# An Informed Opinion about the Bounty



## Roger Long (May 28, 2012)

One of the handful of people on the planet whose opinion I believe most qualified on a matter like the _Bounty_ loss has spoken out.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/jan-...ss-approach-of-sailing-vessel/174315806048123

I see this reference showed up in the long original thread since I looked at it last but the thoughts of someone like Jan don't deserve to be buried in the morass that thread has become.


----------



## MobiusALilBitTwisted (Jun 25, 2007)

To bad it is on Facebook, not everyone on the Globe likes FB.
hoping someone will cut and past with the proper credit to the work.

Fair Winds


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I like the morass.


----------



## PaulinVictoria (Aug 23, 2009)

For those not on Facebook:


> BAD JUDGEMENT, FAULTY REASONING, THE WILLFULLY RECKLESS APPROACH OF SAILING VESSEL HMS BOUNTY WITH HURRICANE SANDY
> by Jan Cameron Miles on Saturday, 1 December 2012 at 16:04 ·
> 
> December 1, 2012
> ...


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

December 1, 2012

AN OPEN LETTER

Dear Robin,

It has been a month now since the USCG stopped looking for you. Claudene is dead and BOUNTY, like you, is lost at sea as a result of your decision to sail directly towards Hurricane Sandy. Your action reminds me of the movie “Hunt for Red October”. I am thinking of that captain of the submarine hunting the other submarine. The captain on the hunt for the fleeing sub threw all caution away in his hunting effort. Why did you throw all caution away by navigating for a close pass of Hurricane Sandy? I was so surprised to discover that BOUNTY was at sea near Cape Hatteras and close to Hurricane Sandy Sunday night October 28th! That decision of yours was reckless in the extreme!

The outcome of your action makes you the only captain of the current crop of long experienced American maritime licensed sailing vessel masters’ actually willing to voyage anywhere near a hurricane! Did you not remember the fate of the FANTOME? Like BOUNTY she was a slow, less than 10 knot capable vessel under engine power. Not fast enough to run out of range of the reach of Hurricane Mitch. Additionally the master of FANTOME had too much confidence in hurricane forecasting accuracy. Mitch made an unexpected left turn after consistent movement westward before slowing down to near stopped about the time FANTOME made her run eastward from Belize trying to escape Mitch. A stationary hurricane is nearly impossible to predict future motion. To the best of anyone’s knowledge (FANTOME was lost with all hands) Mitch ran right over her. You, on the other hand, maneuvered directly toward a very accurately forecast and steadily moving Hurricane Sandy with a slow moving vessel of wood construction, FANTOME was of metal. Also, BOUNTY is quite a bit smaller than FANTOME. Still you aimed all but directly at Sandy. That was reckless my friend! Was it wise or prudent to set off into the teeth of Sandy in BOUNTY? Did it make any sense at all? Virtually all of your professional friends and colleagues back here do not think so, not at all.

You told everyone you were going east around Sandy. But you did not even try to do so. Your track line indicates unequivocally a trail all but directly toward Sandy. When I heard east around was the strategy I immediately wondered about it. I am not the only one to know that BOUNTY is not highly powered with her engines. You yourself are publicly recorded as saying BOUNTY is under powered. Looking at weather conditions east of Long Island for Friday October 26 it is clear there were northeast winds. They were not strong winds...near 5-10 knots at the buoy 50 miles SE of Nantucket with a slight sea of between 1-2 feet. But windage of any sailing vessel under auxiliary power is significant. A full-rigged ship has a whole lot more windage. 5 knots of boat speed into 10 knots of wind means a lot of drag slowing BOUNTY down...maybe with the underpowered engines BOUNTY could barely reach 5 knots of boat speed? Saturday Oct. 27 at the buoy wind had increased to around 15 knots NExE and sea had increased to around 3-4 feet. With staysails set and motor-sailing what would BOUNTY have been steering? Maybe something south of true East? What kind of speed would BOUNTY have made? On Sunday Oct. 28 wind had jumped to 30-35 knots NExE and the sea was up around 12 feet and building. Considering those big bluff bows of BOUNTY and massive windage in her rigging you probably decided to abandon the "go east around Sandy" strategy long before even trying it out because of the increasingly slow progress BOUNTY would eventually be making with ever increasing winds and swell from the northeast plus the knowledge the wind would eventually veer to east and on toward southeast as Sandy moved north forcing BOUNTY to turn southward and even southwestward and that would be back toward Sandy. You may also have still been doubtful of Sandy actually turning NW. Considering Sandy did go toward land rather than toward sea, had you tried to go eastward as you originally intended with any kind of will, BOUNTY might have wound up pretty far away from Sandy’s center, but the storm was so big you might actually have met conditions somewhat similar to what you actually met by heading straight toward Sandy. Having to abandon BOUNTY well out to the eastward would likely have been at a location somewhat further away from rescue assets than you actually were. So, ironically, it may actually have been fortunate for your crew that you did not try to go eastward.

An even more distressing puzzle is brought forth by BOUNTY’s steady movement directly at Sandy after you had abandoned your original notion of going east around. Friday Oct. 26 forecasting confirmed an even higher confidence Hurricane Sandy would turn left after some more time going north. But BOUNTY continued straight southward! Why did you not turn for New York Harbor? The light northeast flow I describe above was occurring all the way down past the mouth of the Delaware Bay. You could have gone way up the Hudson River. With the NE’rly wind behind BOUNTY is it likely speed might have been more than 5 knots on her way to New York? Alternatively, by my calculation, at 5 knots BOUNTY could have diverted toward Delaware Bay and gone up that bay and through the C & D Canal by late Saturday night. Wind in the Upper Chesapeake Bay Saturday night was light and variable with a forecast to increase from the NE overnight into Sunday before backing toward the north and continuing to increase overnight Sunday into Monday. At midnight Saturday northeast wind strength in Baltimore Harbor was actually 10 knots. Late Sunday wind had backed to north and increased to near 20 knots. If BOUNTY were in the Inner Harbor of Baltimore by early Sunday she would have been sheltered from wind by all of those tall city buildings that ring the north side of the Inner Harbor. There would have been no sea action. Harbor water levels did indeed increase above normal, but only by 3-4 feet. BOUNTY would not have floated over any dock. Even if she had, the damage would unlikely be the loss of the ship and certainly not the loss of any life!

So what was it you were thinking by not diverting toward shelter once you knew about the confirmed forecasting that not only continued to indicate Sandy going ashore in New Jersey but also Sandy would likely be the largest hurricane in some time? No slow boat was going to be speedy enough to get out of Sandy’s long reach from where BOUNTY was on Friday. Certainly resurrecting the "east around" strategy would be impossible now that the distance to Sandy had reduced bringing with the reduced distance soon to increase NE’rly winds, soon to start a steady veer through East. But a slow boat would have had time to get inshore from where BOUNTY was on Friday before Sandy’s strength was felt. Why did you persist in steering BOUNTY directly toward Sandy? Was it confidence in her physical strength after all of the rebuilding over the last several years? If that was the case, that is recklessly cavalier to the extreme! Not even the big powerful tug and barge combinations that regularly ply the East Coast were fooling around with facing Sandy! But you were. I find myself wondering again…What were you thinking?

On top of this, you told folks during the south bound journey directly toward Sandy that it was safer to be at sea. Hmmm...an interesting & vague notion that. It is true the US Navy in Norfolk goes to sea ahead of an approaching hurricane. But they are high endurance (high speed) ships with mariners trained and contracted to go in the way of danger, not young keen professionals & volunteers on an harbor attractions’ vessel!

I understand there might be two reasons for sending a navy fleet out. One is their wind resistance at the dock…and probably also concern for extra high water from storm surge. That wind resistance could play great havoc keeping the ships tied to the dock. Maybe wreck the pier by the pressure against the dock. Extra high water causes all kinds of concerns. The other reason is our nation’s security. A navy bottled up in port for a hurricane is not a navy able to provide for national defense. Meanwhile those navy ships have a lot of speed they are capable of. And they do not hang around at sea in the path of a hurricane. They keep going out to sea to get away from the rough seas that will be created by the approaching hurricane. Making 20 knots means they could be 480 nautical miles to the eastward in 24 hours. Something not possible with a smaller slow boat that departed closely ahead of Sandy with the idea of protecting itself from dock damage on the premise it would be safer instead to experience big seas as well big winds creating them. Now that is just plain illogical thinking! With a choice between suffering strong wind by being inshore while avoiding big seas verses being at sea with both big seas and strong winds you should have diverted Friday as soon as you got the updated weather forecasting confirming Sandy was going ashore in New Jersey.

Yeah, you were a reckless man Robin. I would not have continued to proceed as you did. Frankly, I do not know anyone with a lot of experience in large, slow (still faster than BOUNTY), strong, steel motor vessels like the powerful tug & barge combinations we see plying the East Coast would have considered heading toward a hurricane like you did with Sandy…not only forecast as going ashore rather than turning towards sea…but also described as a “storm of the century”. Those tug & barge operators would seek shelter inshore or not proceed to sea at all. I also do not know any sailing vessel masters that would head toward a hurricane as you did with hopes of negotiating a pass like two vessels meeting head-on. The tug & barge industry has a lot of reason to stay on schedule. Lots of money at stake with timely delivery. But it is even more money if there is significant damage from big seas. Plus, if the cargo is chemical or oil there is the cost and criminal consequences of a polluting spill. I cannot imagine there was any reason existing that would force BOUNTY to directly approach a hurricane. Loss of BOUNTY is so permanent. No more voyages after losing the ship…don’t you know!

But the loss of life is the most tragic. You not only lost your own, you lost that of Claudene’s. Hell man, the BOUNTY can be replaced. But why ever risk loss when it is so much more important not to risk a crew member’s life? Having BOUNTY remain in port, or seek port when it became evident Sandy was not going to turn eastward as most often hurricanes do, might have meant damage to BOUNTY, but unlikely any loss of life. If you found no dock willing to accommodate BOUNTY up the Delaware or in the Chesapeake Bay, put her in the mud and hang on. Doing that would mean no reason to fear sinking completely below water. Even if she were to roll on her side while aground she would not have sunk below the surface. Maybe she would have become a total loss, but the crew could remain sheltered in her hull, assuming there was no safe way to get off of her and ashore before high winds arrived. Putting BOUNTY aground for the winds of Sandy because of no dock option would have been a bold decision! Actually, I believe your request to get to a dock would not have been turned down. However, all of the above was avoidable by not going to sea at all. Your focus should have been the same focus of all of your East Coast sailing vessel contemporaries…not go to sea…rather get tied up in as safe a place as you could find…not waste time trying to gain some distance toward your intended destination.

Robin, for all of the experience you have, it was recklessly poor judgment to have done anything but find a heavy weather berth for your ship, rather than instead intentionally navigate directly toward Sandy with no thought given to deviate if the original plan of yours was not panning out. During the nineteen years you were master of BOUNTY you were the single reason she remained active. Under your command she went from being an aging wooden vessel with all of the typical problems age brings to a vessel, to a reviving vessel as a result of several significant re-buildings over the last several years. You were a hero in everyone's eyes. Deservedly so I will freely add!!! I so respected your even, steady persistence to celebrate what BOUNTY could be and as a result was becoming. After years of barely surviving coastal trips here in America, after significant rebuilding, you successfully managed two safe and productive European voyages. That success was surely destined for more voyages to ports thrilling throngs of public in love with BOUNTY's roll in Hollywood movies. But that future is gone now. Because you chose to do something that no one of your experience, and all those young professionals with less experience, several that sailed with you, would have done. Some might have sailed and diverted. Some might have sailed with the plan to get some distance south along the coast then duck inshore long before any real impact from Sandy would be felt. But most did not depart at all. They worked from the start locating as safe a harbor arrangement as could be figured out. Up there in Southern New England is the fine port of New Bedford with its storm dyke to protect the fishing fleet. Surely BOUNTY would have been welcomed? I cannot conjure any reason why your friends in New London would not have responded with welcome of shelter had you asked.

While there are many memories I have of conversing with you about things marine affecting what we do as masters of sailing vessels, we never discussed the topic of delivering on schedule as promised and the problems of failure to arrive as promised. This is coming oh so very much too late, but I feel compelled to share that during my many years as master of vessels, there has never been any pressure put on me to make sure promises of arrival were kept. What I was told is that safety was most important. Safety of the ship was desired. But safety of the crew was most essential. As a result I have been master aboard when I have had to inform the company the intended arrival would not occur as scheduled due to weather. Sometimes the weather concern involved a hurricane. Sometimes the concern was a cold front and resultant head winds or a typical mid latitude low passing by. The decision we were going to be tardy to the destination port had to do with risk of damage to the ship. Preventing ship damage most often meant there would be little to no additional risk of injury to the crew and in the case of an inspected vessel also the passengers. Yep, unlike BOUNTY, most of the sail training vessels in America are certified and inspected for underway activities; several in the American fleet are certified for ocean service. Those that are wood built are pretty strong. Yet they avoid hurricanes. Being tardy always meant there would be another opportunity in the future. With BOUNTY now gone, with you and Claudene as well, there is no future to share with Claudene, with you, with BOUNTY, for all of us…for everyone.

If confidence was the basis in your decisions, no ship is invulnerable. And in a career at sea one cannot avoid every gale or nasty storm – but you set out with the BOUNTY with whatever her strengths and weaknesses into the biggest one some of us have ever seen dominating the Western North Atlantic. Many stronger, faster ships than BOUNTY chose to stay in port for this one. What was your need?

Well my very recklessly cavalier friend. I cannot say I told you so. But I sure can say I am surprised! Not Robin! This stunt is so amateurish as to be off the scale! But stunning surprise of surprises! It is Robin! Heading directly at a hurricane in a small, slow boat. Instead of running and hiding...or not venturing out at all. You have provided everyone with a great deal of hurt and sadness and consternation as well a firestorm of gossip nearly full of blame and foolishness directed at the whole of our sailing community.

That is an inestimably be-damned legacy my friend.

Signed,

Jan C. Miles

**I took the liberty of copy & paste for those of you who do not have a facebook account. I hope no one minds.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

An open letter addressed to, and attacking, a dead man. Classy. On Facebook, no less, a long estabished bastion of maritime knowledge.
I'm no naval architect or credentialed bluewater sailor, or anybody with intials following my name on my business card, but i can recognize a cheap attention-whoring *****- move when i see it.

Since the letter was dated yesterday, Roger, I am not sure how lost it would have, or could have, been in the "morass" of the thread to which it pertains.

The wrong boat was in the wrong place at the wrong time. 
That's the lesson. It really is simply that simple. Any more pontificating by those of us who weren't there, no matter what our credentials, is simply dancing on graves. The skipper bears the burden of his decisions and paid the ultimate price.
A psychic likely has more credibility than a retired naval architect at this point, since the psychic can at least hazard a guess as to what the skipper was thinking when he made the diecisions he did. an NA can hazard a guess as to why the boat reacted as it did.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

The only good that may come out of beat'n the sh!t out of this is prevention. It's possible a future Captain may not make a simular descison in the future due to massive uproar from the sailing community. Maybe had the Fantome incident been in this age of info and open forum discussion, The Bounty would'nt of sailed.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

MobiusALilBitTwisted said:


> To bad it is on Facebook, not everyone on the Globe likes FB.
> hoping someone will cut and past with the proper credit to the work.
> 
> Fair Winds


Idem.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

bljones said:


> Since the letter was dated yesterday, Roger, I am not sure how lost it would have, or could have, been in the "morass" of the thread to which it pertains.


Not to mention, there appears to be precious little contained in that 'informed opinion' that hasn't already been posted at some point or another, or in some similar form, during the course of the BOUNTY thread...

I've long been known as a sailing forum Gasbag, but that guy puts me to shame, the number of words he needs to describe Walbridge's actions as "unfathomable"... (grin)


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Not to mention, there appears to be precious little contained in that 'informed opinion' that hasn't already been posted at some point or another, or in some similar form, during the course of the BOUNTY thread...
> 
> I've long been known as a sailing forum Gasbag, but that guy puts me to shame, the number of words he needs to describe Walbridge's actions as "unfathomable"... (grin)


Not to mention the pompous and doctoral tone and the fact that he is telling now what everybody included us have said already. The guys on the GCaptain forum had said that actually before the Ship had even sunk in a much more direct way.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

bljones said:


> An open letter addressed to, and attacking, a dead man. Classy. On Facebook, no less, a long estabished bastion of maritime knowledge.
> I'm no naval architect or credentialed bluewater sailor, or anybody with intials following my name on my business card, but i can recognize a cheap attention-whoring *****- move when i see it.
> 
> Since the letter was dated yesterday, Roger, I am not sure how lost it would have, or could have, been in the "morass" of the thread to which it pertains.
> ...


In all fairness, in reading the letter it appears that the writer has a personal connection to one that was lost. If I may be so bold; If it was you, or I, who lost someone we may need an outlet and it could all be part of the process.

"On facebook, no less" Well, that's how the world communicates nowadays. We may not like it, but, it's a major part of how most people who communicate on line do communicate. If it's not facebook it's linkedin or google+ or, well, sailnet. Sailnet is nothing more or less than an elderly tunnel vision version of facebook...except sailnet is trying to get us to buy something directly from them rather than just outside advertisers.

Respectfully.


----------



## Lake Superior Sailor (Aug 23, 2011)

Closing the barn door after the horse is gone--Hind sight is 20/20....Dale


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Wow we have finally found the long lost missing naval writer for the National Enquirer. He surfaced just in time to give us his prose filled insightful opinion of I tragicly poor decision. 

Hopefully he devotes as much energy to keeping his boat safe and analyzes his decisions as thoroughly after the fact.

Bravo for becoming the second blowhard of the thread Bounty threads

Dave


----------



## Roger Long (May 28, 2012)

I think the flames above are missing the point, perhaps because of not knowing who the author of the letter is. One seems to think I wrote it. I didn't. Do some Google research on Jan C. Miles. 

Sure, the same things have been said but not yet by a professional peer and friend of Wallbridge. Jan is actually more than a peer given his level of experience. I've know him since 1983 and he has been involved with sailing vessel losses and safety issues more than all but a couple of sailing ship masters.

I'm not going to pass judgement on the tone or the content. The anger I can certainly understand. The industry Jan had given his life to has been badly damaged, a beautiful ship is gone, and friends of his are dead. He is a lot closer to this than anyone who has posted here or elsewhere.

The facts are fairly clear. A lot of armchair or toy boat sailors could have written much the same letter as a post here and it would not have had the same significance. I think it's worth noting that Jan is saying these things because of who he is.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Roger,

I lot of good blue water sailors and professionals have written things here and in other posts without the overdramatization this man did. It did nothing to help find anything new which had happened, it did nothing to she'd new light, it did nothing to help change things in the future learning from the experience. It was a prose full colorful bloodletting loading of personal feelings which probably made the poster feel better , but showed absolutely non of his professionalism or sorrow which you interpret as anger. His musings might as well have been as one of the arm chair quarterbacks or toy boat sailors.

BTW some of the toy boat sailors ( as you in your snarky way described some of us) and arm chair quarterbacks display far more common sense thn your so called professnionls.walbridge was a professional and this writers professionalism is certainly called into play as much by his statements on Facebook.

Roger, I looked him up on Google big deal. It makes it all the more embarrassing to read what/how he wrote. Since you claim to know him maybe you do you could communicate to him how unprofessional is posting was and unrepresentative of true professionals in the industry. I would not have a lot of confidence in someone who posts and writes like he was doing an article for the National Enquirre as he did. 

This in no way exonerates Walbridge of responsibility for his actions.
Dave


----------



## Roger Long (May 28, 2012)

chef2sail said:


> BTW some of the toy boat sailors ( as you in your snarky way described some of us) and arm chair quarterbacks display far more common sense thn your so called professnionls.


Not intended to be snarky. I was professionally involved with boats, mostly commercial ones, all my life. However, when it comes to operating them, I am a toy boat sailor myself.

As for professionals showing less common sense than an amateur, that is the absolute heart and pivot point of this whole story. Any details that the investigation will probably focus on such as what bilge suction might have clogged or even what plank might have popped loose are fairly insignificant. These are just the kind of things that sink ships in heavy weather. The real issue is why was the ship there in a storm of this magnitude and (according to forecasters' discussions at the time) unpredictability.

After all that has been said here and elsewhere, I don't think we are any closer to understanding the decisions made by the captain than when it first came to notice that the ship had left port. The harsh things said here about Jan's writing are addressing a different subject. To me, the fact that someone of his experience is left so mystified by what Wallbridge did as to have written such a letter is significant. The fact that Jan can't contribute much to our understanding of how this happened and is so perplexed is the story.

Posters all over the Internet have pointed to Wallbridge's experience and suggested it proves he must have known what he was doing, taken a calculated risk, and had a bit of bad luck. They have it backwards. It is the amount of his experience that makes this story so mystifying. I think we have to look deeper than poor decision making here for the true causes.

People like Dan Moreland of the _Picton Castle_ and Jan are not saying, as they could have about many accident scenarios, "There but for the grace of God, go I." Something out of the ordinary happened here and I'm not referring to the weather. Jan's letter simply drives that home.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Simple explainations are better. I dont want to psycoanalyze this Captain. How can you do that he is dead. He cant tell you why. Besides it doesnt matter

Its enough for me to know he knew the danger....he choose to ignor the omnipresent storm which continued to grow and was forecasted to enlarge....he sailed right at it and when presented with opertunity to correct his mistake by running for port choose not to insyead placed himself beetween it in the Gulf Stream at the graveyard of the Atlantic Cape Hatteras

I disagree fundementally with you...there is nothing to be learned more about that part of the scenario. I also think that there is no way no improve or legislate greater safety into his internal mind decision, he left port and sailed into a hurricane period. Thats the most fundemental fact which has been verified already and we need no investigation for.

I also disagree that other ancilliary issues which actually sunk the ship eg leaking planking, lack of proper redundant systems, poor design, lightening of the overall keel weight etc are found out tha we could in the future make these ships safer, inspectable at any weight, look more carefully at design, require more qualified seaman, change the regualtory requirements etc can still be ascertained from the investigation of the actual vs hersay or speculated facts.



> Not intended to be snarky. I was professionally involved with boats, mostly commercial ones, all my life. However, when it comes to operating them, I am a *toy boat sailor* myself-Rogerlong


.

But you continue to be dismissive of many of us with your language *" toy boat sailor*" so your statement of not intended snarky continues to be disingenuine. And by the way you titled the thread " An Informed Opinion of Bounty" as opposed to what .....what others are posting.....because why...because you and your friend are professionals and you look down upon the rest of the boating community as just "toy boaters" who in your opinion are less serious than you. Remember its the professionals who gives us the Bounty, Casta Concordia, Titanic, Exon Valdez etc. It has been well established that the liscencing and professional marinaer may on paper be safer or nore well versed or even may have more experience, but none of that means more common sense.

Your friend wrote a prose filled letter to a "dead" man with only one intention. To make his own person FINAL sarcastic morose shot at him without response which acomplished nothing other for him to vent his professional spleen in a public unprofessional manner. You can afix any motives you want to this sir, but that is how some, maybe most ( I am not sure peoples perceptions have been of his diatribe as has been posted already) is. Had he had any balls he would have gone to the gravesite and read it Walbridge himself or stood up before a group of you so called professionals and read it out loud.

In life peoples perceptions can be their realities and it makes no difference how it was intended. Just like I am sur Walbidges perception of what he was doing leaving the dock...didnt equate to the reality of our perceptions. Why he left doesnt matter, he did. Why he left doesnt absolve him of the ultimate responsibility of the fate of the Bounty


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> He does offer an interesting opinion of the options that Wallbridge didn't take, of running for shelter once he realized that it was an absolute certainty that he was going to run headlong into Sandy. He is asking - why not run up the Hudson? Or later on, up the Delaware? Yes, he is making a point. Its a mystery.


I beleive this was asked before and not just a revelation from this guy. He had many options top abort. He could have come in NY Harbor and up the Hudson, He could have come up the Delaware River, He could have come into the Chesapeake even at the last minute and taken refuge in the Norfolk area. He didnt do any, but just barreled along


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Roger Long said:


> One of the handful of people on the planet whose opinion I believe most qualified on a matter like the _Bounty_ loss has spoken out.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/notes/jan-...ss-approach-of-sailing-vessel/174315806048123
> 
> ....


After reading the letter, I don't think it was written for public consumption so much as it is/was an expression of mourning and catharsis for the author. Facebook is/was just the tablet akin to audible/visible mourning, rending of ones clothing and smearing ones face and clothing with ashes, all "public" displays of profound sorrow/sadness. Cut the author a little slack.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> Wow we have finally found the long lost missing naval writer for the National Enquirer. He surfaced just in time to give us his prose filled insightful opinion of I tragicly poor decision.
> 
> Hopefully he devotes as much energy to keeping his boat safe and analyzes his decisions as thoroughly after the fact.
> 
> ...


Dave,

You are doing EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what you have vociferously opined against for weeks... Your post above is "arm chair quarterbacking" by a "computer screen" expert at its best and WREAKS of blatant hypocrisy... Seems you DO have an opinion just like everyone else and you are going to state it, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE....

Was it not you who said this?


chef2sail said:


> There will be plenty of time to understand and process the facts *and I am sure it will be done by real experts on the field* and real lawyers rather than the computer screen lawyers here. Then and only then will we really have the truth about this. Until then tell me....*what pleasure do you derive from speculating on this.*
> 
> Dave


What pleasure do you derive from being one of the main drivers of the continuation of the HMS Bounty topic on SN? What pleasure do you derive brushing off anyone with an "opinion" differing from yours as an "armchair lawyer" or "arm chair quarter back"...?

What pleasure do you derive from referring to a well respected tall ship captain as a "national Enquirer" writer & calling the captain of the Pride of Baltimore a "*blowhard*"......?? Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .

Have you forgotten that Jan is not a "writer" at all and is merely stating his FEELINGS after WAITING for nearly a month after the death of what he considers a friend? He waited to post this and still apparently has a LOT of anger over this. I don't consider his writings all that good but he did not "rush to judgement" and he did wait to write his "open letter" almost a month...That to me says something, not sure what, but I feel his pain.

Jan can certainly be considered a "real expert" on tall ships, a peer to Walbridge and one of the foremost "experts" on that type of vessel and the sailing of them. His OPINION was what he wrote. he apparently feels Walbridge left a bad mark on the rest of the fleet. These are his feelings and OPINION as an "expert", something you actually asked for in the other thread..

Apparently you have decided you don't like his writings so resort to name calling and denigrating his OPINION of a lost friends actions as "National Enquirer" level writings and to him personally as a "blowhard".... That, I FIND UTTERLY OFFENSIVE especially coming from YOU who has spent countless hours per day at your keyboard taking up a stance against ANYONE with an OPINION or "rush to judgement" that is different from yours on this matter.......

You also said this:



chef2sail said:


> *My biggest problem with the postings are the rush to judgement* to afix blame on the captain entirely, and then the glee to assassinate his character. *This isnt done by a group of savy well experienced ocean and blue water sailors ( my apologies to the few who have this experience) but is being done by the armchair quarterbacks* who start analyzing the situations as soon as the story comes apparent. It leads to this feeding frenzy which can prevent them from looking and absorbing other details as wells as focusing on unimportant snippets of u tube postings as the paramount reasoning. Its like its a story of thodse damn shows following network news at 7 PM. *The SN jury has already found the captain guilty as charged and not even waited for any evidence of the* companies pressure or involvement, statements from the survivors, *or statements from professionals*.


and this:



chef2sail said:


> Funny many of the interviews I have seen with the Captains professional aquaitences do not paint a picture of a reckless man.





chef2sail said:


> Just a side note the Captain of the Pride of Baltimore interview today says hes witholding jusdgement until more facts come forward and the inquirey by the GC is done.


Now we do have a statement from the captain of the Pride of Baltimore who is not only a professional or "acquaintance" but a peer and one of the foremost experts on tall ships and you dismiss his OPINIONS as "National Enquirer" and call him a "blowhard"....? Wow!!!

Hypocrisy 101...



chef2sail said:


> Ever notice the TRUE professioals are not predisopsing themselves to conclusions here?


Um now I guess the captain of the Pride of Baltimore will get dismissed as not a "TRUE professional"....?

No offense to you personally I just find a gross level of hypocrisy on your part on this entire matter.. That is my "opinion", but perhaps not a fact....

You have also used numerous offensive terms in this and the other thread. Far more than Rogers "toy boat sailor" comment yet you again go at him very hypocritically and call him out on his comment being offensive..

So how is "toy boat sailor" any more or less offensive than your name calling of other SN members? Like........

*"armchair lawyer"
"armchair quarterbacks"
"blowhard"
"amateur sleuths"
"Salinet pundits"
"internet jockey"*



chef2sail said:


> *Is civility no longer part of our culture where we feel we ll have the right to judge...and then post out feelings with no regards to the people involved. *


You asked that last question, not I..


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I don't think an open letter to a dead person is quite the correct thing to do. I can't really explain it, but it feels a bit dirty.

Maybe it's the way we use language.... Aboriginal people in Australia are not allowed to mention a deceased person and especially not use their name.
I guess we also have guidelines of etiquette... I have criticized the Captain of Bounty in many of my posts, but I would never say: Captain X, Listen to me...

The other thing is the writing doesn't offer up an opinion. It just asks questions of the dead person. An opinion is a statement, not a question. Isn't it?

It's place is in the miasma of the original thread.
Sorry... The morass or the original thread. Can you have a miasmatic morass?


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

Again, and again, in reading the letter it appears the author has suffered a personal loss. Can't that just be respected?

Myself and another member both posted a copy at nearly the same time, although mine was second I still feel somewhat responsible. It was posted simply so that members who did not have a facebook account could read it.

I'm starting to feel sorry that I got involved.

Call it what you want, but, it's obviously about pain and expression. It's distressing that some of us cannot identify that and let it be.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

R.C,

No disrespect, So now you get down in the dirt with me and do exactly what I do. PMs still exist and you could have made your points there so obviously you felt some need to publicly state your opinion to try and take me own a peg. You do exactly what you accuse me of Makes you no better than me and me no better than anyone else. Guess you understand now if you can beat them, join them. Directing it to me and singling me out is no different than what I have done. Calling me a hypocrite is no different from what you say I do. Maybe your threshold is higher than mine, but obviously you have one so i see and I appear o have crossed it or tweaked it with you. So how do you handle it. Basically like me. You rush in to post a long wordy diatribe directed at one individual. You can't occupy the high ground if you get down in the trench. I have climbed down on my own free will and decided that my previous approach didn't work so I changed. There are a few posters on here who do exactly the same and i no one stops them. So I see your have now partially joined me, or maybe it is only directed to me and you will climb out of the pit. Either way, your directing at one individual on here is just what you are doing yourself, so I guess hypocrisy rules. I hope you are now taking the banner of fighting hypocracy on Sailnet and will apply to all who post and don't just single me out. Go for it I got tired of seeing my friend Mr Walbridge being vilified as the next thing o Jeffery Dahmler so I have been upset and angry in this thread.

I respect your opinion in many things technical where you obviously have expertise far more than mine. We have met and I enjoyed our conversation together and hope we get to do it again over drinks or a meal. You have been a great source of informstion . That's earns huge respect from me. Doing what you did just now does not. I assume you have felt the same as you have watched me recently in this thread. 

So lets just say you re the better person here, most of the time anyway. I applaud your control. I don't process it maybe, or I don't want to maybe, and maybe in this thread particularly. Doesn't really matter as there are plenty on here who don't and get away with it all the time. You will notice that my behavior/ tone has really mainly been in this thread and does not really carry over to others. Maybe you should ask me why privately. The answer may surprise you.

Suffice it to say that my relationship to the deceased Captain and his family was more than professional, circumstantial, and more than just his job as the Captain of the sunk Bounty. None of you unless you have had it happen to you, someone in your family can understand what it is really like to do something wrong, have it cost lives, have it speculated about with the deepest and darkest motives in a public display not be alive to deal with the questions or consequences and leave only your family and a few close friends to watch you get villified and answer what happened in your steed as you were dead. 

RC I hope if you ever do something to injure someone no one who has pretended to be your friend or associate of years posts a vitriolic article on a social media site to ruin your reputation in perpetuity and the reputation your loved ones will have to deal with forever. I hope no one camps outside your wife's house with signs. I hope no one follows you to the store and shoves mikes in your face. I hope no one writes caustic things for all to read about you. He didn't sign up for that as Captain of the Bounty, nor did his family or friends and te pressure has been relentless for weeks.

It has been very difficult to watch all this knowing him and his loved ones. 
Not easy to hold your tongue and anger as others speculated and took pot shots and ruined him. RC maybe I not process the same
control as you or others, but I stopped being able to take it anymore in this thread about post 20. I apologize or my lack of control.

This man was a humble nice man who erred in judgement and it cost someone's life and his own. Had he lived I know he would have had a hard time living with that. He would equally have had a hard time dealing with how his family has been treated. He was a gentle man who loved the sea, loved the mystery of the tall ships, loved his family and friends and loved seeing the people's faces who he turned on when the got on board his ship or he told the tall tales lots of captains do. He never ever would have meant anyone harm. But tht apparently does not count. I understand he was wrong o sail into the storm. 

I am sure, Beleve me as he was slowly dying in the waters of the Atantic that day in his survival suit tht he thought about that, thought about the peril he put his crew in, thought about those who he was leaving behind friends and family and never once thought about himself. That's the type man Robin Waldridge really was. Not some egotistical self inflated fool. He paid the ultimate price he died a broken man. How terrible and how tragic.

Dave


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> R.C,
> 
> No disrespect, So now you get down in the dirt with me and do exactly what I do. PMs still exist and you could have made your points there so obviously you felt some need to publicly state your opinion to try and take me own a peg. You do exactly what you accuse me of Makes you no better than me and me no better than anyone else. Guess you understand now if you can beat them, join them. Directing it to me and singling me out is no different than what I have done. Calling me a hypocrite is no different from what you say I do. Maybe your threshold is higher than mine, but obviously you have one so i see and I appear o have crossed it or tweaked it with you. So how do you handle it. Basically like me. You rush in to post a long wordy diatribe directed at one individual. You can't occupy the high ground if you get down in the trench. I have climbed down on my own free will and decided that my previous approach didn't work so I changed. There are a few posters on here who do exactly the same and i no one stops them. So I see your have now partially joined me, or maybe it is only directed to me and you will climb out of the pit. Either way, your directing at one individual on here is just what you are doing yourself, so I guess hypocrisy rules. I hope you are now taking the banner of fighting hypocracy on Sailnet and will apply to all who post and don't just single me out. Go for it
> 
> ...


Dave,

I only point his out because you have so steadfastly and vociferously stated the opposite of what you are now doing. Everyone is a hypocrite including me, but when you put yourself up on a pedestal and preach it then, well........ Do as I say not as I do generally looks bad, especially when you are the loudest proponent/opponent.

Personally I found you calling Jan a "blowhard" extremely offensive so I finally had to comment. I found that a quick "rush to judgement"...

I still like you buddy but you have to walk what you talk, at some point...

I have no dog in this fight but do have opinions. Having physically walked around that vessel in the shipyard when it was "being fixed" would give you those sorts of opinions. I won't however come into the trenches because it adds nothing...

I just want to see you start to practice more of what you preach. Coming right out of the gate in this thread calling the captain of the Pride of Baltimore a "blowhard" I found utterly reprehensible, especially from YOU, of all people.....

It is hard to hold others to a higher standard that you yourself are willing to live up to.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

There is a major difference between our "toy boats" and that movie prop/tub: Our toy boats actually SAIL. Mass does not equal quality.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

If only Ya'll would mount your oppinions with Butyl Tape they would'nt leak so much.


----------



## ShoalFinder (May 18, 2012)

capt.aaron said:


> if only ya'll would mount your oppinions with butyl tape they would'nt leak so much.


touchdown!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

RC I respect that and we are still friends. It was very hard to read what the Captain of the Pride of Baltimore wrote about your friend and friend of the family. It was over the top and unprofessional IMHO and he was no friend of Robins according to his wife.

Suffice it to say I will from now on stay out of thie Bounty threads as I cannot contain myself in them obviously. Again I apoligize for my overzealous defense of my friend.

I wish on no one what this family has had to endure partly because of the social media sites and the ability for people of today to just reach out and touch people without careing about the results. It is an intrusive society we live in sometimes and when this kind of behavior finds you* personally * trust me you will not be equipped to deal with it as rationally as you think you will be and certainly will not be able to maintain you gentlemanly status

dave


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

smurphny said:


> There is a major difference between our "toy boats" and that movie prop/tub: Our toy boats actually SAIL. Mass does not equal quality.


Bounty was a XVIII century ship modified replica and of course it has not as good as a sailing ship as a modern one but that is very different to say that the boat could not sail. That boat had circumnavigated and had not done that on its engines. The first circumnavigation was made by Magalhães/el Cano on the XVI century ship and evidently their Naus could sail and I can tell you that they sailed a lot worse than the Bounty replica.

Regarding the Bounty, it was clearly a toy ship like ours in a sense that did not serve a commercial or otherwise needed function. I guess that what was meant was that we are toy sailors and Captains if compared with professional sailors and Captains and that in a sense is true. Of course there are some that play with their toys better than others as it is also true that most professional sailors and Captains would not know how to play with our toys.

Man, I love toys live without toys would be very boring 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Of course I was using a bit of hyperbole in inferring that The Bounty could not sail. Anything driven by wind across the water, I suppose, could be said to "sail." The video of this boat in a storm showed me that the definition of "sailing," was quite different on this boat from what we consider sailing on our "toy" boats. The tremendous rolling under bare poles that the video demonstrated, IMO, clearly showed some dangerous design issues. She was barely maintaining a beam reach. Many of the square-rigged ships could make 2 points to weather and could heave-to. It does not look like the Bounty was even capable of heaving to. There is no way I would have stepped foot on that rig anywhere but at a dock. No amount of ballast in that shallow hull could have adequately lowered its center of gravity far enough. In redesigning the 33% larger hull, its draft should have been close to 18' with ballast 33% lower not the 13' that they made it. It was a prop and probably should have been scrapped after using as was the original plan or at least confined to tranquil bays and docks. This boat in no way resembled some of the real square riggers such as The USS Eagle in its ability to sail.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

RobGallagher said:


> Again, and again, in reading the letter it appears the author has suffered a personal loss. Can't that just be respected?
> 
> Myself and another member both posted a copy at nearly the same time, although mine was second I still feel somewhat responsible. It was posted simply so that members who did not have a facebook account could read it.
> 
> ...


1) Thank you for posting the item as some of us still don't have Facebook, but are very much interested in the puzzling last voyage of the Bounty. I find the opinions of peers of the Bounty's captain very interesting. As one of those behind the computer screen when it comes to tall ship sailing, I don't understand why that voyage was made into the face of Sandy by an experienced tall ship captain. My take on it was that the writer has lost a friend, and along with sorrow, sometimes comes anger at the event , and even at his friend, that caused the loss, and he was expressing that.

2) Just after the storm, I was in Beaufort, NC. The tallship 74' Brigantine S/V Fritha was docked there. I talked a bit with a crew member who identified himself as the relief captain. He said that he had sailed with the Bounty's captain and that he had several friends that were onboard on the final trip. He spoke highly of the captain, but he too was at a complete loss as to why that voyage wasn't either, never started, or once started, why they didn't see refuge in one of the numerous ports that were available.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Sal Paradise said:


> Because they thought they were going to make it. .


Actually, the lady (Claudene) that died had real reservations. She called her parents and said good buy, just in case we don't make it, according to a news item that was attributed to her parents.

Also, another news item, attributed to one of her friends, indicated that there had been a discussion between the two regarding the condition of the equipment and her uneasiness at the situation and this particular upcoming voyage.

No doubt the captain, for whatever reasons that he had, thought he would/could make it. And, to me and lots of others, we don't understand why....on the surface it seems to be such a foolish decision. Or maybe a case of macho...i.e. it's nothing major, we can handle it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I found it telling that a professional mariner with intimate knowledge of Tall Ships and the Captain has essentially the same reaction as most of us amateurs. Thanks for posting.


----------



## scratchee (Mar 2, 2012)

RobGallagher said:


> "On facebook, no less" Well, that's how the world communicates nowadays.


I'll bet he could have covered all the major points on Twitter.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

chef2sail said:


> Suffice it to say that my relationship to the deceased Captain and his family was more than professional, circumstantial, and more than just his job as the Captain of the sunk Bounty.
> .....
> 
> It has been very difficult to watch all this knowing him and his loved ones.
> ...


It might be easier to understand where you're coming from if you made clear your relationship to the captain. It appears now you are a close friend of the captain with intimate knowledge of him and you are reacting out of emotion. Before in the other thread you had only "met" him and he only "seemed" professional and knowledgeable, and you were clear that you were not defending him.



chef2sail said:


> One thing I have not posted here which I guess I should. Like wingnwing I have been on the Bounty and met the captain. If someone asked me for a judgement of him, and this is a big time snap judgement, he seemed professional, knowledgeable about his ship, a teacher of others and dedicated to his responsibility for the ship and its crew.





chef2sail said:


> While you all are trying to respond to me remember I am not defending the captain or his actions.


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I found it telling that a professional mariner with intimate knowledge of Tall Ships and the Captain has essentially the same reaction as most of us amateurs. Thanks for posting.


Except the amateurs found appropriate ways of expressing those opinions. I read it again this morning and I am just as disgusted as after my first pass last night. Whatever the substance, I don't know how anyone can defend the manner in which he attacks the deceased Captain of the Bounty.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

FYI, The Weather Channel will be broadcasting a special program on the Bounty in a show entitled "Coast Guard HMS Bounty Rescue", Wednesday, December 5th. In the eastern time zone (US) the show will appear from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm and then again from 11:00PM to 12:00AM. The program includes video from the CG's on scene SAR crews as well as interviews with survivors from the Bounty. It will be worth a watch.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

blowinstink said:


> Except the amateurs found appropriate ways of expressing those opinions. I read it again this morning and I am just as disgusted as after my first pass last night. Whatever the substance, I don't know how anyone can defend the manner in which he attacks the deceased Captain of the Bounty.


Specially if, as it was stated by the OP, the Captain was a friend of his.

I can easily dispense such a kind of friends

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> It might be easier to understand where you're coming from if you made clear your relationship to the captain. It appears now you are a close friend of the captain with intimate knowledge of him and *you are reacting out of emotion*. Before in the other thread you had only "met" him and he only "seemed" professional and knowledgeable, and you were clear that you were not defending him.-caberg


The* content *of what I say has nothing to do with emotion, thats an assumption which is completely false. My relationship with him and his family has northing to do with that. Unfortunately when you try and say good things about the Captain in the face of the tidal wave of public condemnation you are branded as "defending him". I dont defend his actions and have said that over and over

The tone in which I have been saying it which others have reacted to who know me is whats in question as it is not my usual way of posting. Thats what may be affected by my realtionship with the dead Captain. I reacted in a similar tone as others when I saw others tones which although may be understandable may not have been the correct thing to do according to some. They have taken offense at my tone and have chosen to look only at my posts while making excuses or allowing simimlar tones and indiscretions from others. Where I am at fault is getting into the pit and acting like the others i have criticised instead of standing on the mountain and looking down at them. My realtionship with the family got the best of me. I am only human and could take the denigaration of a kinds mans reputation so much and I know what his family has to and continually is enduring

*I beleive my friend Captain Robin Walbridge was wrong from the beginning by sailing into the hurricane.* *I do not defended his actions or decisions related to that*. He paid with his life and cost someone else theirs. Did that warrent the public flogging he has and continues to receive? Maybe. BUut only for his action of leaving I think. IMHO I dont beleive he deserves that and the picking apart of his statements and actions for the years preceeding this incident isnt correct either. He has been made out to be a pariah.

There are others who will be also held responsible for contributing to this incident including the company as well as the lack of liscencing or correct regulatoin. Thats what I beleive the investigation will turn up.

It is those items which are actionable and can be used as lesssons to lesson the chance of this happening again. The Captain deciding to leave...I dont know any way you could prevent that again and I dont know anyway you can determine why as he is dead and you cant ask him. He was a trained captain, years of experience, and made a horrendous decision. History and daily life is riddled with people who have and do that.

Very rarely do the individuals who make mistakes have to endure the public ridicule and questioning that Waldbridge has. I know this may anger my friend Minnie, but when a pilot makes an error which brings down a plane ( an it doesnt have to be a large one) I have not seen this kind of continued personal vicious reaction I have seen here. When a train engikneer crashes a train and kills 8...you dont see this. When a honest truck driver making a living doesnt stop and kills a family on an interste, no one is camping at his house or writing about it from across the sea and the country.

The reaction to this man, this quiet honest nice man is *WAY *disporportionate to what happened. IMHO Sigh...but is is the sign of how our society has become attacking a dead man and his grieving family and friends to satisfy their own needs to vent no matter what the hubris is.

Again I apoligize for my tone, but I dont apoligize for what I said and beleive.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

See it doesnt take long to prove my point



> I can easily dispense such a kind of friends-Paulo


I dont find this humorous. Maybe some day someone you are friends with, in your family will make a tragic mistake. Does that mean you will abandon them?


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

PCP said:


> Specially if, as it was stated by the OP, the Captain was a friend of his.
> 
> I can easily dispense such a kind of friends
> 
> ...


There is an old expression/question in response when someone asks a "friend" for an opinion. "Do you want the truth (i.e. my honest opinion) or do you want to stay friends?"

A "true" friend will tell their friend the truth if it is in the friend's best interest even tho' it may be hurtful/disappointing/undesired. Sometimes, the "truth" is hurtful. But. The consequences of untruth, even moreso.

Where there are no adverse consequences, one can argue that leavening the "truth" is acceptable social courtesy ("Why shoot, you don't look a day over 35"  )

FWIW...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> See it doesnt take long to prove my point
> 
> *Quote PCP:
> I can easily dispense such a kind of friends-Paulo
> ...


I don't understand what you mean. I am referring to the author of the article posted on the Facebook. The author was supposedly a friend of the Bounty's captain and what I am saying is that I don't consider that someone should talk like that about a deceased friend, even if he had made mistakes

Care you to explain what you mean?

Regards

Paulo0


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

svHyLyte said:


> There is an old expression/question in response when someone asks a "friend" for an opinion. "Do you want the truth (i.e. my honest opinion) or do you want to stay friends?"
> 
> A "true" friend will tell their friend the truth if it is in the friend's best interest even tho' it may be hurtful/disappointing/undesired. Sometimes, the "truth" is hurtful. But. The consequences of untruth, even moreso.
> 
> ...


Yes, and I have understood and agreed if he expressed factually is opinion in an official inquiry if the opinion was asked to him, but without solicitation posting on the face book his opinion, that in my opinion is essentially truth, not in a factual way but with pomposity reveals bad taste and in my opinion not a great character.

I maintain that I prefer not having friends like him.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

PCP said:


> Care you to explain what you mean?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo0


He means the people closest to a tragedy may look at it with rose colored glasses. Not only does it make acceptance easier but it also shows loyalty.

In some parts of the world it is up to the family to administer the punishment.... A few weeks ago a man was convicted by a court of rape and the father was given an AK47 and told to shoot the son. The father did.
In our countires it's acceptable for the father to always claim the innocence of his children, no matter the evidence.

I think our countries are better


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Chef,

Just a couple of thoughts:

1) If you were/are a good friend to the captain of the Bounty and his family, your postings would have carried lots more weight if you had said that up front. Comments from people who were close to the captain carry lots more weight than casual aquaintences or people who didn't know him. 

2) To me, when one first indicates that they casually/professionally knew the captain from a visit to the Bounty, then later, when people take issue with you, you say you are a close friend to captain and his family, questions pop up in mind as to credibility since the two posts seem quite different. You took similar positions before the storm when a 16 year old new owner of a boat pleaded for advice on what to do for the storm....you took a position and only later after much posted argument against your position, you said that you were more involved with discussions with the boy's parents. Similarly, when you road out the fringes of Sandy at a pier, you talked about the how revealing that experience was, only after people questioned the wisdom of staying aboard, you described having experience to judge the risk, and talked about other, worse storms. To the casual reader, the question arises, which story is the real one. (Don't take too much issue with the words I've used, as I didn't go back to pull out exact quotes). Just a suggestion, the whole story up front will probably get fewer attacks to the postings.

3) I'm sorry that you lost a close friend. Despite his vast experience and being a nice guy, he, for whatever reason, made the wrong call. I once saw a fatal plane crash where the pilot was a big advocate for safety in the aviation industry....he was also an aerobatic pilot and at a local show, simply ran out of gas too low and in wrong attitude to make a dead stick landing.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> He means the people closest to a tragedy may look at it with rose colored glasses. Not only does it make acceptance easier but it also shows loyalty.
> 
> ...


Yes, but that is what I am saying: I am saying that a friend (the author of that article on the facebook) should not have publicly said those things the way he did about a friend, even if they were basically true. No colored glasses here, except if they were red ones, no loyalty either...and I would say a strange kind of friendship displayed.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> ....
> 
> Very rarely do the individuals who make mistakes have to endure the public ridicule and questioning that Waldbridge has. I know this may anger my friend Minnie, but when a pilot makes an error which brings down a plane ( an it doesnt have to be a large one) I have not seen this kind of continued personal vicious reaction I have seen here. When a train engikneer crashes a train and kills 8...you dont see this. When a honest truck driver making a living doesnt stop and kills a family on an interste, no one is camping at his house or writing about it from across the sea and the country.
> 
> The reaction to this man, this quiet honest nice man is *WAY *disporportionate to what happened. ..


There are mistakes and mistakes. This is not a mistake but an huge error. I am only a toy airplane captain but I have no doubt that if an airplane commercial professional captain would have convinced the crew of his airplane to fly trough an huge storm that he new already that it was on its path when he took off, instead of enduring it on the ground or flying on the opposite direction (saying that it would be safer to do so) and as if consequence the plane was lost as well as lives you bet that on the sites related with flying the outrage would be as big as it is here and on other naval related sites.

That is not a mistake but an huge error that is not acceptable in any professional captain and that puts in question the professionalism of all sea captains.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bloodhunter (May 5, 2009)

A question. Was the captain of the Costa Concordia attacked then the same way that Captain Walbridge is now? I really don't know. I was out of the country and did not have good internet access when it happened and didn't feel like reading back over hundreds (thousands?) of posts when I got back. IMHO what he did was far worse than anything Captain Walbridge did, running away and leaving 30 some people to die


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bloodhunter said:


> A question. Was the captain of the Costa Concordia attacked then the same way that Captain Walbridge is now? I really don't know. I was out of the country and did not have good internet access when it happened and didn't feel like reading back over hundreds (thousands?) of posts when I got back. IMHO what he did was far worse than anything Captain Walbridge did, running away and leaving 30 some people to die


Oh yes, that and much more. He is waiting for trial and could face more than 2000 years jail time:

Costa Concordia: Calls for 'Captain Coward' Francesco Schettino to face 2,697 years in jail | Mail Online

Costa Concordia captain faces survivors in court | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

PCP said:


> Yes, but that is what I am saying: I am saying that a friend (the author of that article on the facebook) should not have publicly said those things the way he did about a friend, even if they were basically true. No colored glasses here, except if they were red ones, no loyalty either...and I would say a strange kind of friendship displayed.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I absolutely agree with you. That's exactly what I am saying. A true friend would say nothing or, as his wife has done, stand by him. The wife has done it well and correctly and no one would beg to disagree with her.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

bloodhunter said:


> A question. Was the captain of the Costa Concordia attacked then the same way that Captain Walbridge is now?


Yes! First he was attacked by a ballerina and that was BEFORE the grounding!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> don't understand what you mean. I am referring to the author of the article posted on the Facebook. The author was supposedly a friend of the Bounty's captain and what I am saying is that I don't consider that someone should talk like that about a deceased friend, even if he had made mistakes PCP


I must have misunderstoood you and It got lost in the translation sorry.

I do agree with you, what kind of friend would write that.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I just saw that the Weather Channel will be doing A "Coast Guard Bounty Rescue" Special. The Trailer showed some interesting footage.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

NCC330,

The realtionship to the Captain is none of yours or anyones elses business. I did not feel necessary as it made no difference in what I wrote or the opinions I had. I only recently reveleaed what I did to explain why I was not myself in tone my posting and why my postings appeared to be hypocritical in *TONE* with what was my normal way of posting. It was pointed out by a friend of mine here publically and I took it to heart. I now recognize that I have gotten into the same crap I was fighting against and was explaining where that might have come from. No more no less.



> Just a suggestion, the whole story up front will probably get fewer attacks to the postings


I never felt it was relevant for me to tell you about my friendship with Wallbridge or his family. It had nothing to do with what i posted as no one really wanted to listen or wanted to beleive the type man he was. People had made their mind up and because of the mistake he made a tidal wave of negative opinions and allegations were unleased about his character. All I could hope or say was that we should not rush to judge and let all the facts come out, which I still wholeheartedly beleive. None of this absolves him of the fact he left the safe shore toward an impending storm.

My posting my realtionship would have surely brought riducule as well as the avalanche of negativeism from you and others. I didnt need that just like his famnily and other friends dont. If you notice, very few of his other true friends have spoken out. wonder why? Maybe we all know it makes no difference to others.

Thanks for the suggestion, but forgive me for not listening to you. In the past you have shown to try and find fault with everything I have posted whether here or in other threads. I tend listen to my collegues/ friends ( like Mainesail) who know me...have met me and dont have an agenda like you appear to.

Try and keep your comments on the topics and not direct them toward me in the future.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

NCC330,

The realtionship to the Captain is none of yours or anyones elses business. I did not feel necessary as it made no difference in what I wrote or the opinions I had. I only recently reveleaed what I did to explain why I was not myself in tone my posting and why my postings appeared to be hypocritical in *TONE* with what was my normal way of posting. It was pointed out by a friend of mine here publically and I took it to heart. I now recognize that I have gotten into the same crap I was fighting against and was explaining where that might have come from. No more no less.



> Just a suggestion, the whole story up front will probably get fewer attacks to the postings


I never felt it was relevant for me to tell you about my friendship with Wallbridge or his family. It had nothing to do with what i posted as no one really wanted to listen or wanted to beleive the type man he was. People had made their mind up and because of the mistake he made a tidal wave of negative opinions and allegations were unleased about his character. All I could hope or say was that we should not rush to judge and let all the facts come out, which I still wholeheartedly beleive. None of this absolves him of the fact he left the safe shore toward an impending storm.

My posting my realtionship would have surely brought riducule as well as the avalanche of negativeism from you and others. I didnt need that just like his famnily and other friends dont. If you notice, very few of his other true friends have spoken out. wonder why? Maybe we all know it makes no difference to others.

Thanks for the suggestion, but forgive me for not listening to you. In the past you have shown to try and find fault with everything I have posted whether here or in other threads. I tend listen to my collegues/ friends ( like Mainesail) who knows me and has met me and even PCP who I agrue with but respect) as they dont have an agenda like you appear to.

Try and keep your comments on the topics and not direct them toward me personally by couching them as your "lessons of life:" and what to do and I will do the same for you. Your opinion doesnt have any validity to me and it appears mine doesnt for you. See I already know you do not have my best interests at heart. So lets just agree to give everyone else a rest and not have to listen to this childish personal advice chatter.

Dave


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

I've stayed away from these Bounty threads because, frankly, there's no new information here. There's insight (both good and bad) into some Sailnet posters, but frankly, the whole thing is becoming tiresome. I'm with Paulo that the actions of the author of that lengthy inappropriate diatribe are not those of someone I'd be proud to call "friend."

And obnoxious as it was, the letter was still an opinion. BTW, here are some actual, you know, *facts* about what occurred with the generators: A Legendary Ship's Final Hours Battling Sandy - ABC News

I hate to post and run, but I'm back to pretty much ignoring these Bounty threads.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

blowinstink said:


> Except the amateurs found appropriate ways of expressing those opinions. I read it again this morning and I am just as disgusted as after my first pass last night. Whatever the substance, I don't know how anyone can defend the manner in which he attacks the deceased Captain of the Bounty.


I am sure that Jan was intending to publish a perspective that might draw public opinion away from Tall Ship operators in general and keep the focus on how stupid Bounty/Wallbridge was.

He may have a point. If a good friend of mine did something that was going to potentially threaten my ability to provide for my family by their incredibly stupid actions, I may defend my living as well. I, among others, have suggested seriously clamping down on some Tall Ship regulations, but it reminds me that most rules are written in blood, when most don't need the rule to stay safe.

Hard to know. Hope I never find out.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

chef2sail said:


> I never felt it was relevant for me to tell you about my friendship with Wallbridge or his family.


I don't buy it. Why would you go out of your way in the other Bounty thread to represent him as only someone you "met" one time, and if you had to make a "snap judgment" on him, he "seemed" like a decent guy.

Why not just say he was a friend, if indeed that is the truth?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> My posting my realtionship would have surely brought riducule as well as the avalanche of negativeism from you and others. I didnt need that just like his famnily and other friends dont. If you notice, very few of his other true friends have spoken out. wonder why? Maybe we all know it makes no difference to others.


already stated


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> NCC330,
> 
> The realtionship to the Captain is none of yours or anyones elses business......


That is your prerogative, Chef. I don't need to know.

However, you introduced it, you weren't called out to give insight as a result of anyone knowing of your relationship.

To put your ability to size up Walbridge in context, you may simply indicate how many different occasions you met with the Capt and his family. I'm sure I don't really know anyone unless I've seen them in dozens of circumstances and people surprise me everyday.

Ignore this, as you see fit.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Chef – perhaps you can provide some insight? Who were the owners of HMS Bounty II? And what was the their relationship with Wallbridge? Has anyone put together a chronology of the past few years? I read that the ship has been up of sale since 2008 and for $4.3m(?). Somewhere during that time there was a major refit ($?) and that it cruised to England. My only thought is I’m a little surprised that the chief engineer was not a permanent paid position. I would have thought that would be the guy to help supervise the refit.


----------



## Roger Long (May 28, 2012)

I started this thread because I believe that the people best informed to comment on an event like this are those who have been out in the dark in traditional wooden ships with lives entrusted to their care. If their writing style, tact, perspective, and level of emotionalism doesn't pass muster with a group like this, it doesn't change the fact that they are speaking as people who have faced the same pressures, dangers, and decisions as Wallbridge.

I've been quite involved with the issues of sailing vessel safety and losses over the years. The author of the letter was the person sent by the original Pride organization to assist the survivors and do the first fact finding right after her loss. He called me from the airport on his return to be informed with my perspective before reporting to the board. The British government hired me as their primary technical analyst and consultant for the inquiry into the loss of the "Marques". I will lay claim to being a bit more than just "a retired boat designer" as someone posted above.

Since I am retired, this is the first such incident since I came on the scene thirty years ago in which I have not been in direct personal or email contact with survivors, organization personnel, or investigators. I'm still in the network though and something very different stands out about this event.

Back when the Exxon _Valdeze_ was still major news, I was in a board meeting with three tanker captains, two of whom had been master of vessels on that same route. I said something along the lines of, how could a guy like Hazelwood have become master of a ship that could create such devastation? All three instantly said that, no, he was a very competent guy and it could have happened to anyone of them. They went on to say that they had just been to a professional gathering of, I've forgotten exactly, but something like twenty tanker captains. These guys reported that they had discussed the grounding there and, to a man, every captain said it could have happened to them.

This, "There but for the grace of God go I.", point of view has been a dominate feature of every peer discussion of a vessel loss that I have known. What is significant to me is how little of it I am hearing in this case. Whatever you may feel about the way he expressed it, that is the significant point of Jan's letter.

And, it isn't just Jan. I've heard from others who have not been referred to here. You can see it simply in the AIS web site displays that were posted before the vessel was even experiencing mechanical and water ingress problems. Every ship in the eastern north Atlantic is scattering like a crowd on a city street that looks up and sees a piano falling. Just one vessel is going the other way. This was the real time judgment of the masters of container ships, tankers, and other craft with a much greater probability of surviving an encounter with the storm than a wooden replica of an 1800's vessel.

Operator error and mistakes are an inevitable part of every transportation system. However, there are some decisions that have to be put in a different category. Everything that I can discern about the judgment of his peers tells me that they see this as being one of those.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> One thing I have not posted here which I guess I should. Like wingnwing I have been on the Bounty and met the captain. If someone asked me for a judgement of him, and this is a big time snap judgement, he seemed professional, knowledgeable about his ship, a teacher of others and dedicated to his responsibility for the ship and its crew.chef2sail


Thats what I said and from that I should have posted more? I was not misleading, dont feel I should be accused by any of you, and dont feel i have the right to make a judgement of him other than a snap judgement even though I was around him half a dozen times

So here is my story for the doubters ( pick away at it as I am sure you will)

My recollection times may not be truly correct.
I first met Robin when I was 40 or so and I had placed 4 seascouts in a program on a vessel of one week in the Florida Keys somewhere around 1993. He had spoke at workshop/ meeting I was attending in Philadelphia on motivating you teenages and adults. I was impressed with his kindness and what appeared to be a caring for kids. I felt he would connect with them easily. The boys came back after a week with him raving about him and idolizing him and what they had learned. I was then I vowed if I could expose my daughter ( a rteeneage) who enjoyed sailing to him I would.

I got the oppertunity in 1994 or so when I was contacted by him that he was working on the HMS Rose a ship built to replicate a real British warship and that he was doing sail training in New England. I spoke at length with him on the phone and then talked to my daughter and she was off for a week that summer to " learn" how to work on the ship. When I arrived with her at Newport we met the ship and I spent a nice evening with Captain Baily and FM Walbridge having a few drinks and a long converstaion about sailing, kids and other things. I felt fully confident trusting her with them for a week. MNy daughter raved about how much Robin had taught her about the sea and how patient he was.

Later my daughter went back with two of her girl friends for a 2 week sail down the East coast on the Rose. Robin was already on the Bounty.

Robin and exchanged letters occasionally and Christmas cards each year and I eventually met up with him ( and Claudia his wife) in Fall River, Mass. I spent 4 days on the ship with him just putzing around as the ship was undergoing some work.

In 1999 or aoround then my daughter met his stepdaughter Shelly wjile on a one week sail onboard the Bounty.

I saw Robin 2 more times...I think it was 2010 in Newburgh NY on the Hudson where I had dinner with him and once again in Wilmington NC of this year.

I dont claim to know this man well. I havent been around him dozens of times so I guess I am not qualified to judge his character/ I am not a cult follower as those who truly admired this man have been called. Just notice, that almost all of the people who have known this man have nothing bad to say about him. Oh maybe a few self serving professionals who may have resented him true, but the people who sailed with him...NADA. That alone should maybe be a clue into his character.

Not once have I really posted against anyone who said his decison was dumb, and cost the lives of both people and his ship. Where I find umberage has always been at the characterization of the captain as this reckless, idiot, unqualified, egotistical cult leader. Its not how I and others have found him who knew him casually as I did or more intimately who sailed with him.
He is characterized as caring, safety conscious, teacher and knowledgeable.

The man made an agregious mistake. It cost lives. Had he lived he probably would not be able to live with himself.

But I guess our society has come to this. We are a society of fingerpointers and always looking to find the worst in people and when we dont find it we either let the news media or our social media make it up and blow things out of porportion. Because we can we can sit home and run down people on line, call them liars, ruin their reputations without repudiation or even them fighting back. Funny when a living person fights back with the same tactics. they are called a hypocrite. Such is the rule of the mob.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Roger Long said:


> ...
> 
> Operator error and mistakes are an inevitable part of every transportation system. However, there are some decisions that have to be put in a different category. Everything that I can discern about the judgment of his peers tells me that they see this as being one of those.


Yes, I agree. That is also the global consensus on the original Bounty thread.

I guess that if he had survived there would be a strong possibility to be accused of involuntary manslaughter and stand trial, like is going to happen possibly to Costa Concordia Captain.

There are gross errors that are just not admissible in any professional Captain (or any other qualified profession) and that leave questions about the competence of all the others. In that sense I understand why the author of that open letter, specially being another tall ship captain, come forward (as other tall ships Captains) stating that what Bounty's Captain had done was wrong and unacceptable.

I still don't like the way he had done it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chef,
Unfortunately commercial airline Captains are only as good as there last landing. That is what they are judged on. If after 30 years with a stellar piloting record, they screw up and crash a plane due to their own negligence, they are done. The US Navy practices the same policy for their ship Captains.

I guess tall ship Captains should be judged differently.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> Hey - anyone else notice that Walbridges' abrupt turn to the west on the 27th coincides with Sandy taking an abrupt turn to the east?
> 
> Maybe he was hedging his bet which way Sandy would go and he then chose to just go the opposite way.


I am a bit more antagonistic against the Captain.

I was watching this storm and the NOAA predictions and I thought there were WILDLY stupido to say the hurricane would come up over Jamacia, over Cuba, due north over Bahamas then west a bit, then North again, then due east for a moment then curve slowly to hit New York.
I thought they couldn't possible have a prediction five days out like that. BUT THEY WERE RIGHT! NOAA was absolutely SPOT ON from days and days before. No one has given them credit for how accurate they were, remember Jersey Shores invoked a state of emergency three days before it hit.

The other bit I don't believe, but this is more of a gut feeling is the idea he wanted to save the ship by being at sea. That just doesn't wash with me. I don't get the vibe, and its only a vibe, that human behavior does this. I think he wanted to prove the world wrong. I think he wanted to show his ship wasn't a bucket of waste trash held together by rust, by going out into a hurricane path that he thought was wrongly predicted.

If he had been sucessful he could have arrived in port and said: well I knew the hurricane would go that way, and I knew my boat could do,this....
That's what I think it was. Vanity. Narcissism. He wanted to prove to captains of container ships that he wasn't a second rate captain in their estimation, but their equal. If a container ship can go to sea in a hurricane he wasn't going to hide in port. If a container ship captain gets paid $200,000 per year that's what he was worth too... Even though he may only have been paid, say $50,000 per year.

And that, if correct, damns the captain. And would be a good reason why he did not reach a life raft. He knew he couldn't survive to tell the tale.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> I think he wanted to prove the world wrong. I think he wanted to show his ship wasn't a bucket of waste trash held together by rust, by going out into a hurricane path that he thought was wrongly predicted.
> 
> If he had been sucessful he could have arrived in port and said: well I knew the hurricane would go that way, and I knew my boat could do,this....
> That's what I think it was. Vanity. Narcissism.markofsealife


Your gut feeling....but it goes against everything anyone who knew the Captain personally (not what has been written about him) says about him icluding the survivors


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I am a bit more antagonistic against the Captain.
> 
> I was watching this storm and the NOAA predictions and I thought there were WILDLY stupido to say the hurricane would come up over Jamacia, over Cuba, due north over Bahamas then west a bit, then North again, then due east for a moment then curve slowly to hit New York.
> I thought they couldn't possible have a prediction five days out like that. BUT THEY WERE RIGHT! NOAA was absolutely SPOT ON from days and days before. No one has given them credit for how accurate they were, remember Jersey Shores invoked a state of emergency three days before it hit.
> ...


I think you are spot on, including the ending. I was also amazed at how accurate the extended forcast was, especially in this day and age where the media tends to hype up the bad weather forcasts. I thought the forcast was a lot of hype, but they were right. Maybe the Capt thought the same thing.

When the crew was attempting to abandon ship, the Capt was not seen. Where had he gone?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

That's a great graphic!


It does show his dilemma. But he was still wrong because he turned into the Gulf Stream. Wind against waves.

you Americans you a phrase no one else uses (I love the phrase)... "Double guess". He has tried to double guess it and failed. His chess game, as you put it, was lost a long time before. Like many, professionals or amateurs, of the old school they don't believe the modern technology. If he believed NOAA they would have been right. Well, no, not really, because they NEVER made any easting!


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Roger Long said:


> I started this thread because I believe that the people best informed to comment on an event like this are those who have been out in the dark in traditional wooden ships with lives entrusted to their care. If their writing style, tact, perspective, and level of emotionalism doesn't pass muster with a group like this, it doesn't change the fact that they are speaking as people who have faced the same pressures, dangers, and decisions as Wallbridge.
> 
> I've been quite involved with the issues of sailing vessel safety and losses over the years. The author of the letter was the person sent by the original Pride organization to assist the survivors and do the first fact finding right after her loss. He called me from the airport on his return to be informed with my perspective before reporting to the board. The British government hired me as their primary technical analyst and consultant for the inquiry into the loss of the "Marques". I will lay claim to being a bit more than just "a retired boat designer" as someone posted above.
> 
> ...


All that being said, Roger, doesn't change the fact that there are other, better, worthier ways to express grief and an informed opinion than a pontificating, sermonizing open letter to a dead man.
A solid resume and years of experience doesn't give anyone a pass on being a jerk. A cheap shot is still a cheap shot, no matter how credentialed the marksman. At least where I come from- your standards might be lower.

btw, I referred to you on the first page of this thread as a retired NA because that is how you refer to yourself- right there, upper left of each of your posts, under your username. I know and respect your CV, Roger, having enjoyed the input you have offered here, on the WBF and even on the CBC. But, you and jan and any of the other credentialed experts on ship handling and construction who have offered input on this tragedy are no more psychic than I or anyone here- we can all see the end result of the event cascade that took place, but none of us can say with certainty what the captain's intentions, thoughts, or plans were- we weren't there, and he's not here, unlike Capt. Hazelwood.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I was watching this storm and the NOAA predictions and I thought there were WILDLY stupido to say the hurricane would come up over Jamacia, over Cuba, due north over Bahamas then west a bit, then North again, then due east for a moment then curve slowly to hit New York.
> I thought they couldn't possible have a prediction five days out like that. BUT THEY WERE RIGHT! NOAA was absolutely SPOT ON from days and days before. No one has given them credit for how accurate they were, remember Jersey Shores invoked a state of emergency three days before it hit.


Actually, NOAA was a bit late coming to that party... The Euro models were the first to forecast that final turn to the left, and it was a few days before most American models eventually came into agreement with that forecast..

U.S. forecast's late arrival stirs weather tempest

Agreed, however, the forecasting of this storm was incredibly accurate in the end... Still, looking at this ensemble of models the day before leaving New London, Walbridge would have to be delusional to think they could "skirt" that storm...


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> That's a great graphic!
> 
> It does show his dilemma. But he was still wrong because he turned into the Gulf Stream. Wind against waves.
> 
> you Americans you a phrase no one else uses (I love the phrase)... "Double guess". He has tried to double guess it and failed. His chess game, as you put it, was lost a long time before. Like many, professionals or amateurs, of the old school they don't believe the modern technology. If he believed NOAA they would have been right. Well, no, not really, because they NEVER made any easting!


The phrase is "Second Guess" damn-it! Get it right!

What I recall about the forecasting was that the first forecasts had nearly all tracks headed east but that all of the mainstream the news reports paid unusually heavy attention to the few outliers which showed the western curve. Over the next few days the majority of the other models came to agree with that western course.

Mark - we were outbound to Florida from the hub of Abaco in June when we heard you squawking on 68 - just arriving from Exumas. Wished we'd have had a chance to stick around and meet and hear some of your stories.

Best
-M


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

blowinstink said:


> The phrase is "Second Guess" damn-it! Get it right!
> 
> Mark - we were outbound to Florida from the hub of Abaco in June when we heard you squawking on 68 - just arriving from Exumas. Wished we'd have had a chance to stick around and meet and hear some of your stories.
> 
> ...


I wish you Americans would speak English! Ok Second Guess!
And if NOAA dis change after Wednesday why the friggin hell did he try to go EAST of it when it was heading east? That puts him more in potty.

Blownstink we will meet up next time


----------



## Roger Long (May 28, 2012)

bljones said:


> All that being said, Roger, doesn't change the fact that there are other, better, worthier ways to express grief and an informed opinion .....


Utterly beside any point I was trying to make. I merely observe that the letter was written by one of about a dozen people in this country best able to understand Wallbridge's position and options when he was sitting in New London and later at sea. He is one of the few people who have sailed an historic replica wooden ship around extensively on deep water routes. If the letter is all you say it is, the fact that someone like Jan was moved to that extent is significant. I take no issue with anyone not liking the letter. That's an entirely separate question that I'm not addressing.



> I referred to you on the first page of this thread as a retired NA because that is how you refer to yourself


I know how I refer to myself. It was the context of your usage which I may not have properly interpreted.



> But, you and jan and any of the other credentialed experts on ship handling and construction who have offered input on this tragedy are no more psychic than I or anyone here....none of us can say with certainty what the captain's intentions, thoughts, or plans were..


You are attributing intentions to myself and others here without any basis. I don't expect any certainty here about that and I don't think anyone else does. In fact, the essence of this story is the utter mystification and sense of _What the hell was he thinking?_ that this event raises.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> > Agreed, however, the forecasting of this storm was incredibly accurate in the end... Still, looking at this ensemble of models the day before leaving New London, Walbridge would have to be delusional to think they could "skirt" that storm...
> 
> 
> I can see his idea of ducking inside and getting a "ride" south. Its insane, but I can see it. There was a while where they were telling Claudene that " Bounty loves hurricanes" so they were that deluded. *If the hurricane had gone farther east like most do, he would be in St. Pete telling kids that right now.*


I wouldn't be so sure about that...

Even if the storm had followed any of those projected tracks, it still would have passed within 3-4 degrees of latitude below Hatteras to the SE... With a storm that vast, even if it had taken a more easterly track, I believe the sea conditions in the area where BOUNTY met her demise wouldn't have been all that much different, than from that which they eventually experienced...

Remember, the conditions - especially the windspeed - were not all that extreme when things began to go pear-shaped... I think it was primarily the sea conditions that did her in, and they still would have been pretty horrendous in the Stream, 80 miles SE of Hatteras, even in the event of such a monstrous storm having tracked much further offshore...

One would have thought a captain who claimed to have once experienced 70-foot swells from a hurricane several hundred miles distant, might have had a greater appreciation for that fact...


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Roger Long said:


> In fact, the essence of this story is the utter mystification and sense of _What the hell was he thinking?_ that this event raises.


On that we can agree.


----------



## JulieMor (Sep 5, 2011)

I lost a longtime friend of mine years ago in a snowmobile accident. It was completely preventable and completely the fault of my dear friend. After her wake, at her house where her widowed husband and motherless children now lived, I told her husband I was really mad at her. He looked at me surprised. I had lost a best friend. He had lost a wife. And I wasn't mourning and reminiscing about all the good times we had enjoyed since grade school. I was talking about how selfish it had been of her to see just how fast that new snowmobile she just bought would go. Her widowed husband looked at me, then understood. His eyes said, yes, it was foolish and very selfish.

When I read Miles' letter criticizing Robin Walbridge, I thought, "That's already been said", "That's all hindsight", and many other things already said here. But at the end I realized Miles and Walbridge enjoyed a friendship and maybe Miles was just getting his anger out for his friend's foolish and selfish actions.

Whatever comes of this tragedy, I just hope that it leads to a reduction in senseless deaths and an increase of placing common sense and safety before profit, ego or any of those other things that compel people to take unnecessary risks that puts lives on the line.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Good perspective, Julie. However, I also think there is a huge distance between risking one's own life and that of others, particularly when others that look to you for guidance on the risk.

I've made a choice to get in everything from a carnival ride to a fighter jet, but I partially relied on the risk assessment of others before doing so.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Oh geez, we are still talking about Bounty even there is no new finding from the accident. Are you folks still doing sailing any more? If you don't sail and have a lot of time in your hand, go to do some volunteering work. It is good for your soul and those less than you. 

If you think Wallberg made a horrible mistake, learn from it. If you think he did a great job sailing Bounty during Sandy, go to sail like him. It is your decision, I dont think anyone care. Why the hell we need to force our ideas into others head. 

Make no sense, especially we are sailors we can bend and adapt better the others.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

rockDAWG said:


> Make no sense, especially we are sailors we can bend and adapt better the others.


I disagree with you.... There are many cruisers out there who are extremely inflexible. It is a difficulty that can become a safety problem.
For example route planning is only a plan... Whereas many will think that lays it all in concrete.

As to the rest of your post, we are still finding out more. So I think the time put in is still valuable. But we are not forcing you to read it, so why waste your time writing about wasting your time?
We know we a not wasting ours!


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

rockDAWG said:


> Oh geez, we are still talking about Bounty even there is no new finding from the accident. Are you folks still doing sailing any more? If you don't sail and have a lot of time in your hand, go to do some volunteering work. It is good for your soul and those less than you.


What are you doing here? 
How do you know what volunteer work we do or how much we sail?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

rockDAWG said:


> Oh geez, we are still talking about Bounty even there is no new finding from the accident. Are you folks still doing sailing any more? If you don't sail and have a lot of time in your hand, go to do some volunteering work. It is good for your soul and those less than you.
> 
> If you think Wallberg made a horrible mistake, learn from it. If you think he did a great job sailing Bounty during Sandy, go to sail like him. It is your decision, I dont think anyone care. Why the hell we need to force our ideas into others head.
> 
> Make no sense, especially we are sailors we can bend and adapt better the others.


Rock, how much time did you spend on this post and for what purpose?

It's hard to imagine anyone actually walking past a conversation at a bar and telling the participants they are wasting their time and should be doing something else. They usually just keep on walking. Internet is a funny place.

However, if my boat were in the water, I would indeed have less time on my hands.


----------



## JulieMor (Sep 5, 2011)

rockDAWG said:


> Are you folks still doing sailing any more?


It's December, too cold to sail, too warm for ice fishing.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JulieMor said:


> .. I was talking about how selfish it had been of her to see just how fast that new snowmobile she just bought would go. Her widowed husband looked at me, then understood. His eyes said, yes, it was foolish and very selfish.....


It is not fast machines (if properly designed) that are dangerous but people that ride them without knowing what they are doing. A fast machine can be driven slowly if the conditions don't make speed safe or if the rider is an inexperienced one. This is true for snowmobiles, motorbikes, cars, airplanes and boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Hate to come across as a touchy-feely Californian, but, have any of you guys heard of the Kübler-Ross model? You know, the five stages of grief? Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> That's harsh. There is a lot more I could say, but if I was the husband I would have asked you not very nicely to get the hell out.
> 
> I seem to remember you posting about sailing lost in the fog. How selfish of _YOU. _ Imagine a freighter had run you down in the fog and someone said that to your mom or your husband. Sorry, but it was so selfish of her to be out there. Ouch. Ouch.
> 
> ...


It should be ok for the living to be mad at the dead, we after all are just human, and we all grieve differently, and that is ok. I know plenty of friends whom were very mad when one of our friends went out and did somthing risky and got themselves killed. Yea they were just living for the moment. I like to do risky things to, I often single hand in 30 knots of wind in the middle of the pacific, and I am always saying to myself: "hey, be careful, a wife and two young kids are depending on you."

I am sure if I get myself killed while sailing single handed, my wife will be very pissed at me, and probably for good reason.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

GeorgeB said:


> Hate to come across as a touchy-feely Californian, but, have any of you guys heard of the Kübler-Ross model? You know, the five stages of grief? Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance?


Acceptance? Of the insurance money? and that makes it all better?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

You really need to read Kübler-Ross. The acceptance is the acceptance of the fact that Wallbridge and Christian are dead and the grievers are able to move on with thier lives. Again, not to be so touchy-feely, but reading all these messages, I'm thing few, if any have been able to progress all the way to stage five. I can't quite figure out where you fit in the stages as you move back and forth a lot (regression isn't good mental health). But I suspect that you have move past stage five and now are just "pulling my leg" or "tweaking my nose" or whatever the Aussie idiom is.

I am still wondering about the more arcaine business aspects of this are. Who actually owned the HMS Bounty II? was it Walbridge? Insurance is a different can of worms. I know of at least two two master mariner boats in San Francisco where thier insurance is void if they are damaged in winds over 25kts. As far a movie props went, it did a lot of ocean sailing in fifty years before she was done in by a hurricane.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

GeorgeB said:


> You really need to read Kübler-Ross.....


Only applicable to those that actually had a personal relationship with the Capt and, in those cases, I think its very accurate.

For the rest, including me, I'm upset that he killed someone else and could have killed the rest. While I have deep sympathy for Walbridge's family's loss and I would not have wished his fate on him, I'm not mourning either.


----------



## JulieMor (Sep 5, 2011)

Sal Paradise said:


> That's harsh. There is a lot more I could say, but if I was the husband I would have asked you not very nicely to get the hell out.
> 
> I seem to remember you posting about sailing lost in the fog. How selfish of _YOU. _ Imagine a freighter had run you down in the fog and someone said that to your mom or your husband. Sorry, but it was so selfish of her to be out there. Ouch. Ouch.
> 
> Your friend was living in the moment, taking a risk and and accident happened. For that I am sorry. But its the nature of an adventurer to take risks.


When you judge others you do not define them, you define yourself.

If you care to know *ALL* the facts, I'll gladly share them with you. You might judge differently.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I disagree with you.... There are many cruisers out there who are extremely inflexible. It is a difficulty that can become a safety problem.
> For example route planning is only a plan... Whereas many will think that lays it all in concrete.
> 
> As to the rest of your post, we are still finding out more. So I think the time put in is still valuable. But we are not forcing you to read it, so why waste your time writing about wasting your time?
> We know we a not wasting ours!


I have no problem with other being inflexible especially in their float plan. I would mention it if I think it is a bad move, but other than that none of my business unless my kids and close friends.

I have not followed the Bounty Thread for a long time. It has become a diminish for me. I was surprise it is still going on.

I hope someone can give us a reader digest version of the threads and omit all the miscommunication and misunderstanding posts.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I disagree with you.... There are many cruisers out there who are extremely inflexible. It is a difficulty that can become a safety problem.
> For example route planning is only a plan... Whereas many will think that lays it all in concrete.
> 
> As to the rest of your post, we are still finding out more. So I think the time put in is still valuable. But we are not forcing you to read it, so why waste your time writing about wasting your time?
> We know we a not wasting ours!


I have no problem with other being inflexible especially in their float plan. I would mention it if I think it is a bad move, but other than that none of my business unless my kids and close friends.

I have not followed the Bounty Thread for a long time. It has become a diminish for me. I was surprise it is still going on.

I hope someone can give us a reader digest version of the threads and omit all the miscommunication and misunderstanding posts.


----------



## Stella's crew (Sep 3, 2012)

My best friend was killed when his car hit a house at seventy mph. I understand the feelings behind this letter. Since I got out of hospital after the crash 32 years ago I've been pissed at my friend. But still love him.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> *When you judge others you do not define them, you define yourself -JulieMor.*


Very appropriate. Best Post on this thread

God Bless you Captain Robin Walbridge and Claudene Christian. May your families and friends find peace in our prayers for you.



> The Song of a Ship Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made, For somewhere deep in their oaken hearts the song of a soul is laid; A soul that sings with the ship along through plunging hills of blue, And fills her canvas cups of white with winds that drive her through. For how could a nail and a piece of wood, tied with a canvas thread, Become a nymph of moon-washed paths if the soul of the ship were fled? Her bosom throbs as her lover's arms clasp her in fond embrace, And the joyous kiss of briny lips is fresh on her maiden face. No storm can smother the hempen song that wells in her laughing throat -- Small wonder that then men go mad for the love of the sea and a boat. For the singing sheet is a siren sweet that tugs at the hearts of men, And down to the sea they must go once more though they never come back again. -Robert N Rose


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

How about when one judge's people who judge?


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

I do not understand this thread, The Captain made a mistake, like many others, and has paid for it with his own and another life. There isnt much else to say. It matters not what his reasons were, the events are the events.


----------



## kjango (Apr 18, 2008)

Looks to me like the corpse of the horse has been dragged to a new thread & the beating will continue.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> looks to me like the corpse of the horse has been dragged to a new thread & the beating will continue.


+1


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

So, why do you guys keep posting?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Fun......and someone has to keep you and Sal centered.


and when new info appears like the show on the Weather Channel last night.

Dave


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Dave, speaking of the weather channel, I haven't seen any comments about the presentation. I was impressed by Barksdale's interview. Those 14 people are really lucky to be alive and not be trapped by the rigging.

You'ld think that the weather channel would know better than to depect the rotation of the hurricane in the northern hemisphere as clockwise.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I missed the Weather Channel too, but I'm sure someone can share.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> deleted text from abusive message - tdw


You call me prejudiced and then you choose to purposely call me a* neo-Nazi **knowing* that I have had 43 members of my family exterminated in a concentration camp. You are anti semetic and just posted it in living color. Thats pretty low even for you



> or if we are maliciousSal Paradise


So Sal does this qualify or does it not because I deserve it?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Chef,
Don't let him bother you. He even admits he is a *******.

Why cannot we just get along:


----------



## msmith10 (Feb 28, 2009)

Thanks for pulling that post, tdw. This thread as well as the other Bounty thread have been teetering on the edge for quite a while now, but blatant personal attacks are off base and that was a prime post for "the hook".
I'm going to follow the "Overheating" thread until the inquiry report comes out. Until then, sayonara everyone.


----------



## swampcreek (Feb 14, 2010)

"Chef,
Don't let him bother you. He even admits he is a *******."

You say ******* like it's a bad thing!

Anyway, I jumped on board to say in support of Chef that politically we're really far apart but I consider him a friend and although we might do a friendly brush up here and there we do have in common among others things this wonderful thing called sailing. I often see Chef as we cross paths in Rock Creek and I'm happy to wave to him. I met him personally at MYC at last years Sailnet gathering and had a great time. So there Chef! You have now been supported by a ******* who actually has a "God Guns and Guts" bumper sticker on his big Ford truck, that is if you can read it through the black diesel smoke when I throttle up for yellow lights!...Sleep tight neighbor!

Just to clear up any confusion many think ******* means racist...thats liberal BS!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> You call me prejudiced and then you choose to purposely call me a* neo-Nazi **knowing* that I have had 43 members of my family exterminated in a concentration camp. You are anti semetic and just posted it in living color. Thats pretty low even for you
> 
> So Sal does this qualify or does it not because I deserve it?


C'mon guys it is pretty clear Dave is personally invested in this. I am sure there were folks who defended the Captain of the Costa Concordia too, from a personal perspective.

I know Chef / Dave personally and can assure you he's a nice guy.. Perhaps his posts on the HMS Bounty can come across in a manner that is worthy of debate but if we have stooped to the level of calling people NeoNatzi's please........ *GROW UP*.......

As a friend I pointed out when I thought Chef was acting hypocritically, but name calling and posts like rock's are simply over the top... I call out a friend equally, like I did with Dave, when they step over the line. I am glad that post was deleted as this is not the SN I know....


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

chef2sail said:


> Fun......and someone has to keep you ... centered.
> 
> ...Dave


I have been centered since the beginning, you on other hand have been a bit off even if in the end it seems we mostly agree. Don't take this as an offense, only fools don't change opinion if the evidence points in other sense...and unfortunately there are a lot of fools out there

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Sabreman (Sep 23, 2006)

This is sad, plain sad. If I saw this sort of dialog on my teen-age daughter's Facebook page, I'd tell her that she was acting like a middle-schooler. In my 55 years of living, I learned a few things including that when someone starts calling people names, they're generally insecure and have lost the debate in which they were engaged. So they lash out, often ineffectively. If one is not on the receiving end, it can be quite humorous to watch.

So here we are, yet again pontificating in the comfort of our dry, stable homes on what a professional mariner should or should not have done. The reality is that for the most part, we are clueless as to the precise circumstances surrounding the sad event. Yet we feel that we must be heard and that our opinion is golden.

Shame on us. Calling Dave a Nazi? Seriously? He's knowledgeable and a good person. In no way does a statement like that constitute a debate; it's meant for only one purpose - to be hurtful. If my kid did that, I'd be ashamed of her and of myself for what I apparently failed to teach her. Dave has shown his generosity of knowledge and of person countless times, often at personal expense..... he once went out of his way to visit my wife and I on _Victoria_ when he could have just driven home after a long day at work.

I sincerely hope that we take a moment to think about our spirit of generosity toward each other, think about how senseless personal attacks are, take a moment to put ourselves in other's shoes, to understand that the world does not revolve around us or our blessed opinion. If for no reason than that it's the right thing to do.

You're a good guy Dave - chin up! I've also learned that if the critters are nipping at your heels, you must have something that they want!


----------



## Marcel D (Apr 15, 2012)

You know what I dont under stand were all sailer and we are all friends. We share a comman intrest, we all love the same sport sailing that is why we are here. These other topics on these threads just cause problems. I dont mind talking about fiber glass repairs or reefing options, but i am not talking religon or any array of other topics here. I dont mind to be corrected about a statement I have made, but do it in respective tone, like I said we are all frineds here. Maybe he for got to take his?

Risperidone (Risperdal)
Olanzapine (Zyprexa)
Quetiapine (Seroquel)
Ziprasidone (Geodon)
Aripiprazole (Abilify)
Paliperidone (Invega


----------



## Marcel D (Apr 15, 2012)

Oh and by the way Guys i live in Alberta we just had 15" of snow in 2 hours and neg 15 going to neg 21 is just about to hit. Beat that and it is only Dec we still have jan and Feb to contend with lol.


----------



## Marcel D (Apr 15, 2012)

Dave dont let the rude people bother you we love and support you bud have a great day!!!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Geeze 15" of snow..I am headed for my final sail on Sat.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Marcel D said:


> Oh and by the way Guys i live in Alberta we just had 15" of snow in 2 hours and neg 15 going to neg 21 is just about to hit. Beat that and it is only Dec we still have jan and Feb to contend with lol.


I woke up to 42F temperatures this morning. You keep that white stuff and cold air up there with you.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Adirondack report: 18 degrees, not much snow on the ground yet. Freezing rain predicted for tonight.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> I missed the Weather Channel too, but I'm sure someone can share.


We had a dinner engagement Wednesday evening so missed the earlier broadcast of US Coast Guard--Bounty Rescue, but I stayed up to watch (most of) the 23:00 to 24:00 re-broadcast. The program mostly focused on the CG's efforts to rescue the crew, which were pretty spectacular in the conditions, with a good deal of film of the operation as viewed from (I presume) gun cameras and the like.

There were cuts of comments by two of the members of the crew that had been recovered, an older fellow and a very young man, both of whom described the difficulties of escaping the boat once it had capsized (the spars/rigging were a particular hazard). Both crewmen spoke highly of the captain and of their faith in his judgement, emphasizing that he had given the crew the option of quitting the ship without penalty of any type before they departed. Evidently, none did so. While neither man had any animus for the captain, neither seemed to have much knowledge of the matter of handling a ship, or tall ships in particular, in general or in the conditions. One or the other did note that until the scudding sail split, they were "Okay" in the circumstances, but afterward the ship became unmanageable. That, of course, stands to reason as the scudding sail would have stabilized the ship--more or less--even in the conditions, without which she would have rolled her guts out, and did so until she reached her limiting angle of stability/recovery. Notably, even as the Coast Guards quite the scene many hours after the ship turtled, it remained afloat, just below the surface, under the effect of entrapped air and the buoyancy of the ship's timbers which gives me to believe that she was under ballasted. Otherwise, she would have gone down like a rock. If underballasted, the ship's stability would have been seriously compromised, particularly on so great a hull. Sailing ships of the period represented by the Bounty (near) replica were heavily ballasted, either by stores and cargo or "dead" ballast (e.g. rock), that was discharged when a cargo was taken aboard (discharged ballast was often used to create keys and/or breakwaters such as the breakwater at "Ballast Point" on Catalina Island.)

N'any case, the program did not offer any more insights on what the captain's thinking might have been that led him and his crew to sea before the storm. The graphic of his track did show that he did not make enough easting to avoid the storm as he might have given its northwestward turn but I suspect he was expecting the storm to curve to the northeast, as most such storms do, when it passed Hatteras and so turned southwest above the storm to make for the navigable semicircle and to keep the prevailing winds on his port quarter throughout. That strategy worked until his scudding sail blew out. Absent a replacement, and a crew strong and knowledgeable enough to set it, their fate was sealed.

FWIW...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

svHyLyte said:


> .. One or the other did note that until the scudding sail split, they were "Okay" in the circumstances, but afterward the ship became unmanageable. ...That strategy worked until his scudding sail blew out. Absent a replacement, and a crew strong and knowledgeable enough to set it, their fate was sealed.
> 
> FWIW...


That seems the main new point and it seems to me hardly believable that with so many sails aboard it was not possible to improvise a sail set up to substitute the blown sail. I believe that the absence of a professional crew with experienced in that kind of ships in the adequate number was the main reason for not being able to replace that sail (or improvise something that worked the same effect). This is obviously not the only factor but could be one of the contributing factors.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Studding sails? In those conditions? 40 knots? I don't think so.

They are the sails fully outboard of the courses. Pronounced Stunsails.

They are light weather sails and in modern times I think quite small.


----------



## bloodhunter (May 5, 2009)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Studding sails? In those conditions? 40 knots? I don't think so.
> 
> They are the sails fully outboard of the courses. Pronounced Stunsails.
> 
> They are light weather sails and in modern times I think quite small.


Was wondering about that myself. Don't believe that there is any such thing as a scudding sail _per se_. According to a 19th century sailing manual scudding was the practice of running before the wind in storm conditions. According to the manual the sail used was a reefed fore course or fore topsail or if the wind was too strong under bare poles.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Studding sails? In those conditions? 40 knots? I don't think so.
> 
> They are the sails fully outboard of the courses. Pronounced Stunsails.
> 
> They are light weather sails and in modern times I think quite small.


Mark--It is my understanding that scudding sails (usually only one) were heavily built and roped and used in the manner of storm sails to allow a full rigged ship to "scud" before the wind and are/were decidedly different than the outboard light air Stunsails. Of course, I could be wrong...or be using the wrong terminology, but that was a term used by the old fishermen that once sailed the Alaska fishing boats out of San Francisco that spoke of their experiences when I was a boy chasing around the docks in Sausalito.

FWIW...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Well, I tried to read the other thread - got several pages in, then just lost interest.

Bottom line...I lost respect for this guy as a skipper (especially for the kind of boat he was on and the kind of crew he was in charge of) when he said "we chase hurricanes". I guess he finally caught one. Not exactly a pastime that lends itself to longevity for anyone involved. 

RIP.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

svHyLyte said:


> Mark--It is my understanding that scudding sails (usually only one) were heavily built and roped and used in the manner of storm sails to allow a full rigged ship to "scud" before the wind and are/were decidedly different than the outboard light air Stunsails.
> FWIW...


Google certainly doesn't like it, but it does stand to reason.

The bits I read on Scudding is with very little sail set, or none at all. And if a sail was used it would be t'gallants or topsails.

But the modern people may be adding to the words, which is natural.

Certainly makes more sense that Studding Sails (which, as I understand it is the correct way written, but pronounced Stuns'ls.... Of course they were all illiterate back then!)

Any investigation really needs a judge from the Master and Commander series!


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

After reading the ABC report, numerous other news reports, and watching the two Youtube videos that were posted, I believe this ship, and its management there of, had lots of problems before it went to sea in the face of the hurricane.

1) ABC described the engineer as a handyman, and there was no mention of his experience, if any with diesel engines, generators, pumps, and the like. Additionally, the article suggests that he didn't have lots of familiarity with what he had on board. I feel that this man did everything that he possibly could to keep things working, but I wonder, had there been a more qualified person in that job, would the outcome have been different? Specifically, a broken fuel guage was mentioned. Not giving out of fuel on the engines is rather important....wasn't there another way of checking fuel...a measuring tape through a fill port? But the article seem to suggest, that the guage was broken and a guess was made that they still had fuel in this tank. Couldn't they have switched to another tank with a working guage until they confirmed the fuel level in the tank with the broken guage? There was no mention, that I remember, of even topping off the fuel tanks before they left port to go into this storm. Maybe he was highly qualified...I don't know, and I do know that often the news organizations get it wrong in their reports and that they write from a standpoint to make the story interesting.

2) The crew seemed unaware that the storm was coming according to some of the reports. How could you not know? The networks were playing up the storm from the beginning. The crew members had families who were in contact, so you know they had to know. Everyone is a buzz about the storm that is going to hit the northeast and possibly NY city. And buzzing about how bad the storm is and how large.

3) In working the sails, I saw that the crew members had on safety line harnesses, but I saw only one who was hooking up or hooked up. Maybe the others were hooked in, but to me, at least, it wasn't obvious. And if I am correct, that tends to say alot about safety practices on the ship. And in working the sails, they really didn't seem to quite know what they were doing, however, in storm/bad conditions, things become more difficult and things don't always work as they should.

4) The engine room work space was cluttered and lots of things were not secured for sea, much less for a storm, rather lots of things were just laying about and loose. In no way was that ship ready to go to sea, much less going into a hurricane. Trash in the bilges is notorious for plugging pumps. (Granted that the video was not from the fatal voyage, but if it wasn't ready in one case, it was unlikely to be ready in others.)

5) The ships that I served on in the Navy had heavy weather procedures that required extra preparations to secure the ship and its gear. But there is no mention of a heavy weather procedure or special preparations before they got underway. Had they had such practices, the crew would have been working throughout the day before getting underway, just in case they might have to leave. Even at the dock, there was no mention of doubling lines and otherwise securing the ship in place. But the ABC article suggests that they were only informed that they might/would get underway one hour before they did. Even though we were not in the path of the storm, I spent a half day securing my little boat in preparation...they were in the path and then going into the storm and did nothing extra, if you believe the ABC report. And my marina, as I suspect many do, requires a detailed hurricane plan for every boat...and the marina is not going anywhere. It's written out in detail, how many lines, where they attach, what's to be removed, etc. and even has a Plan B spelled out in the event, for some unknown reason Plan A has to be aborted. Should a ship do less?

5) Giving the crew a one hour notice that we are getting underway, seems like a impulsive, knee jerk decision. The captain had to have been running through his mind how to best help his ship...stay put, move somewhere else, ride it out in the storm. And he had to be thinking about this for a long time. If everyone had been informed earlier, and they were making preparations just in case they did get underway, once the final decision had been made, giving one hour notice to decide whether crew members would go or not go is ok and reasonable. But if they were caught by surprise in the one hour framework that has been suggested, that was totally inappropriate.

6) This ship was a movie prop. As I understand it, it was originally was to be burned upon completion of the movie making. It was not and instead had a life in more movies, exhibitions, and ocean sailing. But the boat was a movie prop, and while naval architects were likely involved in designing and/or modifying the ship, they likely did it with emphasis on being a prop and exhibition ship, not one that is going to be spending its time at sea in storms and the like. Cost would increase significantly if you are building for real sea service and I think that the movie accountants would have a say in keeping movie production costs down. Consequently, in my opinion, the ship was being used in a manner for which it was not suited, especially in intentionally going to sea in extreme storms. Additionally, in the yard repairs/modifications, it seems from the reports, that finances may have been tight, in which case, decisions on what to repair, and how, were likely governed by the money available and not necessarily what was needed.

7) Someone mentioned ballast, which was typically used on those early ships in the form of rocks. No mention of ballast for Bounty. Part of the Navy heavy weather procedures for the ships that I was on was, when I served in 60's & 70's, to fill empty fuel tanks and partially filled tanks with sea water to help ballast down to assure the stability of the ship. 

So the bottom line, to me, is that the more I learn about the situation, the more disturbing it is. Others may disagree.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Well written and a lot of effort and thought.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

swampcreek said:


> "Chef,
> Don't let him bother you. He even admits he is a *******."
> 
> You say ******* like it's a bad thing!
> ...


Here is Definition of Red Neck from Wikipedia:
******* - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note also that definitions change over time and also different people have different definitions of what a word means (as explained in the wikipedia definition). People also define a definition.

In any case, you probably are a *"Fake *******"*From:
Urban Dictionary: fake-*******

"1. *Fake ********:
People who aren't truly ********, but more like guys who come from city/suburban to wealthy environments who will buy a truck, listen to country music and brag about "being a *******." You can tell that they look up to people like Ron White and Larry the Cable Guy as some sort of guidence reference on how to be a *******. They are generally all-talk, and they tend to always talk about their truck, hunting, their gun collection, country music, and the like. 
FR: "So we were listening to some Toby Keith while we were muddin' in ma truck and we saw some deer and we shot them summbitches...." 
Normal Person: "Oh shut the **** up you fake *******, you're from Maryland."

2. Fake Necks 5 up, 5 down 
Fake ******** or guys who dress up and pretend to be cowboys/******** to pick up girls who dig country boys.

Also guys who arent country but try to act country in order to impress girls who say they dig cowboys but dont really want to date a *******.
Monica really likes to pick up those preppy cowboys at the bar, she is really into fake necks."

A true ******* would be driving a gas powered pickup, not diesel...


----------



## HDChopper (Oct 17, 2010)

RobGallagher said:


> Again, and again, in reading the letter it appears the author has suffered a personal loss. Can't that just be respected?
> 
> Myself and another member both posted a copy at nearly the same time, although mine was second I still feel somewhat responsible. It was posted simply so that members who did not have a facebook account could read it.
> 
> ...


Got to agree with you Rob , I read the last thread on the Bounty and tried to read all of this on too but only made it to post 32 or so ......

I know this man who wrote that letter on facebook (no not personally) and someone reposted here , reading it sent me realing .....I have just such a letter in the left inside pocket of my jacket written in 1981 damn near statment for statment just substitute Bike/Chopper/Motorcycle where ever he says Boat/Ship/Slowboat it reads the same ....The man is hurting........

I wrote that letter for myself just because I couldnt tell my friend/ brother what I wanted to YELL at him , he was dead......Why ! we were the best ! hell we tought Motor Cops how to ride for pete's sake ! how to throw a dresser down at highway speeds & PICK it back up AT SPEED & keep persuit! it's not hard just boils down to skill and YEARS of practice , hell he knew that as well as I so Why????and on and on as you might imagine.... But there wasnt anyone else to say it to , after screaming at the walls and yelling at the stars all what I wanted to say & the neighbors starting to thing I was nutz ! .....I just had to sit down and write it out and put it in my pocket and felt better and was able to go on with my life & it's been there all these years.

So I say cut the man some slack....... YOU ARE ALL to close to all this YOUR SAILORS ... this kind of stuff hits ya right where ya live hell in days of old there were men and then there were Sailors & thay were considerd better men , This bothers yall cause the longer you sail the better one gets & Masters ! hell thay ought to know it all right? ...hes just a man ....

As an Systems Analyst I know anything could of happened and the world may never know what really happened ..... physics alone may be at work ...water being at a different state/speed rudder won't act normal ? , sails fail ? heck it matters not . All that matters is 2 ppl dead and a movie prop is gone . ya I've worked in hollywood a bit in my day , that Bounty certinly wasnt any where near a ship of the line kind of build of ship ... and that might actullay be it......

Sorry if this is OT I wont be reading anymore of this thread......you guya come to internet blows all too eazy...


----------



## xymotic (Mar 4, 2005)

casey1999 said:


> In any case, you probably are a *"Fake *******"*From:
> Urban Dictionary: fake-*******
> 
> "1. *Fake ********:
> ...


Sometimes there's a real gray area though, is this real or fake?






I vote "******* king" but I could see it going both ways.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

NCC320 said:


> After reading the ABC report, numerous other news reports, and watching the two Youtube videos that were posted, I believe this ship, and its management there of, had lots of problems before it went to sea in the face of the hurricane.
> 
> 1) ABC described the engineer as a handyman, and there was no mention of his experience, if any with diesel engines, generators, pumps, and the like. Additionally, the article suggests that he didn't have lots of familiarity with what he had on board. I feel that this man did everything that he possibly could to keep things working, but I wonder, had there been a more qualified person in that job, would the outcome have been different? ....


NCC320, some time ago I have read something about that on the GCaptain forum (one of the main forum used by maritime professionals). The generalized opinion was that a professional engineer would get away from that boat really fast.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

I too read something about Barksdale, the "engineer", as being a handy man and not too familar with marine diesels. However after seeing the interview on the weather channel, I would give Barksdale the benefit of the doubt since IMHO he came across as an intelligent person who would probably do a good job even without the certifications. I was not too impressed by the other two survivors. The way I understand it is that Barksdale was asked to be engineer without much notification by his friend the first mate after the prior engineer left. You would think that the investigation would want to interview the prior engineer, but I don't have that much faith in "investigations". It's cover your ass time.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

From some of the responses to Captain Jan Miles' "open letter" I am guessing that you have no idea who he is.
I have known Jan, pronounced Yon, since the early eighties when we were both sailing vessels in the Caribbean. He is held in very high regard by his peers in the industry and has logged more miles under sail than the majority of you on this forum put together, I would imagine. He is, and has been the captain of the Pride of Baltimore, and one of the most beautiful and well known of American tall ships for many years, as well as captain of other famous and well known tall ships. He is normally a soft spoken and mild mannered man, so rather than calling him a publicity whore, perhaps you should try to understand what he is trying to impart to you "sailors".
This was a completely avoidable tragedy, perpetrated by a very experienced and knowledgeable captain.
You have no idea of what effect this will have on the commercial sailing industry, no matter that it was a completely avoidable tragedy totally the captain's fault.
When an alloy power pontoon passenger boat about 30 feet long capsized in Boston Harbor in a squall some years back, with several fatalities, the USCG, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that every passenger carrying vessel they regulate should reduce their passenger carrying capacity by 30%, voluntarily. When they approached me as captain of an 84' steel schooner built expressly to USCG passenger carrying specifications to do this, the owner and I refused. Comparing that pontoon boat to that 84' steel schooner was like comparing a 4 wheeler to a tractor trailer rig.
There is, IMO, no place on this forum for those who have not walked (sailed) in the shoes of a truly knowledgeable person like captain Miles, for comments such as those above. He is not guessing, he knows what he is talking about. He has known the Bounty and her captain for many years. The sea is a harsh mistress and those captains who make their living on her are, in the end, responsible for their decisions. The loss of the Bounty and two of her crew was not an "act of God". It was because a very experienced and knowledgeable captain made some very bad choices.
Rather than criticize others, you, as a much less experienced sailor, should make good and sure that the decisions YOU make do not cost the lives of you and those sailing with you.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> From some of the responses to Captain Jan Miles' "open letter" I am guessing that you have no idea who he is.
> I have known Jan, pronounced Yon, since the early eighties when we were both sailing vessels in the Caribbean. He is held in very high regard by his peers in the industry and has logged more miles under sail than the majority of you on this forum put together, I would imagine. He is, and has been the captain of the Pride of Baltimore, and one of the most beautiful and well known of American tall ships for many years, as well as captain of other famous and well known tall ships. He is normally a soft spoken and mild mannered man, so rather than calling him a publicity whore, perhaps you should try to understand what he is trying to impart to you "sailors".
> This was a completely avoidable tragedy, perpetrated by a very experienced and knowledgeable captain.
> You have no idea of what effect this will have on the commercial sailing industry, no matter that it was a completely avoidable tragedy totally the captain's fault.
> ...


First I agree with you.
I think we all agree it was unavoidable and that Walbridge is responsible for it.
I also think many of us uinderstand now who Miles is and why he posted as he did.

MY question is not to argue with what you said at all. My question is you said



> You have no idea of what effect this will have on the commercial sailing industry, no matter that it was a completely avoidable tragedy totally the captain's fault.


You obviously have expertise in this by your credentials and your post therefore your opinions would be helpfull to allow us to understand
l 
What effect will this have on the industry?. 
What in your opinion do you think the effect will be on vessels like Bounty which are not really inspected like other ships which are highly inspected?
How can you prevent a


> a very experienced and knowledgeable captain


 from doing this again?
Do you have any suggestions?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

capta said:


> ...
> This was a completely avoidable tragedy, perpetrated by a very experienced and knowledgeable captain.
> You have no idea of what effect this will have on the commercial sailing industry, no matter that it was a completely avoidable tragedy totally the captain's fault.
> ....
> ...


I guess Chief had made some good questions. That "very experienced and knowledgeable captain" had said incredible things in an interview regarding sailing a XVIII designed boat in Hurricanes. We could have dismissed that as Bull in an interview but than Bounty's crew, his wife, himself and Bounty organization had stated that the Bounty had sailed in hurricanes and that was not the first one, but just the first one where the Captain went out of luck.

This don't seem like an isolated decision (to sail near a Hurricane) but a repeated pattern that is consistent with the fact that he stated that he liked to have a good ride from an hurricane (on that interview).

The questions are:

Did the tall ship community knew that Bounty's Captain sailed the Ship in conditions that would not to be considered safe (given the type of ship) by any normal safety standard?

If so why did not the TSC done nothing, like reporting its opinion to the CG?

Could not this accident have been prevented as well as those nasty effects over the TSC if the TSC had done that?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> I guess Chief had made some good questions. That "very experienced and knowledgeable captain" had said incredible things in an interview regarding sailing a XVIII designed boat in Hurricanes. We could have dismissed that as Bull in an interview but than Bounty's crew, his wife, himself and Bounty organization had stated that the Bounty had sailed in hurricanes and that was not the first one, but just the first one where the Captain went out of luck.
> 
> This don't seem like an isolated decision (to sail near a Hurricane) but a repeated pattern that is consistent with the fact that he stated that he liked to have a good ride from an hurricane (on that interview).
> 
> ...


Maybe the TSC should start their own voluntary accreditation system. Both the ship, Capt, and crew would need accreditation. This would be completely voluntary, but ships that did not have stamp of approval would be looked down upon, that alone would force more ships to join in. Ship inspections and crew accreditation would be done completely by TSC.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

> You obviously have expertise in this by your credentials and your post therefore your opinions would be helpfull to allow us to understand
> l
> What effect will this have on the industry?.
> What in your opinion do you think the effect will be on vessels like Bounty which are not really inspected like other ships which are highly inspected?
> ...


I tried to impart the insanity that follows a marine tragedy by the USCG with the story about the pontoon boat. I can't say what they will do, but I am sure that they will over-react in this case also and as this is not the kind of thing that happens often, or is really preventable by making laws or increasing training, what good will it do?
Nothing will ever prevent this sort of tragedy, unfortunately. I have been in a half dozen hurricanes (cyclones) at sea in my career, not one by choice, mind you, and in my opinion it is just plain a terrifying experience, even on a 613 foot ship! Why would I willingly do so again? Why would anyone, even once?
I have not seen the interview with the captain mentioned above, and the quoted parts seem quite a lot like bravado, which has no place in the decision making process of the captain of a vessel whose vessel and crew's lives are in his hands.
This was not about training, nor was it about laws or regulations or even regulating. It was about on the spot decision making by an experienced and respected captain who knew his vessel very well. How do you "fix" that?
I hope I've answered your questions.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

capta said:


> ....
> I have not seen the interview with the captain mentioned above, and the quoted parts seem quite a lot like bravado, which has no place in the decision making process of the captain of a vessel whose vessel and crew's lives are in his hands.
> ....


Here it is. At min 10.25


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Originally posted by Capta
> This was not about training, nor was it about laws or regulations or even regulating. It was about on the spot decision making by an experienced and respected captain who knew his vessel very well. How do you "fix" that?
> I hope I've answered your questions.


Thanks I agree with everything you said

Dave


----------



## bloodhunter (May 5, 2009)

capta said:


> I tried to impart the insanity that follows a marine tragedy by the USCG with the story about the pontoon boat. I can't say what they will do, but I am sure that they will over-react in this case also and as this is not the kind of thing that happens often, or is really preventable by making laws or increasing training, what good will it do?
> Nothing will ever prevent this sort of tragedy, unfortunately. I have been in a half dozen hurricanes (cyclones) at sea in my career, not one by choice, mind you, and in my opinion it is just plain a terrifying experience, even on a 613 foot ship! Why would I willingly do so again? Why would anyone, even once?
> I have not seen the interview with the captain mentioned above, and the quoted parts seem quite a lot like bravado, which has no place in the decision making process of the captain of a vessel whose vessel and crew's lives are in his hands.
> This was not about training, nor was it about laws or regulations or even regulating. It was about on the spot decision making by an experienced and respected captain who knew his vessel very well. How do you "fix" that?
> I hope I've answered your questions.


Never considered the new regs that might arise from this tragedy -- very good point. Given the laws of unintended consequences many of us on this forum could be affected. Otherwide there's not much that we can really learn from this except not to go into harm's way unless you absolutely have to. And maybe that anything the can go wrong will -- but we all knew that.

Otherwise agree with everything capta has written -- in spades. I too have been through a couple of hurricane-force storms and terrifying is not the word. Can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to voluntarily repeat the experience. That's why I always felt that what was said in the interview was just aimed at making a good story for the press. I know what the wife and crew said but I wonder whether they really knew. I mean I'm sure the Bounty encountered storms during her voyaging and given the propensity of people to exaggerate I can see these morphing into hurricanes in the minds of those who went through them. In any case it really doesn't matter.

As for Captain Miles' letter, it never really struck me as character assassination or an attack on a dead man. More than anything it seemed a rather anguished attempt by Captain Miles to come to grips in his own mind with the question of why a man he knew well as a sane and very experienced captain decided to sail out into a megastorm. That's something none of us will ever know


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bloodhunter said:


> ...Can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to voluntarily repeat the experience. That's why I always felt that what was said in the interview was just aimed at making a good story for the press. ...


However the explanation he gave to his crew before sailing to disaster, regarding what he wanted to do regarding sailing the hurricane, were pretty consistent with what he says to that reporter (on the movie posted above) regarding having a good ride out of an hurricane:

Quote:

Walbridge told a small group that the Bounty would be leaving for St. Petersburg, Fla., that night instead of the next morning. He wanted to get a jump on a massive weather system coming from the south that forecasters were calling "historic" and that one already had dubbed "Frankenstorm."...

*Walbridge formed a circle with his thumbs and index fingers, and told listeners to look at his right thumb. It represented the southeastern section of the hurricane.

"He said he wanted to get to the southeast quadrant and ride the storm out," said New London Dockmaster Barbara Neff.*

Bounty's ill-fated trip in face of hurricane scrutinized | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Regards

Paulo


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

How could he possibly get to the southeast quadrant of that storm considering the size of the thing and the top speed(under power) of the Bounty being somewhere around 5 knots? Wouldn't you want to be on the western wall anyway like he ended up? And could the Bounty even be sailed in those conditions with such a few number of competent crew? I'ld still like to hear from the military personnel that apparently had a sail aboard the Bounty the day before it left New London!


----------



## bloodhunter (May 5, 2009)

True, Paulo, but given the size and forecast path of the storm, how was he planning to get to that southeast quadrant without going through one of the the northern quadrants of the storm which are highly dangerous. In addition, winds in the southeast quadrant would be southerly pushing the Bounty away from her destination. According to the Facebook page the idea was to sail fast and squeeze by the storm but the Bounty was a slow ship even in the best of circumstances. (I don't see her getting over 9 kts unless you dropped her off a cliff) and by every report the storm was too big to squeeze around in any case. It all makes no sense not now and not then, before the Bounty set sail. As for getting 'a good ride', I just can't imagine anyone who has ever been in a hurricane ever saying that. It is beyond terrifying. The wind shrieks through the rigging like something trying to eat your soul. The whole boat vibrates like a guitar string. I've been there (not by choice but through an act of consumate stupidity) and I would never ever want to go through that again. 
Why would an experienced captain make that decision? This is what we don't know and will never know. 
I suppose it's too much to ask but I really hope that they don't make this tragedy into a made-for-tv movie


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bloodhunter said:


> True, Paulo, but given the size and forecast path of the storm, how was he planning to get to that southeast quadrant without going through one of the the northern quadrants of the storm which are highly dangerous. In addition, winds in the southeast quadrant would be southerly pushing the Bounty away from her destination. ...
> Why would an experienced captain make that decision? This is what we don't know and will never know.
> ..


Yes I agree. He started to go on one course that was probably consistent with what he had said than changed completely of course and tried to out run the storm???.

I think that CG should really investigate previous Bounty's Captain behaviors in what regards past hurricanes and extreme weather sailing. Did the Captain in fact proceeded some times like he described on that video? that was consistent with what he had said to his crew regarding what he wanted to do on this one.

There are a lot of statements that says that he used to do that and not from accusing sources, but from himself, his wife, Bounty's crew and Bounty's organization. There are some more clues that indicates that something was not right regarding the way he and the crew valued Bounty's seaworthiness to face extreme weather. Statements like this: "Bounty knows no boundaries" and "Bounty loves Hurricanes", not to speak of that interview, made by him or the crew raise doubts about that.

Of course if that is confirmed, I mean that this was not a first time, that creates a pattern that would help to explain why he chose to sail an Hurricane or why he said to its crew that the Bounty would be safer out there facing in the sea an hurricane than staying in Port (and off course to a good captain the lives of his crew are always the first concern).

I understand that this perspective is very inconvenient for the other Tall Ship Captains that would prefer a perspective where Bounty's Captain is "*an experienced and respected captain who knew his vessel very well*" that just made an inexplicable decision instead of a Tall Ship captain that sometimes took unacceptable risks with his Ship and that run out of luck.

He was one of them, I mean an experienced Tall Ship Captain and If this take on the facts was confirmed it would just raise even more public suspicion over Tall Ships and its captains.

Of course, it is possible several others explanation for an experienced and good captain (prudent has all good captains) to have deliberately taken a XVIII century designed wooden boat into an hurricane. Someone suggested a brain tumor, but I guess that there could be other explanations even if I cannot imagine them. Maybe someone can?

Regards

Paulo


----------

