HMS Bounty in trouble... - Page 111

Minnewaska · #**1101** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sal Paradise

....There has to be more to the story. We may never know the real reason. If I had to guess, some outside force was acting on Walbridge at that moment. " Get-homei-tis" or orders from his boss, or a wish for glory or hubris or... something worse.......

Could be, but the choice of saving the boat, without proper regard for the crew (complacency) is clearly possible in my opinion. The hurricane could have very easily ended up coming straight over any New England port. Most of us took preventative measures with that in mind. The boat could potentially have taken a hit right in New London. It may have been damaged or sunk if taken up the Hudson or Narragansett too.

Given the documented navigation of hurricanes in his past, it remains plausible that he was simply trying to save his ship. In fact, if the ship were destroyed, he would have been out of work.

Not saying I know this fact pattern to be correct, I'm only saying there doesn't have to be more to it.

casey1999 · #**1102** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkofSeaLife

Barkesdale is brave and correct to come forward and be interviewed. I thank him for it.
He must have had a terrible time in that hot stinking water filled engine room. Terrible and terrifying.

Yes Barkesdale is a true hero. To be working in the engine space while it is filling with water, wondering if the ship will suddenly sink, yet he kept performing his job as best as conditions would allow.

casey1999 · #**1103** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minnewaska

Could be, but the choice of saving the boat, without proper regard for the crew (complacency) is clearly possible in my opinion. The hurricane could have very easily ended up coming straight over any New England port. Most of us took preventative measures with that in mind. The boat could potentially have taken a hit right in New London. It may have been damaged or sunk if taken up the Hudson or Narragansett too.

Given the documented navigation of hurricanes in his past, it remains plausible that he was simply trying to save his ship. In fact, if the ship were destroyed, he would have been out of work.

Not saying I know this fact pattern to be correct, I'm only saying there doesn't have to be more to it.

That is the way it looks to me. That ship was for sale at $4.5 million at the time. They (Capt and Bounty organization) were just trying to keep it a float so it could be sold. Does anyone know what the ship was insured for?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see no beauty in this "movie" Bounty ship. It was not kept in good condition, it could not sail well, it was not a replica in any way to the original Bounty. Like Hollywood, the ship was a fake.

It should have been burned after the first movie.

MarkofSeaLife · #**1104** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by casey1999

Yes Barkesdale is a true hero. To be working in the engine space while it is filling with water, wondering if the ship will suddenly sink, yet he kept performing his job as best as conditions would allow.

Also, if what the article said was right, he was the last to know they were abandoning ship. He came up when he knew he could do no more. He wasn't ordered up.

Yes. If it was a war you'd pin a medal on him.

casey1999 · #**1105** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkofSeaLife

Also, if what the article said was right, he was the last to know they were abandoning ship. He came up when he knew he could do no more. He wasn't ordered up.

Yes. If it was a war you'd pin a medal on him.

Barkesdale's actions reminded me of the engine operators on the Titanic. They stayed with the engines and rode the ship down. For all Barkesdale knew, he could have been riding the Bounty to the bottom.

smurphny · #**1106** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by casey1999

More on the ballasting changes:
HMS Bounty, Replica, Restoration

Does not this show vessel inspection expired Sept 30, 2012?
USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page

So, they attached/retrofitted 65000 pounds of lead to the underside of the keel....hmmmmmmmmmmm.

MarkofSeaLife · #**1107** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurphny

So, they attached/retrofitted 65000 pounds of lead to the underside of the keel....hmmmmmmmmmmm.

After taking 85,000 pounds off.

Now, why in the world would you do that?

So it didnt have to pass inspection?

Brewgyver · #**1108** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by PCP

(snip)That was not the kind of accidents I was talking about or the ones that interested me, than I keep on searching and the best I could find in what regards that kind of accidents was this chart, that I have already posted:

Regards

Paulo

Paolo, not sure you realize, but that graphic is cropped to the point of being meaningless. There are two different colors used in the bard "SAR Events..." but the descriptor for both has been trimmed after the word "Events" (on the right side of the graph). There would have to be a reason for two different colors, but we cannot see what it is due to the cropping.
Also, as has been pointed out by Take5, this graph is from the Satelite service, so of course the numbers would grow as the numbers of transmitters grow. Also, we have no way of knowing how they define and "Event" (e.g. are accidental activations excluded, etc). Lastly, a large portion of the "Events" shown on the map on their web page (which you linked to), were mainland locations, very few offshore.
Minus a LOT more information, the graph is pretty meaningless.

xymotic · #**1109** 12-04-2012

Whenever we have even a mildly significant weather event here in Puget Sound, the Coast Guard periodically broadcasts on 16 telling you to tune to 21 for more information.

Does anyone know if they were doing similar broadcasts in New London at the time of the departure?

And of course the NOAA Weather stations seem pretty good about forecasting a week out. I suspect they must have been broadcasting a pretty severe warning? Anybody got any further detail about what was said and when?

PCP · #**1110** 12-04-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

Paolo, not sure you realize, but that graphic is cropped to the point of being meaningless. There are two different colors used in the bard "SAR Events..." but the descriptor for both has been trimmed after the word "Events" (on the right side of the graph). There would have to be a reason for two different colors, but we cannot see what it is due to the cropping.
Also, as has been pointed out by Take5, this graph is from the Satelite service, so of course the numbers would grow as the numbers of transmitters grow. Also, we have no way of knowing how they define and "Event" (e.g. are accidental activations excluded, etc). Lastly, a large portion of the "Events" shown on the map on their web page (which you linked to), were mainland locations, very few offshore.
Minus a LOT more information, the graph is pretty meaningless.

It's Paulo. Yes, I have already explained that. You have you to add the two bars even if the two epirbs were not used for the same thing. The blue one, was the 121.5, it had a smaller range and was used mostly locally (coastal). The red one was the one that was used offshore and had a global coverage (406).

The black graphic on top is independent of both types and therefore is meaningful.

Regards

Paulo