Originally Posted by smackdaddy
I guess that's what's interesting here. On the one hand you're right. The "water emergency" was perhaps more perceived than actual. I don't know.
On the other hand, if ANY skipper/sailor planned or operated with such contingencies in mind (e.g. - someone will be close enough to bring me food, water, fuel, etc.) - they would be deemed a threat to everything we hold to as standard "seamanship". Further, this notion would absolve the skipper, the crew, or anyone else of mistakes made in this regard...or get them into far more trouble than they already were.
To me, the real issue is how a skipper plans and executes the voyage. That should ALWAYS be done under the guise of responsible self-sufficiency. And if that self-sufficiency is undermined, to the point of a potentially life-threatening state, every measure should be taken to remain self-sufficient as long as possible. That's what the people on this boat did in the long run - with encouragement to do so from each contacted authority from what I can see - and it worked out. And that was the right thing. It was just very messy in the process.
Disagree. Threats and violence resulted from a perceived danger. The temperament of the crew and the way they handled stressful situations was much more of a danger than even running out of water, or sailing the boat poorly. The Capt and crew could have injured themselves in their altercations and violent out burst. Much more dangerous than being out of water for a few hours. I am sure the CG would much rather drop of some water than to pick up body bags. It is also more seamen like to run out of water than to lead a mutiny.