good captain for trespassing. I believe he yelled at the HM something along the lines of, "You won't be happy till I take the boat out to sea and sink her..."
> 
> He has till the 9th of December to leave or the case goes to court. He says he'll gladly leave, but he doesn't have crew, and he has to wait for the weather. We've heard the story before, now he wants to head to Bermuda, but has to wait for the right wind direction. The HM doesn't want him to send him out to sea, but if he can't stay at the NPS dock, there's no place else in Salem for her to stay. Salem's HM asked me how big a crew he'd need and I think I said at least 6..."
> ...


----------



## priscilla (Mar 20, 2000)

You won't have to worry about any fuel spill as she didn't have an engine...also I had the date wrong she left in December. I'm sure anyone sailing in the new england area has seen the boat, she had been towed into Rockland and spent last summer there. Last time I saw her she was in Portland.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Hence my "hmmmmmmm..."


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

CapnBilll said:


> Originally Posted by bljones
> hell this guy could end up becoming a Tea Party spokesman


Cheap shot. Besides, I thought it was the lefties that were all about reckless abandon, follow your dreams, love the one you're with, don't let The Man get you down. All for one, especially me when I'm on a sinking ship!


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Not a cheap shot at all. I fear it may happen, because his story sure spins the right way. The underdog, just trying to do a good thing, unemployed because of (pick a reason), inspired by his little girl, makes something out of nothing, and it would have worked except for the damn government regulations getting in his way and those damn authorities making him move from port to port...

We know the real story, but do you think a landlubber in a church in the heartland has any idea? Think this story was reported anywhere but the "mainstream media" that many ignore? If you are predisposed to believe that the government is out to destroy your life, capt. mckay's potential story could make him the next media martyr.

If the "get off my property" guy can attract a following, just imagine how this story could be spun with a couple of youtube videos and a little massaging.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bljones said:


> This joker has been running this boat on a broken shoestring for YEARS, and running his mouth about it for just as long. *this is not the first time he has had to be rescued by the coasties*.


I find it really incredible that there, any clown (without any marine qualification) can go offshore in any kind of boat, regardless of size, type or condition and then, after running in trouble, he can call for help and huge and incedible expensive means are deployed to help him. No charge.

And, as he can legally take any peace of **** offshore, without knowing anything about seamanship, or regardless of the boat, he can do it again and again, with all the American citizens paying the bill for the rescues. This has any sense?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

PCP said:


> I find it really incredible that there, any clown (without any marine qualification) can go offshore in any kind of boat, regardless of size, type or condition and then, after running in trouble, he can call for help and huge and incedible expensive means are deployed to help him. No charge.
> 
> And, as he can legally take any peace of **** offshore, without knowing anything about seamanship, or regardless of the boat, he can do it again and again, with all the American citizens paying the bill for the rescues. This has any sense?
> 
> ...


Yep. He has the freedom to do so. The key word here being freedom.


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

bljones said:


> Yep. He has the freedom to do so. The key word here being freedom.


Heck, you can even do it here in Canada!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> I find it really incredible that there, any clown (without any marine qualification) can go offshore in any kind of boat, regardless of size, type or condition and then, after running in trouble, he can call for help and huge and incedible expensive means are deployed to help him. No charge.
> 
> And, as he can legally take any peace of **** offshore, without knowing anything about seamanship, or regardless of the boat, he can do it again and again, with all the American citizens paying the bill for the rescues. This has any sense?
> 
> ...


I'm with ya on that one Paulo!!!!! I have been screaming about that for a long time. At least in this instance, he was only a threat to himself, crew, and the poor USCG that had to rescue him. How about the idiots that have never been on a boat before, drop $500k in a new Sea Ray, and are zipping down the waterways at 30 kts driving by way of Chart Plotter!?? They're the real dangers!! And there'd be constant USCG rescues of these guys offshore if they could only figure out why their boats stop running when the little gauge reads 'E'.

Brian


----------



## ffiill (Jul 15, 2010)

You would have all loved the boat of someone I once met.
Boat was a Thomas Colvin Pinky steel schooner. 
Nothing wrong with that and the guy had built it from scratch from the drawings in Colvins book-Steel Boat Building.
An expat Australian he had worked as a coded welder in a shipyard so the hull was built well.
BUT clearly he was short of money as masts were roughly trimmed grown pine trees-again no problem;the rigging galvanised;but running rigging that blue polyprop. more usually used as tie downs.
No engine again because he could not afford one-got into middle of Loch Ness were winds tend to blow at strength up or down the Loch and had to be towed back.
Fitted a beat up old engine and took off with his wife trading around the Atlantic basin-mainly west Africa/African Rivers and South America/rivers.
By the time he ended up in US waters with no safety gear ;little navigation equipment plus by then 3 children he was arrested and sent on his way.
I only thing it was the sturdy nature of the design plus his very good welding skills that prevented a disaster.
By the time I met him other than the steelwork the boat was in disrepair having just done its final transatlantic run from the W.Indies.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

The USCG CAN fine you for lack of required gear, but rarely do during rescues. Successive rescues could make a good case for a progressive fine, I.E. rescue 1 - free, rescue 2 - 10% of cost rescue 3 - and above for same stunt 100%. Anyone can run into trouble thats why we have them, but running into the same trouble over and over again shows lack of learning from experience.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

bljones said:


> Not a cheap shot at all. I fear it may happen, because his story sure spins the right way. The underdog, just trying to do a good thing, unemployed because of (pick a reason), inspired by his little girl, makes something out of nothing, and it would have worked except for the damn government regulations getting in his way and those damn authorities making him move from port to port...
> 
> We know the real story, but do you think a landlubber in a church in the heartland has any idea? Think this story was reported anywhere but the "mainstream media" that many ignore? If you are predisposed to believe that the government is out to destroy your life, capt. mckay's potential story could make him the next media martyr.
> 
> If the "get off my property" guy can attract a following, just imagine how this story could be spun with a couple of youtube videos and a little massaging.


I was not taking up for the goofball. I meant it was a cheap shot at the Tea Party.


----------



## mkcsret (Dec 8, 2010)

The Coast Guard messes up the laws of "Natural Selection" by rescueing idiots and therefore allowing them to procreate and create more idiots.
Believe me I know!!!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

mkcsret said:


> The Coast Guard messes up the laws of "Natural Selection" by rescueing idiots and therefore allowing them to procreate and create more idiots.
> Believe me I know!!!


----------



## mkcsret (Dec 8, 2010)

BooYa...hehehe....


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

seabreeze_97 said:


> I was not taking up for the goofball. I meant it was a cheap shot at the Tea Party.


I know. You're still wrong. I don't take cheap shots.


----------



## johnnyandjebus (Sep 15, 2009)

_The ship is reported to have structural damage (how can one tell )_

eherlihy 
Thanks for my laugh of the day :laugher

_I find it really incredible that there, any clown (without any marine qualification) can go offshore in any kind of boat, regardless of size, type or condition and then, after running in trouble, he can call for help and huge and incedible expensive means are deployed to help him. No charge.

And, as he can legally take any peace of **** offshore, without knowing anything about seamanship, or regardless of the boat, he can do it again and again, with all the American citizens paying the bill for the rescues. This has any sense?_

Paulo
While I can agree with you on this case I can't agree in practice as a rule/law. Guys like him are what we have to put up with to have the freedom to go to sea with out big government telling us how and when to do it.
I hope some day to take off in my contessa 26, if your above statement were turned into law I am sure there would be a government bureaucrat at the dock stopping me, in my "best interest" If not mine then in the the best interest of the greater good.

John


----------



## klem (Oct 16, 2009)

When I worked commercially in Rockland, I got to watch some of the unbelievable things that happened with this vessel. He was actually under a captain's of the port order which prohibited him from leaving until the coast guard signed off that he had fixed certain things.

One of the things that stuck out in my mind from sailing by was the bobstay attachment to the hull. There was a piece of threaded rod drilled through the stem with a shackle run onto it that was attached to the bobstay (the pin was removed from the shackle and it was simply slid over the threaded rod), then a nut was put on to keep the shackle from sliding off. The threaded rod was quite bent. Another thing that I remember being appalled by was the steering setup which consisted of blocks that appeared to have been purchased at a hardware store that were part of tackles attached to an eyebolt on the top of the rudder. Needless to say this eyebolt was very bent and one of the times that they were towed in was due to a steering failure.

As cruel as it is, I really think that this is the best thing that could have happened to this fundamentally flawed vessel. No one has died and no more effort or money can be poured into it.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

PCP said:


> I find it really incredible that there, any clown (without any marine qualification) can go offshore in any kind of boat, regardless of size, type or condition and then, after running in trouble, he can call for help and huge and incedible expensive means are deployed to help him. No charge.
> 
> And, as he can legally take any peace of **** offshore, without knowing anything about seamanship, or regardless of the boat, he can do it again and again, with all the American citizens paying the bill for the rescues. This has any sense?
> 
> ...


We don't worry about it too much Paulo as it tends to be self regulating given enough time.....


----------



## Mcpsych (Nov 21, 2010)

*lefe liberty and the pureuit of happiness*

this is where the concept of unlimited rights falls down- most people dont or wont accept the responsibilities that go with those
I have always said- the price of stupidity is death ( if you take the risk you should bear the costs)


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

mkcsret said:


> The Coast Guard messes up the laws of "Natural Selection" by rescueing idiots and therefore allowing them to procreate and create more idiots.


Absa-freakin-lutely!


----------



## ne57301 (Mar 7, 2000)

To be honest, I think this is the very best outcome we could have hoped for. This vessel was a tragedy waiting for a time to happen, thank God no one was hurt. I know I personally would have been sorry to know that this boat was doomed and there was nothing I could do about it. Oddly enough, in all the rescues performed of this boat, it was it's complete unseaworthiness that made the rescues somewhat less dangerous. It took so little weather to incapasitate it that the rescues were probably good exercises for the Coast Guard.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

mkcsret said:


> The Coast Guard messes up the laws of "Natural Selection" by rescueing idiots and therefore allowing them to procreate and create more idiots.
> Believe me I know!!!





T34C said:


> Absa-freakin-lutely!


From the helo, how do you determine that the distressed dudes below are ones that "deserve" to avoid the Darwin shuffle? In other words, how do you know the one coming up in the basket is salty enough _not_ to be one of those "idiots" you detest?

And when he's sitting safe in the helo, do you thank him for letting you save him? Or do you think, "if you're so experienced, why the hell am I here"?

Sorry, this kind of argument will absa-freakin-lutely never fly.

(PS - I'll spot you these 2 dudes on a 88' home-made galleon, but...)


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Hey Jones....you mean a Tea Partier is capable of embarassment ? Nah.. I don't believe it....

and Ne57301 (where do you people come up with your ID's ?) while I take umbrage with your "Thank God" your "Good exercise for the Coast Guard" is one of the more sensible statements in this thread.

Look, I'm thankful that those guys are there for the times they are needed, same goes in our case for the Navy, who perform our search and rescue work but these lines of 'waste of money' and "putting in harm's way" are just so much nonsense. 

Your Coast Guard and our Navy both go out on a regular basis for exercises and they do it in apalling conditions sometimes. We've all seen those vids of the Coast Guard cutters playing in the surf off the Columbia River entrance. Why do they do this ? They do it in the expectation of going to sea on search and rescue missions. It is their job. It is what they volunteered to do. Yes, they are brave men and women. Yes they deserve a pat on the back for what they do but come on, they are in the end only doing their jobs. If they didn't want to hang off a piece of string under a thundering helicopter in the middle of an Atlantic gale then they should have become accountants. We all know that while occasionally the rescuee is a fine upstanding example of the seaman's craft, reality is the vast majority of rescuees are dills, dunderheads and dipshits, a waste of perfectly good semen in the main. 

Had  the knobhead skipper of the Raw Faith drowned I for one would not shed a tear, but in reality it is the rescuing of morons like that which hopefully shows the human race is not utterly beyond redemption.

And who knows, one of these days it could me and I reckon I'll then be pretty happy that they got to do a dry run or two on the Darwin Award Nominees, like the skipper of the Raw Faith.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

johnnyandjebus said:


> ..
> Paulo
> While I can agree with you on this case I can't agree in practice as a rule/law. Guys like him are what we have to put up with to have the freedom to go to sea with out big government telling us how and when to do it.
> I hope some day to take off in my contessa 26, if your above statement were turned into law I am sure there would be a government bureaucrat at the dock stopping me, in my "best interest" If not mine then in the the best interest of the greater good.
> ...


John,

I don't know very well the American reality in what regards recreational boating. I have started a thread about that (in America and in the world) but it seems there is not much data about that. It seems however that in Europe the number of sailboats is much superior and is increasing every year, as the potential number of guys that dream to retire in a sailboat.

Rescue services are an expensive service and they were devised as a mean to create a safety back up to professional boating that is an important part of any maritime state economy. Even if in many cases it is carried by volunteer service, when we talk of Ocean rescues the means involved make it a state funding affair.

If the huge increase of recreational boating translates in a huge increase on the number of ocean rescues (as it is the case), in these times of austerity, sooner or later someone is going to say: Hey! why are we all paying a lot for the safety and freedom of a few that want to risk their lives in some unnecessary and hazardous recreational activity?

An then, all of us, that know what we are doing, that are properly equipped and the controlled risks we take, will pay for all of those that go offshore in old or unsuitable boats and that don't have the knowledge to do so (if they had, they would not be offshore in an unsuitable boat anyway) and are responsible for 90% of all rescue missions, not to mention the increase in insurance premiums to sail offshore.

How do you want to solve this? Are you going to wait for the inevitable an do nothing about it?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## boomvangdc (Oct 28, 2010)

bljones said:


> Something tells me we are going to see the skipper working the church circuit shortly, telling his tale of woe and adventure and soliciting donations to do it all over again.
> 
> The worst part is that he is gonna get donations. People love the story of a lone man following a dream against all odds , fighting the authorities determined to end his quest....


He's already given a very sympathetic sounding interview on TV...although if you watch the whole story the news station does point out that the taxpayers had to foot the bill for his rescue.

Link to the video here: Homemade Schooner Headed to Bermuda Sinks off Nantucket | Daily Sailing News from North American Sailor.


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

I have followed the saga of "RAW FAITH" for years. Whenever we came across it along the Maine coast it was seeking a place to stay. The guy who built it was operating on RAW FAITH. It is a tragic story without this latest chapter which provided the best possible solution of its "place to stay". I almost expect he knew that. I never met the guy. His motives for attempting his misguided mission were not personal gain. He lost his home and his family in the process. The boat was built out of a blind desire to take handicapped people sailing? What a goal. What a tragic sacrifice he forced on his family and others. No one was killed. The goal was not achieved. Yet??

Smack, this is a BFS! If this guy gets the right person to manage his story he can sell the book and film rights for enough money to buy and support a nice, professionally crewed catamaran for handicapped sailing and reimburse the government for its rescue expenses! Goal achieved!

Down


----------



## johnnyandjebus (Sep 15, 2009)

PCP said:


> John,
> 
> I don't know very well the American reality in what regards recreational boating. I have started a thread about that (in America and in the world) but it seems there is not much data about that. It seems however that in Europe the number of sailboats is much superior and is increasing every year, as the potential number of guys that dream to retire in a sailboat.
> 
> ...


Hey Paulo

Up front;
1) excuse my ramblings below, consider it a brain dump rather than a well thought out argument.
2) I may or may not be back peddling on my original post.

If the skipper of RAWFISH was involved in any criminal or devious activity, like sinking intentionally then let the full force of the law fall on him like a ton of bricks.

In isolation, on the surface, it appears to me that this is a case of severe incompetence at best. I would detest the idea of my tax dollars used to pay for this rescue.

As to your point/question. I suspect quite strongly that what you predict may very well come true so perhaps you are right but I am not quite ready to concede the idea that the cost of rescue should be paid for by the tax payers not the individual for a couple of reasons

1) We already pay for any rescue costs thru taxes. I pay for a lot of services thru taxes that I will never use. i.e welfare checks, subsidies to the arts, unemployment cheques to the seasonal workers etc.

Let me lay out a scenario for you. Hockey is a big deal here, all levels of government fund, thru tax dollars, the building of hockey rinks, my home town included. I don't play hockey and can count the # of times I have been in a indoor rink in my life on one hand. Why am I paying for a "service" I don't use? Hockey is inherently a dangerous sport, a guy gets checked into the boards and ends up with serious injuries. Why is my health tax dollars used to pay for the costs of his health care? He knew the risks before he stepped onto the ice did he not?
I see no difference in the above scenario when compared to the cost of rescue for sailors, back country skiers etc. We all pay for rescue services thru tax dollars and should not have to consider the cost to ourselves if we call in for a rescue.

2) Canada is a big country, a good chunk of the land is crown land, the people own it. We should all be encouraged to use it,explore it. yes there will be rescues and they will be expensive but the country will better off if more people understood just how special the outdoors(sailing included) is. This will not happen if we send everyone a bill when they get into trouble. Why go outside and risk financial disaster when I can stay inside and play video games? We need a serious attitude adjustment in how we think and treat our environment, this will not happen if people are not our there living in it.

Did I say I was going to ramble?

3) what you are suggesting leads to, as you put it, higher insurance rates. I don't want the government mandating to me that I need insurance at any rate every time I put myself at any level of risk. The government having a say in what is a "suitable" boat to go off shore with will lead to some bureaucrat, who doesn't have a clue, telling me what is a suitable boat, and what isn't. Maybe it is different in your part of the world, but experience has taught me that that government intrusion rarely leads to a better out come but always leads to higher taxes and less personal choice.

John


----------



## sailguy40 (Feb 6, 2010)

Thats was a big ship and I find it amazing the guy built it! What I don't understand is how a 118ft 300 ton vessel can dock or depart without an engine? Then in the video they were not flying any sails on any of the masts so the ship was not moving and instead getting tossed all around. I guess this is how 10 to 15ft waves can sink something this size? Those waves should be nothing to a large sailing ship underway.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

they used an inflatable to tow/push it out of the harbour.
I am not kidding. Google "Raw Faith Woodenboat Forum" to see just what a clusterpluck this whole debacle is. Woodenboaters are traditionally a little into the red zone on the weird-o-meter, and they usually bust the peg on the opinionometer, so when THEY excoriate a wooden boat builder, you know it has to be a nightmare.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

bljones said:


> they used an inflatable to tow/push it out of the harbour.
> I am not kidding. Google "Raw Faith Woodenboat Forum" to see just what a clusterpluck this whole debacle is. Woodenboaters are traditionally a little into the red zone on the weird-o-meter, and they usually bust the peg on the opinionometer, so when THEY excoriate a wooden boat builder, you know it has to be a nightmare.


LOL


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

PCP said:


> John,
> 
> I don't know very well the American reality in what regards recreational boating. I have started a thread about that (in America and in the world) but it seems there is not much data about that. It seems however that in Europe the number of sailboats is much superior and is increasing every year, as the potential number of guys that dream to retire in a sailboat.
> 
> ...


Paulo,

I hope that you don't mind my jumping in...

I have no problem with the CG rescuing Captain McKay, and his son. They were clearly in trouble.

Regarding having him pay for his rescue, I think that the motivation for his actions should drive that decision.

Raw Faith was McKay's passion. He did not do this for personal gain, but rather to promote the cause of enabling disabled kids to experience sailing. Inspired by his daughter, he made an effort to provide an opportunity to people (not only his daughter) who would not otherwise have it. He put everything he had (including his home, and all of his worldly possessions) into his cause. He left on this voyage because he had been kicked out of Salem, and every other port that he had "visited" in the US. I see this guy as a modern day Don Quixote....

I hesitate to bring this up but, with regard to paying for rescue, I cannot help contrast McKay's folly with the "youngest sailor to circumnavigate alone" contestants. Motivation for their voyages; "To become the youngest sailor to circumnavigate alone and unaided," and publicity. Were there predictions that Abby and Jessica would need rescue - yup. Did they need rescue - yup. Who paid for their rescues?... The only people to benefit from Abby, or Jessica exploits would be Abby or Jessica and their sponsors.

I realize that we have already thrashed the "youngest sailor" issue in other threads, and I don't want to start again here.

However, no one should ever have been allowed to put to sea in Raw Faith. Sailing this vessel ANYWHERE, let alone from Salem, MA, USA to undisclosed port, BERMUDA seems to fit the definition of Manifestly Unsafe Voyage. 


> A Coast Guard boarding officer who observes a boat being operated in an UNSAFE CONDITION, specifically defined by law or regulation, and who determines that an ESPECIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITION exists, may direct the operator to take immediate steps to correct the condition, including returning to port. Termination of unsafe conditions may be imposed for:
> Ø Insufficient number of CG Approved Personal
> Flotation Devices (PFDs)
> Ø Insufficient fire extinguishers
> ...


I question why the coast guard did not intervene sooner (like 6 years ago).


----------



## tweitz (Apr 5, 2007)

I always wonder at so many events that are billed as being done for some cause or another, but happen to coincide with the person's interests, how much their motivation is truly selfless and how much an opportunity to get sponsors and general social approval for an otherwise harebrained scheme. I don't know in the case of Raw Faith, but it definitely was harebrained, whatever the motive.


----------

