Sinking

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Smack-

The reason we're treating them unevenly is that they have earned different levels of respect or derision.

Dog, thanks. I honestly understand that. Completely and utterly. I've just been saying (just as exhaustively) that I don't think that's a fair starting place. There are plenty of things that are worth serious scrutiny in any and every event (as I just sated above). And NO investigative agency is going to start evaluating an event with the premise above. So why should we - unless there is some other point to be proven?

To that end, what do his fellow seaman think about the skipper of the Exxon Valdez? I would hope they have even more derision for him than anyone could possibly have for someone like Ronnie. That would seem evenhanded.

[sailordave]

SMACK, just out of curiousity how much Blue Water sailing do you have under your belt? For that matter how much experience and on what kind of boat(s)?

I have generally stayed out of discussions such as this but you're out of line and sound like you lack experience.


B/c THIS situation was not foreseen and the crew were experienced. Yeah, you can make the case that the forecast COULD have gotten worse but every time you leave the dock that is the case.

AFA other posters not being even handed, it has already been posted AD NAUSEUM that the sailors were not evenly skilled. Ronniebaby had minimal skills, poor judgement and Skip as well as the boat last week had a WHOLE lot of experience and were prepared.

Reminds me of the old saying that "equal treatment of unequals is inherently unfair"

[smackdaddy]

Dave - we've also been over this ground quit a bit. What you're saying here makes perfect sense IF you start with Dog's premise above.

On the other hand, if you don't, and if you simply look at EVERY event objectively and start tracing back the causal problems and decisions from there - treating them all with the same level of scrutiny, you get something very educational. It doesn't take ANY blue water or sailing experience whatsoever to understand this very basic point.

Newbie. C27 in a lake. Sailing for 6 months.

[bubb2]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Cam and Bubb,

These kinds of statements are what I'm talking about.

Another specific example is in Skip A's story. As a newbie, I've read here in many places that tethering to a rail is a very bad idea. Jody got a bit of the old dressing down for that one. Yet Skip did so in a serious storm according to his ship's log.

There just seems to be more nuance to all this than is being presented.

OK Smack, I am the guy that told Jody that tied off to a rail was a bad idea. I also told him to have a harness under his jacket was a bad idea, do you disagree? Do you think that was bad advice? Would you please post where "Skip" cliipped to a rail?

I am getting tired of you, you want people to spoon feed you information and then you question it. Make some type of effort to learn something on your own, like getting out on a boat.

Go out "there" MR. big f'in sailer man. Just go!!!!! if you make it back, you may have intelligent questions. !!!!!!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by bubb2

OK Smack, I am the guy that told Jody that tied off to a rail was a bad idea. I also told him to have a harness under his jacket was a bad idea, do you disagree? Do you think that was bad advice? Would you please post where "Skip" cliipped to a rail?

I am getting tired of you, you want people to spoon feed you information and then you question it. Make some type of effort to learn something on your own, like getting out on a boat.

Go out "there" MR. big f'in sailer man. Just go!!!!! if you make it back, you may have intelligent questions. !!!!!!

Bubb,

Here's a link to the story. I also have a link to it - and a very positive take on it in BFS. So I'm certainly not bashing the guy.

Halfway down on page 2, there's this:

"At noon, it looked like the gale was lessening. I left the safety of the cabin, and with two safety harnesses affixed to the windward rail, began to hand steer eastward on a reach with the #4. It was mogul sailing at its best, having to radically bear away to avoid hissing 8-12' breaking crests on the top of 15-30 foot seas."

Of course I don't disagree with your advice!!! It makes perfect sense!! That's why this surprised me when I read it.

Finally, go a little easy on the spoonfeed thing. You certainly don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to. And I'm not trying to intentionally peeve anyone - I'm just presenting a different viewpoint.

And, I'm obviously willing to do some legwork for you in tracking down these stories. I AM doing a lot of research. So it's all good, bubb.

Actually, I'm heading out to the boat in an hour or so. Practicing the good stuff I learn around here.

[bubb2]

Continuing, Smack I would be happy to tow you from my boat while you are clipped to rail attached to a harness under your foul weather jacket.

[smackdaddy]

Wow - you are steamed. I'll go sailing now.

[bubb2]

Smack, I may be steamed, but it is about keeping guys like you alive, right or wrong.

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by bubb2

OK Smack, I am the guy that told Jody that tied off to a rail was a bad idea. I also told him to have a harness under his jacket was a bad idea, do you disagree? Do you think that was bad advice? Would you please post where "Skip" cliipped to a rail?

I'll actually address the "bad idea for Jody" since well I am him.

Attaching to the stern rail actually was the most secure area for me at the helm to attach to. Considering that I am using a 6 foot tether and I have a sugar scoop that extends 4 feet past the stern rail - if I was to be knocked over - I would land on the step on the sugar scoop.

Secondly - having the life vest UNDER the foulies also is not always a bad idea. It nominal conditions - and wearing light nice weather gear - absolutely should be worn as the last layer. My foul weather gear is bigger than needs be so that it I can use layers. If I was to be knocked over - the biggest issue would be getting to the d-ring to be hoisted - I could live with that because I have a backstay that I could also get to in the event - remember I have been a MOB before on my own boat. I make decisions based on overall what if scenarios and not "always do this" because someone says that is so.

Secondly - being knocked over the bigger foul weather gear would also trap air after the PFD under it inflates- and actually lift me higher in buoyancy than if it was over it. The life vest being over would remove any air pockets that could be formed. One of the survival skills learned in the navy if you were a MOB - take off your pants - tie the ends of the legs into a knot and then pull the waist down into the water and the legs would trap air and you could improvise a flotation device. Same principle here.

Lastly - I was getting doused with feets worth of water sheeting onto me from the oncoming 10-15 foot waves. I did not want the PFD to inflate prematurely.

Only addressing it because I failed to address it as it I only saw the "snide reply comment" and not the original comment.

So - there is the rest of the story in terms of the advise - and why normally I may agree, but not in that situation...And for doubters - do what I did - at a YMCA pool for real (please have a safety line and a qualified person to supervise)- and then do it the way that you demand to be done - and discover for yourself. Sorry I didn't address this earlier.

[camaraderie]

Jody...perhaps the linguistic distinction is being TIED to the rail (bad idea) rather than clipped to the rail.