SailNet Community - View Single Post - Bounty, 2 minute mutiny?
View Single Post
post #7 of Old 03-18-2013
Senior Member
chef2sail's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 8,034
Thanks: 41
Thanked 105 Times in 100 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Send a message via AIM to chef2sail
Re: Bounty, 2 minute mutiny?

Agreeed Caleb

I think it is unfair for you to make assumptions that any relationship I had with the Captain clouded my judgement or opinions. Stating that is irrleevant because In fact I have placed his share of the blame squarely on him all along. I have never NEVER said he was not ultimately responsible for what happened.

If you recall or you can read my input was not to rush to judgement for fear of becomming embroiled in the emotional aspects of the incident. Lets be real here and put it in perspective. Its one ship and a lot of angst and finger pointing to it while there have been 3 seperate incidents in California where there was greater loss of life and maybe equal incompetance which caused them but it didnt become an emotional time bomb like the Bounty incident did.

Now that we have record straight perhaps we can take the blinders off and look at other issues which occured in this tragedy so that we can possibly learn and affectuate some change so that there is a way to prevent it from reoccuring. There is very little to learn if your only contribution to this incident involves the Walbridge as there is no way to legislate human nature and it failings.

If you took the time to watch the actual testimony like I and others did you could not help but learn a few other things concerning this tragedy

1- We learned of the terrible condition of the Bounty first hand. Maine Sail had posted he saw it and never would have left the dock in it. We learned the the Boothbay Shipyard had done 2 other major "fixes" on this vessel and that essentially they were knowingly nailing new outer planking onto a rotten frame. There was conflicting testimony from the shipright ( Kosokowski) who took photographs because he saw a perceived danger ( he was covering his ass) and didnt want to be held responsible. Meanwhile he never told his bosses and allededly told Waldbridge. The yard manager of 40 years (Jacomovincz) contradicted some of this tesimony and said the ship was sailable and said it could be fixed the next time the Bounty was in port for a refit. So the Ship yard took money and bandaided a ship which they new would not last and was unsafe? Also came out that the Boothbay has lost 3 years earlier a large 9 figure settlement in the refuirbishing of the Shenendoah, another tall ship in which they were found to have inadequtely repaired the ship

2- We learned that the crew of the Bounty was woefully prepared to handle even their own jobs on the ship. Thier testimony pointed out their complete lack of lkn owledge such as the enguineer, who knew nothing about filter on the pumps or the even how the pumps worked. The repairs which the crew made such as caulking the seems with a less than marine material to the top deack seal. The " p[roifessionals" knew it wasnt right but either turned a blind eye or just took pictures but never stepped forward and said it was safe or wouldnt hold up. And yes before you say it the Captain ordered thease repairs thgis way as there was no money to repair the vessels any other way

3- We learned from the hearing just How woefully funded the Bounty was and how it led to a crew which was not qualified as well as a Captain with a maniacal dream to preserve thuis ship which was rotten to the core structurally

4- We learned from the hearings that there was an organization who was interested in buying or funding the Bounty in Florida and having it involved in a program to aid disadvantage and challenged youth.

5- We learned about the owner and that there was pressure from him, but he took the fifth here so the true involvement wont come out until the civil suits are brought forth where he wont be able to hide behind that.

6- We learned that the only way to sail the Bounty was with pumps running and that when they failed,,,she woulkdnt stay afloat. Many people knoew this, no one raised the alarm and then the Captain irresponsibly went sailing and endangered the crew and himself needlessly knowing this. This ship could have sunk at anytime it appeared let alone take it out in a storm.

7- The Bounty was classified as a private vessel. There are no licensing requirements or CG inspections anymore than on our boats really. There are no regulatory requirements basically. She is just like many commercial fishing boats which are leaky, in disrepair, poorly funded and hanging on waiting to sink. Her crew were poorly paid and trained even worse.

Lastly the CG are really heros in their rescue.

Much attention has been given to the Bounty sinking...maybe because of the movie image and story behind the real Bounty.

The Captain was clearly culpable and irresponsible( See Caleb I said it again- grin. So were others to a much lesser degree in this tragedy.

Now its on to the next incident...which one do you want to rehash next... Farlonnes, Rule 62, San Clemente Sailboat, Sea of Cortez sinking, or the most recent Viewfinder.
Which one do you wish to analyse next and make a spectacle about?

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S/V Haleakala (Hawaiian for" House of the Sun")
C&C 35 MKIII Hull # 76
Parkville, Maryland
(photos by Joe McCary)
Charter member of the Chesapeake Lion posse

Our blog-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

“Sailing is just the bottom line, like adding up the score in bridge. My real interest is in the tremendous game of life.”- Dennis Conner
chef2sail is offline  
Quote Share with Facebook
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome