# sailboat lost ???



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

on the afternoon news i heard a quick blurb about a sailboat that washed up without its crew around astoria, oregon. it was said the boat was being delivered from south africa to an american owner... we had a wicked storm with 100 mile an hour winds that day [thursday]. i have looked for more news and have not found anything... does any one here know any more about this ?


----------



## labatt (Jul 31, 2006)

Here's the link to the article... very unfortunate.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_121506_news_crew_sea.11c89a7c.html


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Wow...pretty ugly. Hope they find the guys in a life raft somewhere...but what the hell were they doing delivering a Cat to the Pacific Northwest in DECEMBER??? Hope we get more info down the road.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Their timing and observation of weather windows was less than optimal. The story doesn't say much about the captain and crew hired to deliver the boat, other than they left SFO on December 8. I doubt that the rope was "tied" around the prop—more likely it was washed overboard and got wrapped, which would be a big problem if they were motoring in heavy seas.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> I doubt that the rope was "tied" around the prop-more likely it was washed overboard and got wrapped, which would be a big problem if they were motoring in heavy seas.


Maybe the crew tried to stay with the boat after she flipped with a line to the shaft?
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Tartan34C said:


> Maybe the crew tried to stay with the boat after she flipped with a line to the shaft?
> All the best,
> Robert Gainer


Rob-

I truly hope that is not the case, as that would indicate that there were no survivors.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

I believe the CG press release used the words "tied to the propeller". With the water temperature what it is there, no survivors are likely. Reports indicated 20-30 foot waves with periods of 9 seconds. The catamaran was about 40 feet long.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> Rob-
> 
> I truly hope that is not the case, as that would indicate that there were no survivors.


I didn't express myself very well; I wanted to say that the liferaft was attached to the shaft. I didn't think that a person would lash themselves to the boat like that. I hope the raft shows up with the crew.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Rob-

In many cases of a multihull capsize, the crew does tie themselves to the boat, which is very unlikely to sink.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

This does not do much to build my confidence in Cats in big seas and heavy winds. I know that some say they are safer than monohulls, but once they go over, there is no turning back.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

I wish the story would elaborate on whether there was a liferaft on board before the trip and whether it was on board when the boat was found.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*worse than i thought...*

so sad... nothing more to say...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

*Here's the latest guys...body found on beach...Epirb inside boat and not activated...*
*Associated Press* LINCOLN CITY, Ore. - The Coast Guard suspended its search Saturday for three missing crewmen from the wreckage of a 44-foot catamaran that was found washed ashore Friday at Lincoln City.








US Coast Guard

The body of an unidentified male was found about 1 p.m. Saturday on a beach about five miles north of Coast Guard Station Siuslaw River in Florence, but nothing at the site indicated the man was part of the catamaran's crew, officials said. Authorities were trying to identify the body. 
A Coast Guard helicopter and a C-130 Hercules flew search patterns Saturday from 5 a.m. to 3 p.m. but crews did not spot any signs of survivors from the catamaran, according to a Coast Guard spokesman in Seattle. 
A logbook recovered from the wreck showed the last entry at 3 a.m. Dec. 11 about 10 miles from Cape Blanco. The entry indicated the crew had lowered the vessel's sails and deployed two anchors. 
The vessel's emergency radio beacon was found locked inside a box aboard the boat and unable to float free of the vessel in the event of an emergency, the spokesman said. 
The Coast Guard has not released the names of the catamaran crew or its owner in Renton, Wash., who had hired the crew to bring the boat from South Africa to Seattle for a boat show. The vessel was last seen leaving San Francisco Dec. 8 and was due Dec. 15 at Port Townsend, Wash.


----------



## awayocean (Oct 12, 2004)

Sad....................


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

CBinRI said:


> This does not do much to build my confidence in Cats in big seas and heavy winds. I know that some say they are safer than monohulls, but once they go over, there is no turning back.


Look at the condition of the upside down boat on the rocks. It says two things to me.

The old adage 'don't step off you boat until she sinks under you' (or words to that effect) is so damn true.

Maybe it's true that multis flip easier than monos but they'll still float upside down. The advantages positive buoyancy should not be underestimated.

I'm a mono hull laddie myself and have no intention of changing but do think that much critiscism of the safety aspects of multis is undeserved.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

My only question: *Why was the EPIRB locked in a box??? *It doesn't make sense...if he hired the crew to deliver the boat, and trusted them with the boat, why not let them have access to the EPIRB.

TDW-

As a multihull sailor, I'd have to agree that much of the criticism of the inherent unseaworthiness of multihulls is based on older designs or racing designs... neither of which are as safe as the cruising designs out there today.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sad story and I wouldn't be surprised if we're talking about a very experienced delivery crew? Of course it could be the new owners having just taking delivery of their new boat once stateside.



> This does not do much to build my confidence in Cats in big seas and heavy winds


We don't know what happened. The last entry in the logbook refers to "deploying 2 anchors" which might be an indication they were drifting too close to shore?

I hope the others are in a raft safe.
Eric


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Since there is no further news on the crew of this boat today, I continue to hope they will turn up in a liferaft somewhere. Hope if anyone hears anything they will post it here. 

I will comment on Cats in big winds and seas AT ANCHOR...as opposed to sailing. As many of you know, I was in Ivan in Grenada and we had many catamarans there as well. After the storm almost all the Cats were upside down. When the really big stuff hit, they would surge up on their anchors (facing into the wind of course) and the wind would get underneath them and they became "kites". Perhaps in this Oregon incident much the same thing happened, giving the crew little warning that disaster was about to strike. That would explain the lack of EPIRB release. 
I relate this , not to slam Cats....or comment on their seaworthiness. Only to try to explain what might have happened here AND to suggest to Cat owners that anchoring...no matter how strong the system may not be the best course of action in the face of a prediction of hurricane force winds. Maybe...get out of the water, get out of the way or get into the mangroves is a better strategy. 

Let's keep hoping for the best outcome in Oregon.


----------



## RichardElliott (Sep 24, 2001)

*Multihulls*

I would think that in principle a blue water boat should not float better upside down than right side up!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam, I'm sure more facts will eventually come out. But "That would explain the lack of EPIRB release. " seems like a misread to me, doesn't the article in fact say the EPIRB was LOCKED IN BOX below? Not simply undeployed, but apparently STOWED AND SECURED in a locked box.

Sounds like the owners were rushing it to the boat show and the delivery crew never took the time to really prep the boat--which had some of the easily pilfered toys locked away out of sight and mind when they picked it up, perhaps?

Hindsight is always so much clearer than foresight. (sigh)


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

HelloS...yes...that is exactly what I was thinking...This was not some heavy weather...boat taking on water event. It must have been a catastrophic no-warning event. To me...that means a flip that gave the crew no time to react or even deploy the Epirb and the "kiting" I saw in Grenada would maybe explain how that might happen on such a big boat that had already been sailed all the way from South Africa and was skippered by a delivery crew...not an inexperienced new owner. The loss of the mast or a damaged coach roof would not have been as quick and there was no obvious damage to the hull. Hope the others survive and we may hear the real story.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam-
"To me...that means a flip that gave the crew no time to react or even deploy the Epirb "
Does it?

Riddle me this: What experienced offshore crew would cast off the dock with their EPIRB _locked in a box below_ ??

An EPIRB should either be deployed in the deck mount (hydrostatic mount above deck, as required on commercial vessels), or secured in a readily accessible position so it can be grabbed and taken on deck during an emergency. There's simply no excuse for it being LOCKED IN A BOX BELOW when the boat is going offshore. Or at least, none that readily comes to my feeble mind. (Hey, maybe it was haunted, or caught shooting craps while on watch, so they locked it away.<G>)

The newsbit just has "Come look at this, we don't know anything but we promise to show you gore and new ways to die!" Nooze written all over it, and the usual sad dearth of any real information.

Keep away from Jos. Pulitzer's grave, the soil above it is probably roiling as he keeps turning in his grave.


----------



## Kernix (Oct 5, 2006)

"Riddle me this: What experienced offshore crew would cast off the dock with their EPIRB locked in a box below ??"

Right - they did know that a storm was coming, right? That's why the article mentions that they "lowered the sails and deplyed two anchors" 10 miles from Cape Blanco - so if you know that conditions are bad enough to realize that the sails on the cat would possibly cause flipping AND then to also throw 2 anchors in, wouldn't you maybe think having the EPIRB close at hand would be wise as well?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Heck, on a casual trip from SOUTH AFRICA TO SEATTLE?

Am I really the only one who would have unlocked the safety gear, tested it, and moved it to "ready at sea" positions before casting off?

Or, was there just a lot of gunfire at the docks that day, so they were casting off in a hurry? (NY/LI sailors may recognize that as the phrase "What, are we evacuating Shoreham today?")


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One question I have, is *how experienced was the delivery crew with multihulls?*

Sailing a multihull is quite different from sailing a monohull, and the storm tactics are generally a bit different as well. I'm also surprised that they did not have a drogue of some sort. I carry a Jordan Series Drogue on my boat, at least for the longer passages, and have practiced deploying it... Retreiving it is a royal PITA BTW.

If the crew wasn't familiar with the peculiarities of multihulls, it is very likely that they contributed to the flipping of the boat. In almost all of the recent documented capsizes of _cruising_ multihulls, capsizes were generally due to crew error.

As for the EPIRB... I would have had it out, tested and put in its automatic release bracket before leaving the dock...and not put it away until I was getting off the boat for the last time.

BTW, cam- I would agree that an improperly designed cat will have serious issues with wind-induced capsizes at anchor, given strong winds, high swell and such.. Most cruising cats also have far more freeboard and windage than they really should.


----------



## morganmike (Oct 31, 2006)

I don't think I would presume to second guess the crew without more information. We can all speculate on what we would have done but that has no bearing on what actually happened. I can think of at least one possibility to explain the EPIRB being locked below without having it be a crew competence issue. Does anyone have any more actual facts?


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

"I can think of at least one possibility to explain the EPIRB being locked below without having it be a crew competence issue."


Like, ????? Please elucidate.


----------



## dmchose (Sep 5, 2003)

btrayfors said:


> "Like, ????? Please elucidate".


The darn thing didn't work, or do to long hours of weather induced stress and mind numbing exhaustion, its use was not thought of in a timely manner ? 
Don


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

"The darn thing didn't work, or do to long hours of weather induced stress and mind numbing exhaustion, its use was not thought of in a timely manner ?"

Don,

Nice try. The first thought (didn't work) is testable because they recovered it. The second is not plausible for an experienced crew. Nobody in their right mind would leave port on a difficult ocean voyage with threatening weather, with the EPIRB locked up. Sorry.

Bill


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Since there has been no further official news for the last 2 days..here's a link to a discussion that includes several family members. From the discussion it appears as if there was a raft on board...so there is still hope.

http://www.topix.net/forum/us/coast-guard/TJ865QVJ8MLRNTOAO

As to a GPS in a locked cabinet...my own GPS is kept down below in a drawer close to the companionway. To me, a locked cabinet simply means one that wouldn't open accidentally...but I would have to agree that with sails down and two anchors out it should have been close at hand. Who knows what they were going through and what conditions were on board.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

"To me, a locked cabinet simply means one that wouldn't open accidentally...

Come on, Cam. ALL lockers and drawers on an ofshore boat should be so constructed as not to open accidentally. Locked means locked. Or, maybe, the press got it wrong, as they often do.

Anyway, it's for sure that we can't second guess the crew, or really know their circumstances. The forecast weather was horrible, and over 110 knot winds were recorded not far north of them.

Poor sods...let's hope they're bobbing around in a liferaft and will be found soon.

One thing I find interesting....the owner has been pretty silent about all this. Curious.

Bill


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

*"maybe, the press got it wrong, as they often do."*...That was my assumption Bill since I couldn't imagine an experienced delivery crew having an Epirb under lock and key and I coould imagine a reporter not knowing that all drawers/cabinets are "locked" at sea.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cam-

Generally, at least from my understanding of the word, "locked" indicates that it is secured in a way against opening without authorization, usually in the form of a key. Lockers, cabinets and drawers on a boat should be secured against accidental opening, but that is a very different thing from being locked.

I hope the crew is bobbing around in a liferaft...but it looks pretty doubtful, given the weather and the conditions that caused the loss of the boat initially. 

Then again, the crew may not have realized that there was an EPIRB in a locked container in the cabin of the boat. If the container that was locked, wasn't marked, they may not of known it was there... However, I would have asked about an EPIRB, given that the delivery was from South Africa to Seattle...


----------



## daren23 (Aug 23, 2006)

Today's 'Lectronic Latitude gave it some coverage.

Here's the URL:

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicLat/LectronicLat.html


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

One thing that comes immediately to mind is the probable lack of exposure suits. After the Marine Electric went down off the east coast, less than 50 miles offshore, they are required on all merchant vessels. Trescott carried one, along with a raft, on his trans-Atlantic passage in a 20' trailer-sailer. As mentioned by tdw, it is NEVER a good idea to step down into your rescue craft. Furthermore, your raft does not come equipped with the necessary gear to stay warm. The first order of business should be to don the exposure suit. This can even be done in the water, if necessary, but much easier on board. The suit will keep you afloat and also keep you warm-a much bigger factor in the conditions described. Death from exposure can occur quite rapidly inside the raft-they are not exactly waterproof. The easily remembered number is 50/50. You've got 50 minutes in 50 degree water. In most cases you are going to be swimming to the raft as well, and the "gumby" suit will keep you dry, warm, and floating at a level that will make it easier to get in the raft. It seems almost inconceivable that you can be in the cold water for only a few minutes and not have the strength in your fingers to grip something tightly but that is the case. If tied off to the sail-drive, in a suit, they'd have had a chance.
This doesn't sound like a case where EPIRB deployment, unless done prior to capsizing, would have done much.


----------



## morganmike (Oct 31, 2006)

*Gimme a break - THINK for 3 seconds*



btrayfors said:


> Please elucidate.


It's a *delivery*, right? With a *delivery crew* taking the boat to the *new owner*.

Maybe they never knew the HAD an EPIRB, because it was never mentioned in any documentation or instruction provided to the crew. They simply came onboard, assessed whatever equipment was available to them and got underway. Being concientious crew, they declined to break into the locked locker and since they have no notion that the EPIRB is in there, they have no reason to do so even when the **** hits the fan. Simple. Is that crew error? Nope, it's entirely within the bounds of normal for a delivery crew (I wouldn't expect them to break into a locked liquor locker, either.)

Now, we can have a long debate about whether they should have got underway without an EPIRB, but it's just a pleasant mental exercise, because nothing guarantees that even if they had one would anyone have been able to get to them in time. Was it even registered? Who knows. Nobody on this board, that's for sure. And that's exactly my point. We can scare ourselves, or chose to feel superior, or whatever makes you Monday morning quarterbacks happy. But it's all just babble until someone comes up with more facts.

Note for the clueless: items in *bold* are FACTS, everything else is just speculation.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

I agree that the EPIRB situation was not necessarily a crew competency issue. Suppose they were told that there's a brand new EPIRB on board, but nobody told them where it was stowed. They looked in the most obvious places and couldn't find it, but they trusted the person who told them it was there, and concluded that it would turn up. After they left, they got caught up in the routine of sailing the boat, and stopped looking for the EPIRB. By the time they realized they needed it, they were exhausted and panicky and sick and mere survival was a more immediate issue than finding the EPIRB. 

As others have pointed out, experienced delivery crews don't usually make big, obvious mistakes, like knowingly starting a long passage without an EPIRB. What is more likely is that the EPIRB was there all along, they trusted that it would be there, but they couldn't find it when they needed it. It was a minor lapse in judgment, whose disastrous consequences they didn't foresee at the time of departure.


----------



## Newport41 (Jun 30, 2006)

Let's not think for a second that the crew didn't know the EPIRB was on board. You don't just hop aboard and go. If you sailed from S. Africa wouldn't you have had time to take stock of what was aboard for safety eqipment. Any international delivery Captin would know what's on the boat he's about to take across international boarders. It's hard to say what happened. It would make sense to have emergency equipment ready at all times when offshore. So if something happened so quickly that they couldn't get to the EPIRB how did they launch the life raft? I think the crew will be the only people who will ever know what happened. I think the big issue is the risks delivery crews take to make deadlines. Everyone knew that storm was coming. Why would they be out there? There's go to be more to this. Finally, I feel modern Cats are very stable. However, if a really large wave catches you you're going over in any vessel. I momohull comes back up, a cat won't.


----------



## Newport41 (Jun 30, 2006)

Another thing about multi's. A lot of the reason that they can be so great offshore is their ability to out run weather systems. This advantage is taken away when the crew isn't alert to the weather. I hate to say it but I feel this was completely avoidable.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"but they trusted the person who told them it was there, "
I did that. Once.

Friday evening, before a weekend with two full-day races and an overnight stop on it, we checked out a boat. Checked all the sailbags, everything.

Saturday morning, already committed to the schedule and an hour off the docks...we found out that someone stuffed a genoa in the spinnaker bag, there was no chute on the boat which meant no chance in either race.

Don't ask the consternation that followed. We managed to start on time only through massive dumb luck, or prayers. With our chute, thanks to some incredible assists. Literally, charging the starting line and taking on crew from one rail and the chute from the other, the Gods must have been laughing their asses off to see a boat start that way.

But from that I learned, when it comes to anything that matters? There's no such thing as "trust" or "assume". You check it out yourself. Or, as a certain politician says, "Trust but verify."<G>


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hello,

I totally agree with you on the trust! I look for myself. I check it myself. I helped crew on a J one time and I remember driving the Captain crazy with, "Ok, where is this... and that... oh, and what about-"

(He did not ask me back).

But I am here and alive talking to you too!

On the other side, let me also say this: We talk about what it is like. The storm is approaching. The boat flips over. In poor seamanship they forget to pull out the EPIRB (or never checked at all). I will tell you that I have been suprised by a few nasty little storms myself. THings get frantic. Calmly remeniscing on what you might do and how you might do them have almost no application in the real world of "OH CRAP! Is that squall line green!???"

Things get forgotten and screwed up... which is probably exactly what happened. Maybe it was a freak wave form the storm and they flipped over. Scrambling for their lives (as I would if my boat flipped over), they grabbed the life raft (or not) and got on top of the boat as quickly as possible because they thought they would drownd or go down with the vessel. I am sure it was dark. The seas were ferocious. Instinct & absolute fear took control. 

Would I have gone out without an EPIRB in plain site? Well, you can guess the answer to that. But the waves approach before a storm, and for one, I cannot imagine the terror or how I would respond if my boat were turtled.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Things get forgotten and screwed up... which is probably exactly what happened." Yup, got the tshirts in the drawer to remind me.<G>
Can't judge much from one short nooze bite, it just sticks out as odd that an EPIRB, or any safety gear, would be *LOCKED* in a *BOX* down below after thousands of miles and weeks at sea.
The ERPIB would be in the ditch bag, at the companionway, and if I'd found out two days out of port that someone had locked it away? That lock would have had an industrial accident in short order. 
I've had days when I forget, was overtired, first time of the season slow brains, done things stupid, sure. But on the offshore safety issues...Nuh-uh, some things are simply not allowed on my watch. I have no interest in being lost at sea. No one checked the ditch bag? OK, after a day, two, three, four...someone has time to check it out. Maybe they did, and said "oops" but everyone was mellow and expecting a milk run instead of this really unseasonable wx. And maybe the "locked box" was so inconspicuous, they never even noticed it. Like, a cupboard in the owner's cabin where no one would expect gear. I could see that happening. A good reason to carry a personal EPIRB in one's life vest!

I doubt we'll ever hear enough followup to really find out what happened here, but it would still be nice to know.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Lessons learns from mistakes made. Until then, only thoughts and prayers out to the familes involved.


----------



## Shack (Sep 5, 2006)

*Cat Stability*

_Three more men who won't be home for Xmas this year. A sad loss indeed, I feel for their families. _

There has been alot of discussion here examining the issues of individual/crew capacity or neglect. All this seems pretty speculative. But what about the boat? I' d like to hear more examples out there of catamarans going inverted? . . . outside of a hurricane/typhoon?

I recall an event in 2002 when the 44' "Caliente" capsized in N. Lake Michigan on the race to Mackinaw. A trimaran "Emma" also turtled that day. Lake Michigan is a respectable body of water, but not known for hurricanes.

Freek winds being what they are, I'm curious as to just *how often *these things actually go over in winds of 40 to 55 kts (B-scale 8-10) winds.


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

Just a thought here. I'm inclined to distinguish between "good seamanship" and "good insurance". I would place an epirb in the latter categorie. Maybe semantics but from the forum posted earlier, it looks as though these guys have enough experience for them to be well proven as having "good seamanship". Some people still chose not to have an epirb, figuring they have no business risking the lives of others to save their buts. I don't necessarily feel that way but some do. Also, there is nothing to say that one or more of the delivery crew wasn't carrying a their own epirb, not at all uncommon among pros.


----------



## EscapadeCaliber40LRC (Sep 25, 2006)

What route would one sail from South Africa to the Oregon coast ? This crew must have been experienced sailors to tackle such an unlikely routing. I feel for the families of these unfortunate. 

Oregon has been in the news lately. Sailing north along the west coast seems like a rather risky adventure this time of year. It is definitely upstream and into the wind. The news report said the boat's log reported they had set two anchors and doused sails near Cape Blanco which is in Southern Oregon. The body found near Florence has been ruled out as being too long in the water to be connected with the boat wreckage in Lincoln. Lincoln is a long ways up current and up wind from Blanco. So they must have raised their anchors and sails and headed north after resting the early morning of the 11th. This is just about the time the three climbers were lost on Mount Hood not too far to the east of this tradegy. 

Years ago, I lived in Oregon, went to college there and coincidently worked in the woods along the Oregon cost as far south as the Siuslaw river area near Florence. I also taught skiing at Timberline Lodge on Mt Hood. So both tragedies hit home for me. When I was there, another ski instructor died while hiking above the upper chair on the mountain. He had skied into a cravass. It is a dangerous mountain and can have absolutely horrible weather. It is that same horrible weather that those poor sailors ran into near Lincoln but they knew it was horrible, else why would they set two anchors the night before at Cape Blanco 100 miles south of Lincoln having just sailed up from South Africa? I think they made a foolish choice by sailing past Coos Bay in between, where they could have waited out the weather in safety and comfort. The Oregon coast is a treacherous and rugged coastline, with very few places to put in along. Beautiful for a drive down the coast highway but pounded by the relentless wind, rain, and current that comes beating down from the Alaskan Gulf. Six lives lost by not factoring weather more seriously. These tragedies did not have to happen.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

You guys might be a bit more sensitive with the rampant speculation that serves no purpose on how competant or incompetant the crew is. There is not enough info to know anything either way and family members may stumble on this thread.
pigslo


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

The Pacific NW can be extremely nasty during the winter. Any time after Dec 1 would be considered a bad time to make a trip up the coast due to nearly continuous storm fronts coming in. Winds above 50kts and swell above 20ft are not unusual. The water is cold (low 50's) and the coast is mostly a lee shore with limited anchorages. Natural harbors are far/few between and many times the harbors cannot be entered due to breaking waves at the mouth to the harbor. Ocean sea swell will build into breakers as they approach the coastal shallows.

If the boat was anchored and the storm came in during the night they may have been fighting to get away from the coast and in the face of building wind and seas. They probably had their hands full; forgot to get the EPIRB out and were flipped over by a swell. I know this is speculation; but in an emergency there may have been to much going on to remember the EPIRB. The fact that the boat is inverted should tell us all that whatever happened was pretty extreme and likely sudden. It is possible that the EPIRB was stowed in a watertight ditch container (they metal type with latches/seal). That would explain the "locked box" description. That would be a logical place to stow important paperwork and the EPIRB if you wanted to activate it while aboard a liferaft.

Here is a plot of the surface winds on the 14'th; looks like 35-45kt directly ashore in the northern coast of Oregon...

http://manati.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/qscat_archive21/QS2006348/zooms/WMBas6.png


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I must say that I am a little puzzled by the responses here. What good is an EPIRB if you are dead when help arrives? My logic flows in the direction that you must first survive and then signal. So in priority order I would think that one would have a raft, a gumby suit, and then an EPIRB. Obviously, all three are most desirable. But the lack of the first two really negates the value of the latter.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

shack-
"Lake Michigan is a respectable body of water, but not known for hurricanes. " I've only met LM from the Chicago shoreline, but some of the Great Lakes routinely swallow ore carriers and other large ships, there can be some outright nasty wave action on them. Which is why we pay obeisance to both Poseidon *and* Aeolus, there's more than one way to get in trouble afloat.

Escapade-
If they were hired to deliver the boat to a show, on a deadline...there's a good chance that wx or no wx, they'd never work for that client again and they'd have real incentive to push on in anything that seemed possible. Also, they may simply has chosen to stay out of a local port for which they might have had no charts.

I don't think there's anything here to upset anyone. No accusations about the crew or there competence. Only questions about what really happened, because the little we've been told just doesn't say much. I think we've all had the chance to say "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time."

Sailaway-
"What good is an EPIRB if you are dead when help arrives?" Seriously. The same reason that I was taught to wear a PFD even when the water so was cold that if anyone went overboard, they'd be dead before we could come go back to get them. Some damn fine men go out in the worst of weather on SAR teams, and as a courtesy and respect to them, you make it easy to recover your body so they aren't busting hump looking for you and wasting the SAR effort while endangering their own lives.

It would be nice to never need one. Nice to never use one. Even nicer to know that when everything else had failed, I could flip a switch and maybe, just maybe, get out alive.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Hello,
I normally find myself in agreement with you, but on this point I am either misunderstanding you, or you me, and I don't really see the point of alerting the CG to come find my body. I think it is this logic that motivates some cruisers not to carry an EPIRB and while I am not too sure I agree with them, what is the point to launching a recovery attempt if your goose is already cooked? If you are transitting from Australia to Conus your rescue/recovery time could be measured in days. I wouldn't want anyone expending that effort for my body alone-the sea will dispose of that. If they're going to come out, I feel that it is my obligation that they have a better chance of finding me alive-in my gumby and raft.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Shack-

Hurricanes aren't the only deadly storms out there. Many a New England Nor'easter has been rated at "hurricane" strength and the only reason they're not considered hurricanes, is that they're not tropical revolving storms.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Sailaway, if you're slipping across an ocean unannounced, that's one thing. Sure, you can do that and no one will be launching SAR efforts if that's how you prefer to go. I just think that for most of us, most of the time, there's a good chance that someone has been in contact with us, someone may have a float plan on file...someone may launch SAR even if we don't. (Or, someone still on the boat may call SAR if one of us doesn't show up for watch change.<G>) 
Waiting quietly in a life raft with Gumby? Hell no, I could wait *patiently* but that's no my idea of a vacation, if I have to spend the night in a life raft, on a planet that is literally wired from pole to pole and the top of Everest too? I'm going to be just as happy to push a button and discuss the room service menu with a SAR team. (So to speak.<G>)
Hanging out in a rubber boat trying to compete against the sea? Nah, thank you, not my idea of sailing. Do it if I have to, but I'd prefer better resources.


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

> [
> Shack-
> 
> Hurricanes aren't the only deadly storms out there. Many a New England Nor'easter has been rated at "hurricane" strength and the only reason they're not considered hurricanes, is that they're not tropical revolving storms.
> /QUOTE] Exactly Sailing Dog,that`s why anyone that has a lick of sense won`t be out there.When i go out fishing in the north Atlantic the storm systems can last for up to a week,chopping ice and dealing with zero visibility is the norm.100 foot wave took down the Ocean Ranger. a report"The storm was classified a "Sea State 8," which means waves averaging 15 metres high with 70-knot winds. Meteorologists called it a "10-12 year storm" - a storm that severe happens approximately every 10 to 12 years. The waves were described as "high and short," meaning they were tall with a short distance between them. This sort of wave has very steep slopes, and often breaks, slapping anything in its path with a massive wall of water." end of report, We sail toys so don`t push your luck , messing with the seasons.Know where you are sailing and when you should be going.


----------



## Kernix (Oct 5, 2006)

What about your family having a body to bury? It may not be important to you since your dead and don't care, but giving loved ones closure is not a bad thing.


----------



## sailcat53 (Mar 2, 2001)

Two factors on Caliente and Emma. Both were racing with spinnakers up with obvious storms approaching and warnings issued well in advance. The lakes are famous for fast moving powerful storms. Emma was being steered by a very young inexperienced person. Caliente was just plain foolish, same boat and crew repeated the same stunt a year later and got away with it. I was there for all three occasions. We did not flip a 2000 lb tri in any of it.

Stop the speculation and read the previous post showing emails of relatives. Very experienced people who could have survived if they could have stayed with or in the boat. Liferafts are no place to be in high seas or waves.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

*This was posted today by the sister of one of the crew:
*
Thank you all for your blessings. Keith and I are here in Oregon. A few notes for you all. The rope that was tied around the starboard prop, as found by the initial rescuers (Lincoln City Fire & Rescue) was definitely tied in three half hitches. From this, we can conclude that at least one sailor was in the water after the boat capsized. From our discussions with Coast Guard, we are confident that the crew was doing all that they could to stay ahead of the storm. Their diligent hourly logs, the sea anchors deployed, and the sailing history of the Captain and his crew members provided evidence of this. The Oregon coast provides little safe haven for any exit from the stormy seas. Local sailors and Coast Guard officials confirmed that even if they had reached Coos Bay, it's nearly impossible to enter in stormy conditions such as last week's storm. Furthermore, that storm's winds blew 100 mph at times, equivalent to a hurricane. We confirmed with the Oregon State Police that the body found in Florence is NOT associated with our sailors. We are heading to the regional office here in Portland today to speak with the Chief Investigator.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

Thanks for that info, Cam..

This could be read as good news, though the spokesperson didn't mention a liferaft or survival suits. Presumably, there was a raft and it may have been tethered to the starboard prop for awhile. So, in the best case scenario the crew could still be afloat and even alive. Even the fact that the body wasn't one of the crew members could be good news, i.e., meaning that the crew of three could still be all together.

Polyanna, I know. But let's hope.

Bill


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Amen to that.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

*Search Suspended; Missing Crew Identified*

Very sorry to learn:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/19/BAG8JN28GF1.DTL

Bill


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Very sorry to learn:"

The search has only been *suspended*, not called off. (Due to wx perhaps). And, there have been no bodies recovered, no life raft, etc.

So there is every reason to hope all three are still somewhere, wet and miserable perhaps, but quite possibly stranded on the Oregon shore and at least on land.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I was just thinking about the comment that camaraderie made about multi-hulls becoming kites in high winds. Maybe something can be learned from this disaster about whether it is a good idea to deploy a sea-anchor on a multi-hull in heavy wind/seas. I could see how a multi with sea anchors would be held up while cresting a wave and get too much exposure of the underside; the wind and wave force would then push the boat over backwards. Some water tank testing could be done to determine if this is a potentially worse thing to do than keeping the boat abeam to the seas. Maybe testing a sea anchor off of the midships would also give an idea if a multi is more stable with waves on the beam than to the bow. It is extremely difficult to roll a multi-hull laterally; the rouge wave theory might not be the answer as to why this happened. The logical choice for a sailboat or powerboat is to use the sea-anchor, but maybe this is not the best tactic for a multi.

Please dont take this comment as "DO THIS INSTEAD"; I am only mentioning the possibility that the sea-anchor may have made matters worse in their situation; and if it can be proven then it might be possible for a new safety measure to be developed for multihulls. So far as we know the last log entry made was deployment of the sea-anchors, I think a logical step would be to determine if that might have caused the boat to roll.


----------



## morganmike (Oct 31, 2006)

> I'm going to be just as happy to push a button and discuss the room service menu with a SAR team.


Personally, I find that sort of attitude reprehensible.

Recreational sailors have NO EXCUSES for needing to be rescued: if you can't take care of yourself and your boat, DON"T GO TO SEA. Deal with the consequences of your actions on your own, and don't expect others to come save your ass when you shouldn't have been there in the first place. Take care of your own boat, plot your own course, and when your time comes to die from some colossal screwup that is in no small part your own fault, have the grace to die without endangering the lives of others.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

morganmike said:


> Personally, I find that sort of attitude reprehensible.
> 
> Recreational sailors have NO EXCUSES for needing to be rescued: if you can't take care of yourself and your boat, DON"T GO TO SEA. Deal with the consequences of your actions on your own, and don't expect others to come save your ass when you shouldn't have been there in the first place. Take care of your own boat, plot your own course, and when your time comes to die from some colossal screwup that is in no small part your own fault, have the grace to die without endangering the lives of others.


Yikes!

So, what if the next time we're cruising offshore, I inadvertantly strike a semi-submerged object - penetratrating the hull, seawater winning over my bilgepumps - I just kiss my ass goodbye and not call a mayday? I find your solution reprehensible.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

MorganMike....while I agree with the self reliant attitude, I do find some comfort in the fact that if things go terribly wrong I can climb in the raft and push a button and have a good chance of making it. I really resent the attitude that you don't have to prepare yourself and your boat as if the button didn't exist...but I'm sure glad to have one. Given all the stupid stuff my tax dollars have been wasted on over the years...I won't feel guilty at all if I hit a container some day and have to push that button!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Here, by law now: 

1) VHF with DSC, inspected and tested by the Government, powered by independent battery. 
2) EPIRB on all boats from Unlimited Coastal (class III) upwards to Oceanic Class I, also inspected and tested by the Government, mounted on bulkhead, near boat companionway. Illegal inside a box or compartment.
3) Weather station (printing in paper!!) on all boats above class II

If Gov. man is not happy with all the above, boat stays "feet dry".

All tested every 5 years by Gov. man, but tested yearly by owner.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Giu...what do you need to have in the weather station? Navtex type text printing or weather fax or what?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Navtex, and weather fax if crossing the Atlantic


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

Ok. I'm going to add my 2-Cents worth, and I'm going to ignore the comments made by Morganmike. I will admit that I have not kept up with the entire thread, so if I am way out of line, please go easy on me.

Think about this scenario.

Is it not possible that in fact the Captain and crew were well seasoned with many years of experience?

That the Captain thought in his mind that he was doing everything right by lowering sails going bare boned and deploying sea anchors?

That in fact the Captain was confident in both the boat and his abilities to ride out the storm with the 100MPH gusts? 

Is it not possible that the erib was stowed below out of reach because nobody felt as if there was an immediate danger?

Maybe that's when a catastrophic event happened leaving the crew with no time to react. Perhaps the kiting effect that Cam points out or even a Rouge Wave. We may never know.

I think this Captain simply was overconfident in his abilities; a grave mistake to make.
We all know, you must respect the Sea or she will turn on you and bite your head off.

Just as Captain McSorley said moments before his vessel plummeted to the bottom," We are holding our own." He too was a well-seasoned Captain and held in very high regards.


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

I don't care how good a captain you are. If a rogue wave turns you over, the s*** is gonna hit the fan and your a** is toast. Hopefully they will turn up floating in a liferaft with the details.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

This conversation reminds me of a discussion in Tom Wolfe's book, _The Right Stuff. _Wolfe talks about how whenever one of the daredevil pilots from the 50s and 60s would perish in an accident, the other pilots would dissect the circumstances of the accident, trying to find some fault witih the pilot.

He seemed to suggest that this was a coping mechanism, because the pilots did not seem to want to admit to themeselves that they were in an ultrahazardous profession where people would sometimes die, no matter how careful they were.

I've seen some of this from sailors as well. I agree that avoiding bad weather is something that can be within our control. But once it finds you, sometimes even heroic efforts will not save you. The powers of nature can be far greater than even the most resourceful and experienced sailor.

I hope they turn up.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

CBinRI said:


> This conversation reminds me of a discussion in Tom Wolfe's book, _The Right Stuff. _Wolfe talks about how whenever one of the daredevil pilots from the 50s and 60s would perish in an accident, the other pilots would dissect the circumstances of the accident, trying to find some fault witih the pilot.
> 
> He seemed to suggest that this was a coping mechanism, because the pilots did not seem to want to admit to themeselves that they were in an ultrahazardous profession where people would sometimes die, no matter how careful they were.
> 
> ...


this is the most truthful post in the entire thread... I wholeheartly agree with this... The sea is a wonderful and dangerous creature who at a moments notice go from tranquil to terror with little warning... I also hope and pray for the lives of the sailors who are missing and the familys waiting for word as well and hope to learn from their personal experinces once they are found... 
we need to keep them in our prayers and thoughts as we go about our daily lives


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

morganmike said:


> Personally, I find that sort of attitude reprehensible.


Well, MorganMike, either I didn't make my point or you didn't stop to absorb it. I take cautious pride in never having t-boned another racer and never having run aground, because I know that every year I go without incident the odds against me just get higher. Statisticians may disagree, but they can't factor in "used up all your luck" and I'm superstitious. Or, religious, depending on how you feel about the older and more obscure religions.<G>

I earnestly HOPE that I will never have to call for SAR aid for myself. I earnestly HOPE that I will never have to push the button on an EPIRB, for myself or others.

But I have spent time floating around in the open sea with just a BC on (the SCUBA equal to a PFD) and I have had the pleasure of knowing that my own BC was good enough to carry two instead of just one. Comfortably. Still, it's not something I'd want to do for any long time. That just can't be a pleasant way to die.

If I ever find myself in the position of saying "Gee, there's a real good chance I'm going to have a long slow death out here", I will nevertheless feel no compunction against pushing a button and trying to get found by a SAR team. I've paid for the team, I've paid for their training and gear, and I know very well just how hard they work for their keep.

And if it is a choice between saying my final prayers and calling for SAR, like I said, I'll have no problem pushing the button, calling them out at night in the worst of WX, and at the same time tonguelashing them if they haven't remembered to bring a thermos of hot cocoa with them. (Helps if you smile when you do that.<G>)

If you'd rather die in peace, that's your option. It's suicide, but that's your option. Me? Nuh-uh. I'm a cheap b*stard and as long as I've already paid for that great white and orange bird in the sky, I'm gonna be glad to see it when needed. I know that if I do my part--which includes preparedness and trying real hard not to call them--that they'll do their part, and answer the call.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

CBinRI said:


> Wolfe talks about how whenever one of the daredevil pilots from the 50s and 60s would perish in an accident, the other pilots would dissect the circumstances of the accident, trying to find some fault with the pilot.
> 
> He seemed to suggest that this was a coping mechanism, because the pilots did not seem to want to admit to themeselves that they were in an ultrahazardous profession where people would sometimes die, no matter how careful they were.


Well to me it would seem that the 50's test pilots knew all too well how hazardous their jobs were; they were watching man after man die while trying to break the sound barrier. If I were on the list of people who would be "up next" to attempt breaking the sound barrier I would want to figure out where my predecessor failed instead of just blindly trying to do something that was not possible for so many before me. I would call this being smart; as opposed to just being the next cow in line at the slaughter house.

There were many engineers and scientists studying data from those failed attempts at crossing the sound barrier and they were modeling the problems encountered and doing their damn best to make the next test flight successful. To this day similar things are being done in all areas of aeronautical engineering; and not just by the NTSB/FAA.

Fellow sailors have always tried to help in determining a root cause. This is not a bad thing; and I don't think it should be viewed that way. Although there were many deaths in the Fastnet tragedy; there was a lot of lessons learned about what should and should not be done when faced with the possibility of capsize. Everyone can just shrug shoulders and say oh-well and the lives lost will be meaningless; or we can learn from the accident.

IMHO there should be some sort of determination if the sea-anchors contributed to the roll over. In most cases multis do not flip; just recently a couple were rescued off the coast of Honduras in similar winds/seas by the Navy. Their cat (smaller than the Voyage 440) survived the storm and was later found adrift near Cabo San Lucas with no visible damage other than the sails in shreds, being looted and covered with bird guano.

I too hope that the people who were aboard the Voyage 440 are still alive. It has been 10 days since their last known position; that is a long time to be out on a raft in the NE Pacific Ocean. If they were in gumby suits there is a chance they have survived.

I don't own a multi-hull BTW...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I don't see anything to question about sea anchors--or even "anchors" as the first report stated.

The Oregon coast can be one nasty rocky lee shore, and given the choice of drifting perhaps 24 hours INTO it, or taking any chance on any other solution that might delay that impact (like anchors or sea anchors) there's nothing that would make me question the decision to try *anything* to stay off the lee shore.

Just one man's opinion: Rocks bad, clear water good.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Keelhaulin is talking about Eclipse, which was owned by a fairly well-known multihull designer. And the boats are quite often tougher than the crews... Look at the 1979 Fastnet disaster...how many of the boats that were abandoned actually survived intact and relatively unscathed..

However, I don't recall seeing anything about a sea anchors or drogues being deployed in this particular case-just anchors.

The Oregon coast, like the New Jersey coast, can become a very nasty lee shore...with little chance of making it into any harbor or refuge.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> I take cautious pride in never having t-boned another racer and never having run aground,


Hellosailor...have you seriously never run aground? You need to try North Carolina sometime 

Seriously, has anyone thought about why the rescue for the climbers on Mt Hood received so much more media attention than the search for the sailing crew. It seemed like for a few days every newsbreak updated the search for the climbers, but this sailing story was mainly an internet/sailnet thing best I could tell.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I think we are getting around to my original point once again. In most cases, the vessel you are on is far "safer" than the vessel you are getting into, even if that vessel is inverted. At the point of "in extremis" the decision to abandon ship is momentous. Getting into a liferaft, tied off to the vessel, may be a sensible option. In no case can getting into a liferaft be viewed as acheiving safety. The stability of the raft is acheived by rather questionable methods. Many abandoned vessels are found afloat or on shore later, begging the question of original abandonment. Certainly if such a vessel was in extremis, and rescue was readily at hand, abandonment would make sense. There would be no need to see how much worse things could get, nor how well a liferaft works, in such a situation.
I believe, from a planning point of view, that the only proper approach is to assume that rescue will be a long time coming. The particular vessel in question had just crossed the pacific and one would assume that such planning had taken place. Was the planning sufficient? The first priority is staying afloat, either in original vessel, liferaft, or gumby suit. The second priority is dealing with exposure. The third priority is water and food. Somewhere in there fits the necessity of sending a distress signal. But, if the above priorities are given short-shrift, the distress signal can/will be of little use.
The sinking of the "Marine Electric" caused the Coast Guard and SOLAS members to rethink this issue. The end of those deliberations mandated the carriage of exposure suits for each crew member, in addition to the boats and rafts already mandated. Yachtsmen have no such governing body and so are left to their own good sense. In my opinion, a perusal of what the professionals carry, their training, and their progression of actions when in extremis is warranted by the ocean sailor. It is way too easy to purchase a $500 piece of equipment and think the subject is covered. How many liferaft owners have deployed and used a liferaft for training purposes? How many exposure suit (gumby) owners have put one on and attempted to perform the duties necessary when in extremis? How is a vessel's EPIRB carried? Does it require crew activation?
The evolution of lifeboats is perhaps revealing in planning for extremis. Lifeboats were originally carried with individual davit arms and the total complement of the ship was met by both port and starboard boats. Over time it was found that the davits required too much trained seamanship to deploy and that it may be impossible to deploy one side if a large angle of heel was involved. This lead to the development of the gravity davit and the requirement for a full complement of boats for each side. Current vessel outfitting will often feature stern launching down a slide, covered self-righting boats, and even air canisters inside the boat on tankers. All of this has been a result of experience and loss of life, usually massive loss of life. What similar path towards survival has the boating community taken?

Personally speaking, without knowing all the details (we almost never do), I would expect that the best possible outcome would be acheived by donning pfd's followed by gumbys, followed by raft deployment, and never leaving the original vessel until it threatened sinking of the raft. For a vessel that reached shore long before anyone knew of it being in extremis this would seem to provide the best chance of survival. Obviously the deployment of an EPIRB, at any stage, would increase the chance of recovery. But it has to be remembered that the EPIRB is not survival equipment in and of itself. Survival equipment is that which enables the crew to survive until help can arrive or until the crew comes ashore on their own. The point could perhaps best be made by stating that, even once on land, the survival equipment can continue to perform it's function, ie...food, water, shelter, first-aid, etc...

From a boating safety standpoint I think that the carriage of gumby suits, while expensive, offers much more versatility for a variety of conditions, than the simple carriage of a liferaft. I believe that a glance at the tables on hypothermia will bear this out.

As to SAR efforts I would mention that SAR stands for search and rescue, not search and recovery. As we are currently witnessing on Mt. Hood, there is a different standard of effort involved when we reach the point of determining that survival was impossible. We do not launch massive, expensive search efforts for recovery of bodies and we do not endanger others to do so.

I do not intend to comment on what was, or was not done, in this paricular case as the details are unknown and may never be known. I do know, from sad experience, that even when well equipped and the chances of survival good, there is no predicting of what twists and turns fate may have for us in each unique situation. Good seamanship dictates proper planning and the equipment and training to carry out necessary procedures when in extremis.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Pamlico-
Most of the NC waters are a bit more forgiving than they are a bit further up the coast.<G> We have two basic choices on most shorelines, either sand or rock. And, I never trust sand not to have rocks on it. Or oildrums, runabouts, car wrecks...I've seen all sorts of things down there.<G>
Then again, we've also got good depth in many places. I try to move slowly in the places where there are known obstructions, and I will confess that once upon a time a couple of us looked at a chart (having made exceptional time) to see just where we where, and went into a full slam 180 to GTF of where we were, because there was some question of tide start and rocks either under us, or about to be.

Nossir. I *park* cars, not boats. I'll go rockhopping (a quaint local tradition) or take 'em in with six inches under the keel if the skipper says to, but not when it's my watch.<G>

Maybe one day I'll do the ICW and see how grounding feels on that trip. Mud won't hurt so bad.<G>


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Yes that was the article Sailingdog! I was re-reading it and there is lots of info in there about heavy weather tactics in multi-hulls. Looks like the need for a sea-anchor only comes in extreme conditions as he notes that he never found the need to deploy one in over 70k miles of offshore sailing.

I also found the following statement of interest: "Tests, theory and practice have shown that a catamaran can only capsize if it beam onto waves that are as high as the beam of the boat."

Given the choice of capsize due to a wave coming across the beam or setting sea-anchors to keep the bow into the wind; the obvious choice would be to put out the sea-anchor(s). This does not mean that the boat would not possibly be prone to "kiting" in 80kt winds. That question still remains to be determined/answered.

The letter that camaraderie re-posted did give indication that the boat had sea-anchors deployed:

"...we are confident that the crew was doing all that they could to stay ahead of the storm. Their diligent hourly logs, the sea anchors deployed, and the sailing history of the Captain and his crew members provided evidence of this."

Believe me, I am not in any way questioning the ability/competence of the Captain/Crew. I think that in some cases you can do everything right and the outcome such as this is unavoidable. My only concern is if another method of keeping the bow into the wind would be a better choice for a cat (like a small stormsail).


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Like all accidents*

Seems like a string of events led to this tragedy.Though I don't know the details, why would any crew be out their in dec unless...pressure to be somewhere? With few safe harbors, bad weather almost a constant, Sea anchors? Locked epirb? and even if they did have a liferaft if their cat floats as obviously it did why abandon it? In weather that bad even a larger vessel could founder. Hopefully lessons are learned from this.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*death wish morgan mike*



morganmike said:


> Personally, I find that sort of attitude reprehensible.
> 
> Recreational sailors have NO EXCUSES for needing to be rescued: if you can't take care of yourself and your boat, DON"T GO TO SEA. Deal with the consequences of your actions on your own, and don't expect others to come save your ass when you shouldn't have been there in the first place. Take care of your own boat, plot your own course, and when your time comes to die from some colossal screwup that is in no small part your own fault, have the grace to die without endangering the lives of others.


if YOU do not believe in calling for help then so be it... that sounds a bit kookie to me... i hear people grousing all to often about lost hikers and seamen and the like ... always complaining about the extra cost and risk to life involved in a rescue... thats all BS... when its YOUR FAMILY MEMBER in trouble you need to know somebody is doing there best to help them/find them... i have been the person to tell a desperate crying mother that her son is fine after the cops would only tell her that his propane truck had rolled over in a highway accident and he was in the ER... people in trouble need hope... are you saying if i sailed past you clinging to the hull of your boat 20 miles out you wouldn't want a hand ???


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

There are a number of potential outcomes when a vessel requests assistance; one of which is refusal to render assistance due to the danger involved to preform the rescue. IIRC it is maritime law to render assistance if you are within close proximity to a Mayday AND it will not place your vessel/crew in an unreasonable amount of danger. In many cases the USCG simply cannot render assistance and while noting your position and keeping in contact with you they may make you wait until the weather has subsided or other more urgent emergencies have been dealt with.

While you have every right to request assistance or deploy an EPIRB; that does not necessarily mean that the USCG or any other government agency or nearby boat will be able to render assistance. It is simply a call for help; nothing more.

The argument that "if you cant hack it then don't go out" is not a fair one; the power of the sea is capable of destroying pretty much anything that man has built. Recreational boats are pretty low on the scale of "seaworthiness" and there are going to be lots of instances where pleasure craft will require rescue. We live in a country where human life is highly valued; and our society is capable of bearing the expense of saving lives whenever possible (a drop in the bucket compared to the sum total of US tax revenue). In some cases where there was extreme negligence the person responsible can end up owing the rescue costs; so be aware that if you don't take necessary measures to insure the safety of vessel/crew you could be in for a big bill.

In general I don't think that the cavalry is going to come screaming to your rescue if you are off the coast a 3'rd world country. Eclipse was rather lucky that a US Navy ship with helicopter was in the area. It is up to each sailor to assess the risk and decide for themselves if the benefit of being able to travel anywhere in the world is greater than the potential of not making it back home.


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

That is the bottom line for me Keelhaulin


> The argument that "if you cant hack it then don't go out" is not a fair one; the power of the sea is capable of destroying pretty much anything that man has built. Recreational boats are pretty low on the scale of "seaworthiness" and there are going to be lots of instances where pleasure craft will require rescue


 Go down and look at container ships with containers that sit up 7 stories in the air and after a major storm the steel container is smashed to pieces,completely flattened,now put your little 40 foot toy boat in that environment.You are a fool travelling this time of year in northern waters in open ocean.When there is an incident we all want to look at actions that could of prevented them.These are recreational boats with no buisness being there.May ,June,july,august,be carefull september,too risky november,forget the rest,is the general rule of thumb ,when you get up to Newfoundland on the East coast.We have danger signs posted on land everywhere for people who need to be educated and the sea educates the rest of them.I have limited sailing experience however, i grew up in the fishing industry and have been on the water for 30 years.I`ve seen the wheel house window made out of bulletproof glass smash out from a large wave in the pitch of night,not a good scene.In a bad storm there is no rescue,untill it passes, only survival.


----------



## morganmike (Oct 31, 2006)

*Diy*



TrueBlue" said:


> So, what if the next time we're cruising offshore, I inadvertently strike a semi-submerged object - penetratrating *(sic)* the hull, seawater winning over my bilgepumps - I just kiss my ass goodbye and not call a mayday?


If you've failed to prepare for sea by getting underway in a boat that doesn't have watertight bulkheads, excess redundant bilge pump capability (both manual and electric), and you aren't carrying the necessary supplies to effect a hull repair at sea, then yeah, pretty much. What were you doing out there in the first place without the proper gear? And aside from my general love for all humanity, why should your failure to properly prepare for your voyage compel me to come haul your ass out of the water? Furthermore, what makes you think that carrying an EPIRB or shortwave radio is going to get me to your boat in time to stop it from going under? Relying on others to save you in a disaster is not just selfish, it's foolish.



Camaraderie said:


> Given all the stupid stuff my tax dollars have been wasted on over the years...I won't feel guilty at all if I hit a container some day and have to push that button!


Yeah cam, I hear you. But to me it's not the cost so much as the attitude, that fat, rich sense of entitlement. I see it on the water all summer here on LI Sound, with the Coasties rescuing boat after boat from fire, flooding and men overboard. It's that "I have the right to be on the water because I PAID FOR IT" that is so galling. And let me tell you that Neptune ain't impressed with that attitude either, since it's so often the EXPENSIVE boats that get into trouble and are the quickest to call for help.



Giuletta said:


> If Gov. man is not happy with all the above, boat stays "feet dry".


Yeah, well fortunately, we don't live in a police state here ... YET. But if the idiots keep going out, needing to be rescued, and running up expensive SAR bills, then it won't be long before we have all that nonsense here, too. All the more reason to be upset with people who go to see under prepared and then call for help as soon as they get in trouble.



pigslo said:


> I don't care how good a captain you are. If a rogue wave turns you over, the s*** is gonna hit the fan and your a** is toast.


True enough. All the more reason to be well prepared - by standing a proper watch in a stout monohull that can survive a rollover, with jack lines, spare rigging gear, good bilge pumps, and enough info about the weather to stay out of the worst of it. For the most part, getting caught in bad weather is indeed the Captain's fault (especially for rec boats, towards whom my comments are directed) and he should be prepared to deal accordingly - and a life raft may be considered a good part of that prep.



hellosailor said:


> ... either I didn't make my point or you didn't stop to absorb it.


No, I understood you well enough. I just don't agree with you, which is not the same thing at all.



hellosailor said:


> Statisticians may disagree, but they can't factor in "used up all your luck" and I'm superstitious. Or, religious, depending on how you feel about the older and more obscure religions.


You're right about that, statisticians WOULD disagree. While superstition has a long tradition at sea, it is no excuse for poor preparation. To me, superstitious thinking is ignorant, dangerous, and has no place aboard a vessel at sea, but maybe that's just me. Unless you're an idiot, and you deliberately don't learn from your mistakes, then the more experience you acquire, the better off you will be. What's the old saw? Oh, yes, "practice makes perfect."



hellosailor said:


> I've paid for the team, I've paid for their training and gear


No, you haven't. Every tax dollar you've ever paid doesn't add up to the cost of training, equipping and fielding a single SAR swimmer. Like everyone else in this country, you've paid a very tiny percentage of the costs incurred by the Coast Guard. In fact, you may receive a hefty bill for the services you mistakenly believe you've "paid for" once they've hauled your bedraggled ass out of the water. Certainly, the TowBoatUS operator isn't going to pass the cost of your tow over to the Coasties on the grounds that you've already paid for it. In point of fact, it's exactly due to the unbelievably excessive number of unprepared assholes who get into trouble on the water "because they can afford it" that the Coast Guard will no longer tow recreational vessels.



hellosailor said:


> I know that if I do my part--which includes preparedness and trying real hard not to call them--that they'll do their part, and answer the call.


Maybe. Maybe not. Ask those kids who drowned in Charleston Harbor if the CG came to their aid after they called for it. _In the harbor_, mind you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: relying on someone else to come save your ass at sea when you've done something dangerous is not just selfish but downright foolish, _especially_ given all the resources available to the modern sailor.



sailaway21 said:


> I believe, from a planning point of view, that the only proper approach is to assume that rescue will be a long time coming.


To that, and to the rest of your entirely sensible post: well said.



gforcepdx said:


> if YOU do not believe in calling for help then so be it... that sounds a bit kookie to me... i hear people grousing all to often about lost hikers and seamen and the like ... always complaining about the extra cost and risk to life involved in a rescue... thats all BS... when its YOUR FAMILY MEMBER in trouble you need to know somebody is doing there best to help them/find them... i have been the person to tell a desperate crying mother that her son is fine after the cops would only tell her that his propane truck had rolled over in a highway accident and he was in the ER... people in trouble need hope... are you saying if i sailed past you clinging to the hull of your boat 20 miles out you wouldn't want a hand ???


No, I don't have a death wish. I have an agile brain, a capable set of hands, and a powerful spirit of adventure and self-reliance. Not a death wish. When it's my immediate family member in trouble, I expect to be there with them, since I wouldn't let my family go off and do something dangerous without me. And if some member of my extended family did go to sea and managed to drown themselves, I would be forced to consider that they had done it of their own free will, in pursuit of their own happiness, as is their right. Would I feel a horrible sense of loss? Sure, of course. But would I think less of them because they hadn't carried an EPIRB? Not at all. On the contrary, I would be proud of the fact that they had determined to stand on their own two feet and attempt their dream.

Let me add this: I've actually been a member of a SAR team. So yes, if I saw you clinging to your upturned boat 20 miles out, I would come to your aid. But the refined moral sensibility that led me to your rescue wouldn't stop me from giving you a relatively good-natured ration of **** for allowing your boat to capsize once I got you onboard and it certainly wouldn't increase the level of my respect for your seamanship. Take that for whatever you think it's worth. If I was told I was a dumbass by the guy that hauled me out of the water after I capsized a boat 20 miles offshore, I would consider listening to him.



Keelhaulin said:


> The argument that "if you cant hack it then don't go out" is not a fair one;


It certainly is, as demonstrated by the rest of your own words:



Keelhaulin said:


> Recreational boats are pretty low on the scale of "seaworthiness" and there are going to be lots of instances where pleasure craft will require rescue.


Which is exactly my point - recreational craft are often not up to the task to which they are put. That's no fault of the boat, but rather of the skipper. Knowing he had an unsuitable boat, what the hell was he doing in a place from which he might need rescue? That is exactly what I mean by "reprehensible behavior." (And no, I'm not necessarily referring to the crew of the missing cat. (Though I'm not necessarily NOT referring to them, either. (What the hell were they thinking, it's the PNW in DECEMBER???)))



Keelhaulin said:


> We live in a country where human life is highly valued; and our society is capable of bearing the expense of saving lives whenever possible


Yes, we're capable of quite a lot of things. Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD. Where's the personal accountability? We have laws about wearing seatbelts and you pay a fair penny for the highways, but that doesn't mean we're going to pay your hospital bill when you cut a truck off and end up in the ER.

Yes, we will come get you when you're in trouble. Yes, it's the right thing to do, and I'm not suggesting the CG or anyone else should refuse a rescue attempt. We do it because we're human, we care about each other, and everyone thinks "there but by the whim of fate go I" ... we have empathy and we are (mostly) kind.

Let's not confuse the issue, which is that an EPIRB is not necessarily a piece of safety equipment. Having an EPIRB may save your life. It might also kill you by lulling you into a false sense of safety. What it really represents is an excuse, an escape from being responsible for our own actions. You CHOOSE to go to sea. Be accountable for your choice. Crying for help after you've failed to take the necessary preparations is not accountability, it's not admirable, it's not good seamanship, and having the ability neither excuses idiots for getting underway nor exonerates so-called "prepared" crews for getting into trouble.

Yes, I know personal accountability, honor, and a whole host of other "macho" sensibilities are no longer in fashion, particularly now that the valueless "me" generation baby-boomers have decayed into the domineering, risk-adverse administrators of a nanny-state. Nevertheless, I find myself completely unable to empathize with people who want to live in fear, which will doubtless continue in failing to win me friends and admirers on this board. So be it.

There's no such thing as an "act of God" except for the convenience of shamen and insurance underwriters. Whether you know it or not, your fate is in your own hands. It behooves you to act like it, instead of like a spoiled child.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Mike?
"No, I understood you well enough. I just don't agree with you, which is not the same thing at all." In fact, you didn't understand half of what I said, and you've creatively made assumptions about the rest. You've apparently got an issue with entitlement envy, and I hope you get that worked out some day.

I take due and diligent care when casting off. Part of that care, is funding SAR resources in the event that I might need them and they might be of use to me. That doesn't mean I plan to use them, or that I expect them to save my bacon. It just means that I realize the world is bigger than either one of us, and I see no reason to stand alone against it, when the entire purpose of a "society" and "civlization" is mutual aid and co-operation.

There's a difference between independence, and foolish pride. Between "prepared" and "prepared to accept aid". None of which involves any sense of entitlement--except your problem with assuming it where it doesn't exist.

And by the way, please stop using the internet. Me and a lot of other taxpayers funding it, I don't understand why you feel ENTITLED to use the internet I helped pay for, but you have a problem using the SAR resources I helped build. I didn't just chip in my taxes, I also make a point to tell my CongressCritters that I want funds sent to the USCG to keep it running.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

morganmike said:


> . . . what makes you think that carrying an EPIRB or shortwave radio is going to get me to your boat in time to stop it from going under? Relying on others to save you in a disaster is not just selfish, it's foolish.


You seem to be missing one important point - saving a life is more important than preventing a boat from sinking. If I am a survivor of a sunken vessel, afloat in a PFD or survival suit in an unforgiving sea, miles from shore, the EPIRB signal is one last hope that a SAR effort will find me, _before_ nature plays it's final hand.


----------



## morganmike (Oct 31, 2006)

HS, I do so hope you take that attitude to sea, for it will surely result in your requiring rescue. And after knowing how much I pay for internet access every month, why would I ever feel entitled to it's use???

TB, I'm not missing the point. I just wouldn't rely on it or believe that it increases my chances of rescue too much. If, after having done everything else in your power to prepare, you want take an EPIRB with you, there's no reason not to, and every reason in support of. But only after having done EVERYTHING ELSE.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Morgan, please allow a small comment regarding your sentence bellow:

"Yeah, well fortunately, we don't live in a police state here ... YET. But if the idiots keep going out, needing to be rescued, and running up expensive SAR bills, then it won't be long before we have all that nonsense here, too. All the more reason to be upset with people who go to see under prepared and then call for help as soon as they get in trouble."

We are not a police state either (this is Western Europe, Not Eastern - big diffrence), in fact, NOW we believe we have more freedom here than you claim in the US with all your law suits and lawyers and such (only from what I see in this site and when I visit the US) , the European Union makes laws to make sure every "tax payer" comes home safe from the sea. 
One of the reasons is that our SAR does not have the equipment and funds the USCG has, so if you're out there, sometimes you're on your own.

In order to implement the EU laws, concerning safety at sea, and the required safety equipment on bord, the vessels are inspected, by competent authorities in this case the Navy. That is why I posted that. It was connected to the fact that they had the EPIRB in a box somewhere.

I meant Gov. man, to explain it was not a corrupt independent company doing these inspections, but a governement agency.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Giuletta, the Portugeuse 5-year inspections seem quite reasonable. Here the lunatic fringe would say their freedoms are being imposed on. There, you've got a way to make the offshore community take some basic steps to reduce SAR costs and risks. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable compromise.

Personally I'd like to see an "opt in, opt out" system, where folks can choose in advance to opt in/out from the SAR resources and requirements. Opt out...and your flares will be ignored, you are free to call private salvors and pay their price.<G> A little rough on the folks who change their minds, and their unsuspecting guests, but great for the species.

I don't know if it has reached the TV Nooze over there, but here in the US for the pat two weeks there has been a flurry of activity about three climbers lost in bad wx on Mt. Hood in Oregon. One now found dead, two still missing. Whenever something like this happens, there's a major debate about SAR costs and who should pay them. A valid debate, but a bit like saying "Yessir, well, you needed the Fire Department at your home, so here's your bill for it."

People forget that "fire" and "police" were once private agencies, or kings' men, and that "mutual aid" fire insurance companies were our first "fire departments" in the US. Largely replaced by tax-funded government agencies now, because the opt in/out private system wasn't working, and cities were burning. A bit different from boats lost at sea, but only a bit.<G>


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

HS,

Big diffrences indeed. First one that I see are the resources you have in the US, compared with the lack of over here, and the professionalism of your USCG, these are true professionals (we saw their work during rescue after Katarina on TV). I believe over there that is their job. Over here they are volunteers!! Or NAVY (forced young guys that have to do it).
So your guys have better risk judgment, and better coping mechanisms. 

Here the Firedepartments are public volunteer work, such as Ambulance drivers, etc. And spend the year complaining they have no money. We have very large fires every year, and a lot die, that were weekend firefighters.

We simply do not have a structure like you guys, so the government (not a police state), forces a few laws to make sure the reliance on SAR is decreased.

Over here, (I know the country is small) we have 2 LYNX helicopters, THATS ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And a few frigates patroling for drugs.

What we are used to here (since childhood) is having the burden of your own safety passed onto YOU!! (I don't know if you undrerstand my English...).

At sea, we have to count on the Navy,(if they are around), and thats it.

But that is the ungratefull "perks" of being a SAR man, sometimes 3 die to save one!!


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

MorganMike might make his point a little more forcefully than I, but there is much there to be commended. Giulietta makes much the same point, in a different way. My thoughts have already been posted and I see no need to repeat them, although I do wonder if MorganMike and I alone share them.

What brings these thoughts to the fore is twenty years of deep water experience in the merchant marine. I have been privilaged to assist numerous small vessels in that time, and as said previously it is more likely that one will be aided or rescued by a merchant ship than any other due to numbers alone. I think we can all unite behind the law of the sea in that regard with a good measure of gratitude. Rerouting a merchant vessel, at a cost of 5-10,000 dollars an hour, is no small thing-but I know of no master or shipping company that does any type of cost-benefit analysis regarding same. It is our unquestioned duty regardless of circumstances. I say that it was my privilage because I, for one, believe in a higher power and believe that my vessel was in a certain position, at a certain time, for a reason. Glad I was there.

Having said that, the majority of incidents I have responded to were the direct result of poor planning, stupidity, or both. The sport fisherman off the Farallons with water in his fuel tanks, who said, "we knew we had a little problem before we left SF bay" comes immediately to mind. Someone, or someones, decided that it was worth the risk-after all we'll be near busy shipping lanes-and took a foolish risk based on the proximity of aid. That, my friends, is piss-poor seamanship of the first order. I am aware of sailors who go offshore with no motor. I have no real opinion on that practise, but do feel they are making a seamanship decision. Can they do this safely? An emphatic "yes" is my reply. Is their burden of planning, and the seaworthiness of their vessel higher than others? Again, an emphatic "yes". Would I recommend it to ANYONE? A most emphatic, "No". A merchant vessel doing the same would be considered unseaworthy in any court of admiralty.
I do not find that the regular contributors to sailnet would fit the classification of poor seamen. My general impression is that they are fixated to a degree that safe voyaging is ingrained-hopefully. But I do not believe that this site is indicative of the vast majority of sailors. And MorganMike's point about spending the money and their "right" to rescue and privelage for that matter seems to be spot on. Reading in 'Sail' magazine the suggestion of carrying a high candlepower spot light to shine on the wheelhouses of ships to attract attention does nothing to dissuade me from this impression. It merely reinforces my notion of many offshore sailors I have passed at sea, who never saw me, did not have a VHF watch, thought that side-lights at deck level were visible enough, had no radar reflector, and were foolish enough to entrust their lives to my watch-keeping ability. And I am assuming that I never hit a boat. The only way one would know is by some odd paint marks on the hull-a fifty foot sailboat being run under by 100,000 tons of ship is not going to cause a tremor on the ship. I don't need to hear any crying about watch-keeping dilegence on merchant ships or your right to passage-the big boat rule applies only to the small boat, much as it does to me when I pull out to pass a semi, in a snow storm, in my car. I'm the one who is going to get hurt the most and so I have a higher degree of risk and responsibility for my safety. Even if the ship, or the semi for that matter, is "at fault" who is going to suffer? I, for one, do not want to be "dead right".

The Coast Guard stopped going out for vessels that were not "in extremis" many years ago and started billing those who claimed to be so, and were found to be "just out of gas" for a reason. Recreational boaters had begun to think that the Coast Guard was some form of sea-going AAA road service.

Upon rescueing various vessels and casting a jaundiced seaman's eye over their rig and gear the most common reaction of my shipmates was, "what the hell were they thinking?" Merchant mariners, be they crab fishermen or mariners on thousand foot freighters, HAVE to go out in rough conditions and we've all lost shipmates and seen other ships go down. We know it can happen to us and plan accordingly. Just over a month ago we remembered the thirtieth aniversary of the Fitz going down on Lake Superior. The sea has not changed and my ship will ALWAYS be small. One poster on this site is in the habit of quoting my favorite hymn part of which goes, "hear us now in our hour of need". Anyone who goes down to sea in ships will eventually, unless lucky, have cause to remember that hymn. By the way, it concludes every service at the Mariner's Chapel at the US Merchant Marine Academy.

My vessel could lose a life, following the law of the sea, and I think it would be criminal if it were in the pursuit of the rescue of a sailor ill-prepared, ill-equipped, or out where he or she had no reason to be. Freedom and liberty do not grant license. Prudence is the first part of seamanship.

So please do not go too hard on Mike for his strongly stated views. It is my experience that many, many sailors found far offshore do not reflect well upon recreational sailors as a whole. The philosophical, as well as practical, examination of this tragedy is entirely appropriate. The only possible greater tragedy would be if we did not all pause and examine our own seamanship and assumptions about the same.
Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Sailaway and Morgan both make valid, well-stated points. The fact is that nature is more than capable of overwhelming anything Man can build. In this world of instant communication we see evidence of this fact almost daily.

In Canada, we have the similar situation where the CG will not necessarily respond to calls that pose no immediate threat to life. In recent years private agencies (C-Tow etc) have sprung up to fill that void. I have no problem with presenting a boater who has "run out of fuel" or run aground on the wrong side of a channel marker with an attention-grabbing bill for "rescue" services. At the same time, if able I would have no problem giving that same fool any extra fuel I may have to get him home. (Of course it may come with a piece of my mind too&#8230;.)

Certainly, planning around the assumption that "if this isn't good enough, the Coast Guard will bail me out" is foolhardy. If, indeed that is a prevalent sentiment among recreational boaters that is a sad thing.

There are "operator certification" laws coming into effect in this country that are at least a step towards some knowledge and competency requirements before you are permitted to operate a vessel. Unfortunately as they are evolving, at the present time I require such a card to operate my outboard-powered tender, but not the sailboat. By 2009 the card will be required by all boaters in Canada. It's a very rudimentary qualification and not difficult to acquire, but it's a start.

For we "wealthy boomers" it's all too easy to write a cheque and drive off in a powerful vessel with no knowledge or skill set. At least with sailboats you need to learn a bit before you can make them move. 

On ski hills, people who have gotten lost after deliberately skiing "out of bounds" are charged for rescue services (a fraction of real costs, I'm sure- not to mention the risk to the dozens of SAR and volunteers sent out to find them). There should be a similar mechanism in place to deal with unnecessary and easily preventable marine rescue.

We coastal cruisers usually have the luxury of choosing our weather windows and can often avoid dangerous conditions. Offshore sailors don't have that ability, and the good ones prepare with that mindset. 

The really scary thing is that increasingly frequent attacks on the budgets of the various SAR agencies may mean that one day they won't be available for the genuine emergencies.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Giuletta-
"and the professionalism of your USCG, these are true professionals (we saw their work during rescue after Katarina on TV). " Professionals indeed, and if you read up on the origins of the service and the changes it has gone through, it is amazing to see how it keeps transforming to suit different government roles.
I suppose that once New Orleans floated away...someone in the USCG must have said "OK, all those people are adrift in the sea now, we can take over." We have some convoluted rules--for good historic reason--about which agency can respond, and when and where. Until recently (the post-9/11 "Homeland Security" reorganization) the USCG was in fact not a military organization, but an administrative agency (which is an advantage if you want to deploy it domestically here) which then was seconded to the Defense Department and became a coastal military agency--only in time of war. The complications elude most of the natives here, I wouldn't expect them to make much sense, or even be known, over there. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall during several of the Katrina conversations, I am forced to guess that it was not so much incompetence but political knife-fighting of the ugliest sort in many cases.

"Here the Firedepartments are public volunteer work, such as Ambulance drivers, etc. " We also have all-volunteer FD's and EMS in many areas, mainly the rural ones and some suburbs. In the big cities, that model just doesn't work well enough. "Chain of command" is needed, and volunteers just aren't reliable enough for the job at that intensity. There has been some major questioning about the volunteer FD's on those counties of Long Island that are not in NYC because their volunteer FD's have been very good about raising money--and also about running up terrific bills and not being cost effective at all. But it outright rural areas, they are still quite effective, and respected.

"Over here, (I know the country is small) we have 2 LYNX helicopters, THATS ALL"
Well, it wasn't long ago (20 years?) that much of the USCG air assets were WW2-vintage helicopters, with civilian LORANs strapped into the cockpits because the government wouldn't buy them, and the crews ran rope lines under the bellies because the helos would and did turn turtle when they had to make a water landing. The so-called "drug wars" of the 80's brought the budget for new aircraft, in some cases because stations had literally cannibalized the old ones to the point where they might have 6 on paper, but only 2 able to fly. Depending on who and where you ask--this is still all too often the case, USCG budgets and bases are being chopped all the time.

If you look at a US Northeast map, spot Boston, MA, and then spot Cape May, NJ. That's it, no USCG *air* bases left in between them. They rely on an Air National Guard base on eastern Long Island to fill the gap, and local police resources. (Which admittedly have grown in recent years.)

"I don't know if you undrerstand my English" Quite well, and it is better than my attempts at Portugeuse would be.<G> It is called self-reliance and responsibility, and there is much, but not enough, talk about how these are no longer values in the US.

"But that is the ungratefull "perks" of being a SAR man, sometimes 3 die to save one!!"
Yes. As I've said before, I was taught a long time ago to wear a PFD, regardless of whether it would save me, but as a courtesy to them, because it would let some poor bastard responding to a SAR call in a winter storm recover my body faster and get home sooner and safer, and possibly save *his* life. (And that's got nothing to do with me and SAR, SAR responses are triggered many ways, sometimes simply by someone observing what they think is a vessel in distress.)


----------



## Shack (Sep 5, 2006)

*Cats Overturning - Frequency??*

*Hello, Dman, & Dog,*
Thanks for reminding me that Hurricanes are not the only dangerous WX. 
My point was just that. Even in the "Gitche Gumee" there are strong winds and respectable wx conditions.

However, my question relates to current history of stability for cats in "less than" hurricane force winds (say force 8-11). Looking for stories like the kite action at anchor.

No one has seen much of this I guess. That must mean that all the cat salesman are perfectly correct when they say that capsizing it is "_no longer a significant problem with the newer designed cats."_

(Watched a couple of "gentlemen" who didn't appear to know how to sail put down a hunk of money on some new cats at Annapolis. One of the poor guys didn't even know what bottom paint was for - eeeesh!!)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Try This*

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


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

I am a new sailor and I have a lot of questions about this topic of the USCG and when & where they will respond. But I also have some concrete thoughts on it as well.

I'm going into it with the attitude that when I get out on the ocean I might as well be alone on this planet when it comes to making sure my boat makes it. Except for people driving tankers that might run me down I am going to pretend that there isn't anyone else on earth but me. That means I'm responsible for everything that happens on my boat, if the rigging fails it's because I didn't know how to inspect it, if the hull gets punctured it's because I didn't choose the right material or the right course, if the boat gets knocked down it's because I didn't know how to react to the weather, if the rudder breaks I need to have some way of sailing without it or fixing it. If the boat's hull gets punctured and it sinks, I better have alternatives ready that can save my life. Essentially nobody is going to care if I die, it'll just be a news item that catches people's attention for a few minutes at best. So if I am going to make it I need to find a way to make it, nobody else is going to care what happens to me.

AFTER THAT ....

After doing what I can to insure my own survival, then an EPIRB and other communication systems are there to beg with if it all goes to hell. But I want to assume nobody is going to take pity on me and that nobody will answer the EPIRB signal and plan for making it on my own anyway, because that's essentially the truth, the ocean is huge, and maybe nobody will answer. It's still my own responsibility to make sure I survive, at no time do I want to hand my life over to a satellite signal or a set of batteries, etc, if I don't absolutely have to. Sometimes you have to, **** does happen ... you can't be responsible for every little integrated circuit in a radio, every ounce of alloy in a cable, or weld in a steel hull, you do have to trust other people some. But you can always be learning more, taking more responsibility for your own fate, gaining new skills, new backup plans, gaining experience, reading, expanding your options, etc. It seems to me that independence is always best, liberty, and taking personal responsibility for your fate when you can. Because the ocean is big, powerful, and cold ... and you are basically on your own.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"you can't be responsible for every little integrated circuit in a radio,"
Speaking of which, one generally well-respected company had a minor problem when EPIRBs were newish. Their model has a confidence light on it, which lights up whenever the unit it transmitting, so the user knows it is working. Ooopsie, the lights were lighting, the units were NOT transmitting. Product recall.
The USCG does provide for actual EPIRB testing, if you buy one, make the trip to a test location and do it.


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

Hi All,

Having read this thread through I have a couple thoughts or observations. First off, over the past decade or so I have participated in a handful of offshore deliveries totaling about 8000 nm. Which is not alot of experience but it is enough to begin to form some opinions. I know enough to know that there is ALOT I don't know and ALOT of experience and knowledge I have yet to gain. FWIW, here are few of my observations:

1) I definately fall into the school of thought esposed by MorganMike, Sailaway, and Faster that when offshore it is unwise to expect that rescue is emminent. Sometimes the calvary comes some times they don't or can't. Faster is right when he says that the worst in this regard rich baby boomers who are used to being able to whip out a check or credit card and simply buying what they what. I have seen this attitude first hand. Which brings me to my second point.

2) Safety, IMO, cannot be purchased it is a state of mind and a depth of experience. Yes, one can buy things such as EPIRB that can help but they are no subsititute for sound seamanlike decisionmaking. There were some interesting observations regarding safety on the Vanagon list I subscribe to (I own a 1985 VW camper van). One of the posters made the poiint that no car (or in this case boat) is safe in and of itself - ABS, air bags, improved supension will not ultimately protect you from poor decisions. Many significant voyages have been successfully completed in less than ideal craft. Many sailors have died while attempting voyages on very well suited or purpose built craft. Sometime it's bad decisions sometime it's plain old bad luck. IMO, the sailors on the boat are more important than the boat whenAs Sailaway said, "The sea has not changed and my ship will ALWAYS be small."

3) The first thing stood out to me (actually screamed at me) was that they left SF on 12/08 and the boat was found washed up on the beach around 12/18 and the last log entry was dated 0300 12/11 gave thier position as 10 miles of Cape Blanco and suggested that they were in trouble at that time. It seems to that thier timimg with regard to leaving SF was questionable at best. In this day and age and with weather forecasting being what it is, I find almost impossible to believe that DIDN'T know that a serious storm was approaching. I have been on several deliveries where the captian has delyed departure, in one case for seven days, waiting for a good weather window. It is up to each individual crew member to decide if the dangers and risks of a particular delivery are too much for them (I know this easier said tha done). If they are then they should not atake part in the delivery. Also, 10nm offshore, seems pretty damn close to land in that kind of storm. I would think you want to be either holed up somewhere or much farther offshore. That doesn't strike me as a well planned passage.

4) This whole EPIRB locked away strikes me as a serious oversight. On two of the deliveries I participated, the captain ( a different captain in each case) insisted on inspecting some locked lockers prior to leaving to ensure: a) no critical safety gear was locked away and b) there was no contraband on the lockers in questions. I have spent time on every delivery familarizing myself with the location of just about everything onboard. I also personally try ensure as best I that all emergency, safety, and navigational equipment is is working properly and that I know how to use it. Last thing I want is to aboard a boat that is sinking because an unknown or hidden seacock has failed.

I realize that at this time not much is known about what actually happened and much may never be known. I know much much of what I and other have said is speculation and opinion based on incomplete information about this event. But this kind of exchange is critical to helping other begin to think about these things and hopefully avoid some of the same "mistakes" (if indeed any were really made). The American Alpine Club publishes a yearly review called "Accidents in North American Mountainneering"; too bad there no such review for sailling.

Rant mode off. Lurk mode resumed.

Take Care,
Sam


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Good post Sam! That was a nice pickup on the log entry dates...I had not noticed that. I wonder if there is a way to go back on te NWS site to see what the predicted Oregon coast weather was on 12/8 going forward. Will investigate but if anyone knows and can post it here, that would be helpful.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The point that Sam makes about the locked lockers is a good point. It wouldn't be the owner that would get nailed if there was any contraband in the locked lockers, but the delivery crew. I don't doubt that it would be possible to smuggle several million dollars worth of conflict diamonds in from Africa in a boat this size. 

As for the experience and judgement of the crew and captain, I won't comment, as I don't know what the situation that led to the capsize of the boat was like, or what the weather forecast during that time period was like. I am not familiar enough with the coast of the Pacific Northwest to judge whether 10 NM is sufficient searoom, but IMHO, I would want to be much further out in the case of a big storm—especially if the winds were from the west at all. 

Weather forecasting, especially in the USA, which is where they were just before the boat was lost, is fairly decent and relatively easy to access.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Hey I found the forecast and it is pretty damning. I chose the Pacific WindWave forecast of 12/8 for 96 hours out which looks like this:








From this you can see that gale force winds and 30ft. seas were PREDICTED for their destination and available from the NWS on the day they left SanFrancisco. The 48 hour surface chart for the region shows that a STORM warning and 40+ knot winds were predicted for 2 days after leaving SF. So whether they looked at relatively short or long term weather forecasts they KNEW they were sailing into some very tough conditions. Did they obtain a forecast before leaving? One can assume that with two well experienced and successful captains on board, someone checked the forecast. Did the need to make the delivery in time for the Seattle show override any misgivings they had?? Were they overconfident given the distance they had already travelled in the boat? Hopefully we'll hear it from their own mouths.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Wow - we've been feeling the brunt of that system and others this past few weeks - truly powerful weather. Sea state numbers are in meters, remember - those are large waves, with larger still being spun out of the system further west.

It's hard to imagine a seasoned offshore crew heading out into weather like than on purpose - esp. this time of year.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't know... Looking at that graphic it could be interpreted as not too bad along the coast; up to the Washington area. With wind/wave directions from the S-SE and winds in the 15kt range (along the coast) it is possible that they were thinking they would catch good wind and by the time they reached the Oregon border the storm front would be past them and they would be between the next incoming system (which also shows as moderate winds just after the first incoming storm). If this is the longest range forecast before they did leave SF I would not call it "damming". West coast is nearly continuous with storms/warnings during the winter; and somewhat vauge on the severity (in the general marine forecast). The storm cell that was predicted to hit the coast on the 12/13'th that you show looks fairly mild (for US Pac Coast) compared to others (and the one shown further out to sea).

I would like to see how this prediction compared to the actual winds/seas (and before/after this date). Often times the NOAA forecasts are not very precise in terms of the predicted conditions for this area; there can be large deviations between the actual winds/seas and what was predicted. The 96 hour forecast can sometimes completely change in the next 24-48 hours. This particular forecast can't explain why they encountered +80kt winds on the 11'th. It's entirely possible that the storms moved in much more rapidly than predicted and they caught the brunt ot that second storm which was much more severe.

While I am sure that there was pressure on the Skipper to get the boat to Washington on-schedule; I would expect this to be in the service contract terms. It might have meant a reduced fee or no payment. Those issues were likely decided months before when the contract was signed; and we don't know the terms. Deliveries up/down the west coast during the winter are not out of the question; but it is much higher risk than during the spring/summer/fall.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Keelhaulin,
That is just the type of thinking that I am referring to. It is currently 45 degrees here in Michigan on the fourth day of winter. Which is the more relavent weather forecasting factor? The "bold" sailor looks at that and says I've got a three day window. The prudent sailor says, it's winter ,what usually happens in winter? I have golfed on Christmas day, but I didn't plan on it. The prudent mariner would have planned his voyage knowing that prevailing conditions might have precluded the SF to PacNW leg. And that planning would have, or should have, been done before the vessel left the western Pacific.
Nothing personal towards you-I just wanted to point out rationalizations versus planning.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Considering the scale of the image that Cam has posted, I would be very hesistant to draw any conclusions about wave height near shore. 

However, the coast just SW of Seattle seems to have particularly bad conditions, when compared to areas NW of Seattle. If this was the forecast, I would have delayed going out... sailing on a fixed schedule is a good way to end up dead. Also, the bulk of the bad weather was to the west, and if the storm moves west to east as most do.... if he didn't get hammered by the smaller one just off the coast, his window to escape the bigger one in the center of the image was pretty small... not something I'd risk.

Keelhaulin-

Granted the contract probably had a delivery date deadline, but generally most have exclusions for unsafe weather, as most boat owners would rather have their boat delivered in one piece, a bit late, rather than have the boat and possibly the delivery crew lost at sea. As we don't know what the conditions of the contract were, we can't really judge based on that... what we can judge is what a prudent sailor would have done, given the forecasted conditions above. Attempting the last leg of the delivery, knowing that the Pacific Northwest coastline can be among the least forgiving in the world, as shown by the Columbia River Bar entrance, was probably unwise at best.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Keelhaulin...the graphic shows 30 ft. seas in 96 hours....that is not a fairly mild storm cell. Maybe youmissed my second sentence:
*The 48 hour surface chart for the region shows that a STORM warning and 40+ knot winds were predicted for 2 days after leaving SF.
*That means that anytime between 48 hours and 96 hours after they left they were coing to be taking a cat into PREDICTED storm conditions and huge waves. ACTUAL wind in places was hurricane force but setting that aside...it is not prudent to SET SAIL towards a PREDICTED STORM which means 55-63 mph winds. Yah...things came together and intensified and made it a killer system but no one leaves port to head into 60mph winds anyway.


----------



## svs3 (Jun 23, 2006)

I have very very limited sailing experience in the PNW. I have only sailed in the twice and both times in near ideal conditions. I did live in Montana for about ten years and climbed pretty extensively in the North Cascades and in the Coast Range of BC so I am familar with how quickly storms can move out the Gulf of Alaska and into the PWN. If I saw the forecast Cam posted I would like to think I would be prudent enough to either put my foot down and insist the boat wait for a better weather window or leave the boat altogether if the captain insisted on leaving when he did. But who knows ... I have done alot foolish things in my life. That forecast sure didn't leave much room for error. FWIW, NWS forecast is pretty well in line with what my N. Pacific Pilot Chart for Dec. shows for that area. But hindsight is 20/20. My Pilot Chart also would suggest if they had waited they would have had more favorable conditions sooner rather that later. The wind rose indicates roughly force 5 to 6 winds blowing from the south and southeast 40% to 45% of the time and a 1 knot north flowing surface current. I only really examined area immedialy west of Seatlle. Though I did a quick scan of the quadrant to the south and it showed similar trends.

Given that the Seattle Boat Show wasn't due to start until 01/24/07, I'm not sure that simply presure to get to Seattle for a boat show would account for leaving when they did. But who knows ... I also think it is highly unlikely that such a seasoned crew would agree to a contract with the stipulation of NO pay or even less pay for arriving after a certain date given the time they would have to commit for such a voyage. I think it is far more likely that they would have agreed to a bonus if they got the boat to Seattle before a certian date. But even that I think is unlikely given the vagaries of high latitude winter sailing. The axiom sailingdog refered "sailing on a fixed schedule is a good way to end up dead" is very well known and oft refered to in many sailing and cruising text. 

Hopfully in the coming days someone will have the opportunity to ask the captain and crew in person. But, unfortunately, I doubt it.

Are there any cat sailors out there that can explain to me under what circumstances one would be running under bare poles with drogues deployed only 10 mn off the coast? I was under the impression that cats generally require more active storm tactics that done monohull. I am not a cat sailor. 

I still don't get whole EPIRB locked up deal

Sam


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Let me say someting first/foremost. My comments were not to encourage flame wars; I am just looking at things a bit differently than the rest of you guys. I would not consider doing such a voyage with active, heavy storms inbound nor would I suggest it to anyone.

However, we don't know what the plan for their voyage was. They left on the 8'th but without knowing the detailed log entries we just cannot say for sure what the intentions were. I'm sure they were aware what the predicted weather patterns were; so it's also likely that they had a plan to get the boat into safe anchorages and wait for the systems to pass, then move, then wait, etc. Maybe the choice was made to leave earlier so they could sit/wait longer at a protected anchorage or harbor if need be. I know these areas are far/few between; but there are fallbacks. It's possible that they waited for that first storm to move through (the one with 40kt predicted winds) while traveling up the CA coastline. They might have stopped (like at Pt Reyes); or maybe the winds/seas to the south were not as intense. A detailed review of the predicted/actual and correlation to the logs would provide a much better picture of what was going on; but we as concerned sailors dont have all of the information.

We also don't know if the boat was equipped with electronics to download current weather data. Somewhere along the way the weather deviated from their plans/intentions and they got caught out in a storm that they and the boat could not handle. Given the weather predictions; I certainly would not have chosen to make the voyage either. But I am not a delivery Captain. The weather windows out here can either be super short or very long. It just depends on the year. To me it seems that the weather kicked up into Force 10 conditions; which were totally unexpected. Weather this heavy can always happen during the winter; but it is somewhat unusual for early December. The big storm systems usually hit in late January through mid-March. This year it was unusually dry until early december; then wham one big storm after another (Northern CA anyway).

The predicted storm/seas of 30ft were well north of their actual position on the 11'th. If the storm traveled further south in actuality then that also might explain getting caught in worse conditions than expected. Again, I am not saying or suggesting anyone cut things this close; but for some reason they ended up in worse conditions than expected and it was a fatal mistake.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

KeelHaulin...I understand where you are coming from and agree that we don't know their plan and perhaps never will...My point continues to be that they should have NEVER had any plan given the forecasts available to them the day they left SF. I included below the 48 hour surface forecast which I spoke of earlier which proves the point perhaps even better than the 96 hour forecast did. They had no business leaving port if they had access to the forecast and they had no business leaving port if they didn't!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

even on a short day sail i always check wx reports and adjust according to the info i have canceled a few times to the wx not being favorable to my plans one also was costing me money so i had reason to move boat but still held back to err on side of caution


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

That 48 hour forecast is nothing short of stunning. I'm sitting here and looking at it and trying to imagine how they could have ignored it, if they saw it. Nobody would look at that and then ask, "Should we go, or not?" It's unimaginable that they would have seen it and still made a judgment to go. That means, to me, that somehow, they must never have seen that forecast for that time period.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Given the forecast for 48 and 96 hours out... leaving shouldn't have been a realistic option at all. I seriously doubt that the captain even looked, as only a madman would head north in to weather like that... knowing that the predominantly western winds would turn the entire coast into a lee shore, with little hope of making a safe landfall anywhere... and the system was far enough out that skirting around it wasn't an option.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

And there are few, if any, viable places to lay up as the weather deterioated.

I am always impressed that the cruisers on this site make their passages allowing for the traditional weather patterns. Can you make a passage in hurricane season or the SW monsoon? Of course you can, but it is hardly prudent. Perhaps, sitting quay-side, it is too easy to not have the imagination of how rough things can get. Perhaps the sight of a large, well-found boat sways the mind to feelings of omnipotence. I surely do not know. I do remember walking down the dock, at age nineteen, looking up at the SS President Madison (667' LOA) and wondering how anything could move that behemoth. Two weeks later, somewhere north and west of Unimak Pass in the Aleutions, I had a much different impression as we rolled 20-30 degrees in twenty foot seas. Having since been through numerous typhoons and lesser storms, on large ships, I would discourage anyone from indulging their desire to see "real" weather. The fury, power, and magnitude of what you are in defies description and there is really no need to repeat the experience. It's a cliche, but true; there are old sailors, and there are bold sailors, but there are no old, bold sailors.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Latest Update from "The News Guard, Lincoln City, Ore.
http://www.thenewsguard.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=5693
LINCOLN CITY - The missing crew members of the South African catamaran that washed up in Lincoln City have been identified and their families notified, but U.S. Coast Guard officials are withholding their names from the public while its investigation continues. 
Crews have changed a couple of times on the 44-foot Cat Shot since the ocean-going catamaran left Capetown, South Africa, so officials want to be absolutely sure about the identity of the three missing crewmen before releasing any names. 
The catamaran washed up on a beach at 74th in Roads End sometime during the Dec. 14 windstorm. 
It was discovered at 10 a.m. Dec. 15, upside down on the beach - with no sign of the crew. 
A body discovered Dec. 16 on the beach five miles north of the Siuslaw River in Florence was not that of a missing crewman but Daniel B. Kelley, 38, of North Bend. 
Kelley was flying a single-engine homemade airplane that crashed into the surf 300 yards off Horsfall Beach in Coos County on Dec. 2. His passenger, Charles Halloway, also died in the crash. 
As for the 2006 Cat Shot, it arrived in Lincoln City by the power of the sea but exited the beach Dec. 19 - crippled and strapped to a trailer. 
The insurance company of owner James Anderson of Renton, Wash., hired Mike Doan of Sea Tow Lower Columbia River from Ilwaco, Wash., to salvage the Cat Shot, according to Doan. 
His crew used a backhoe, excavator and Bobcat to cut up the ocean-going catamaran - estimated by Doan to be worth about $600,000 new - into sections, before breaking them apart and throwing it away. 
The wreckage filled five dumpsters. 
"It took us three days," Doan said. "There was a lot of prep work to do."


----------



## BADG (Dec 24, 2001)

In light of the Ken Barnes thread and recent dismasting experiences I came to wonder whatever happened with this disasterous event. Has there been any recent update since what Cam has posted 2 weeks ago?


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Sailaway, I'd have to agree with you about not going looking for heavy weather. Couple of weeks back we were leaving port and ran into weather that far exceeded the forecast. We took one wave that swept us from bow to stern and I just thought "well sod this for a joke" and headed back to our quiet little anchorage. We were in no hurry so why go out when it's not going to be much fun. A six hour bash to windward in 30 knot winds is not what I asked Santy Claws to bring for Christmas. Ultimately we all run into horrid weather and have to face the music but going looking for it ? No way, not this little brown wombat.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

BADG...I have kept looking as this is such a strange case given the experience of the crew but no news that I have been able to unearth over the last few weeks. I suppose we'll never know.


----------



## BADG (Dec 24, 2001)

Crew is still missing? Presumed dead I suppose?


----------



## pigslo (Nov 22, 2004)

The guy that got rescued and made it to the front of the media machine has more legs as an ongoing story than never heard from again sailors. Just the facts of life. I am sure if the cat sailors are found in a life raft, we will hear about it. Till then "sailors still not found" is not media fodder.
pigslo


----------



## SailingStNick (Dec 13, 2006)

This was going on around the S&R of the three men lost on Mt Hood.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

BADG said:


> Crew is still missing? Presumed dead I suppose?


IIRC the bodies of all three men were found a week or two ago.


----------



## SailingStNick (Dec 13, 2006)

KeelHaulin said:


> IIRC the bodies of all three men were found a week or two ago.


Wow, I hadn't heard this. Can you find a link to the story?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I don't believe that is true. Link please.
There was a body found 75 miles north AND another body found later neither of which were crew members of the cat. One was from a capsized fishing trawler.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

North...I think I can trust the US coastguard site and the words of the families there. What happened has to be speculation but the fact is that the boat was washed ashore and the three crew are lost and presumed dead at sea. It is also a fact that they left SF on the 8th and the weather reports I posted were available to them and that heir last log entry was the 11th. We can only speculate WHY they left SF but we KNOW that it was a mistake that cost them their lives AND it was preventable.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

morganmike said:


> If you've failed to prepare for sea by getting underway in a boat that doesn't have watertight bulkheads, excess redundant bilge pump capability (both manual and electric), and you aren't carrying the necessary supplies to effect a hull repair at sea, then yeah, pretty much. What were you doing out there in the first place without the proper gear? And aside from my general love for all humanity, why should your failure to properly prepare for your voyage compel me to come haul your ass out of the water? Furthermore, what makes you think that carrying an EPIRB or shortwave radio is going to get me to your boat in time to stop it from going under? Relying on others to save you in a disaster is not just selfish, it's foolish.
> 
> Yeah cam, I hear you. But to me it's not the cost so much as the attitude, that fat, rich sense of entitlement. I see it on the water all summer here on LI Sound, with the Coasties rescuing boat after boat from fire, flooding and men overboard. It's that "I have the right to be on the water because I PAID FOR IT" that is so galling. And let me tell you that Neptune ain't impressed with that attitude either, since it's so often the EXPENSIVE boats that get into trouble and are the quickest to call for help.
> 
> ...


Man - this is a great old thread. Is MMike still around here? Dude's got some fire in his gut.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Smack,

Normally I'd say "why bring up such an old post?" but in this case you've uncovered a gem. Love his statements and common sense.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Dang Smack..I have to take a day off work to keep up on current affairs around here...where do you find time to go spelunking for buried treasures...


Are you one of those spoiled children...:laugher


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Not too mention, I thought this had to do with a couple that had there boat crushed off the coast last week too. Her body has been washed ashore, along with wreckage, his is still lost/missing. need to find the king5 link.........

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Stillraining said:


> Are you one of those spoiled children...:laugher


Working on it.


----------

