HMS Bounty in trouble...

[chef2sail]

Well, if the boat licence specified that the boat should not sail over f7 or go out of port with a prevision of winds over f7, the boat would be still afloat-PCP.

This is not necessarily true and I await the full investigative report. We still do not know what sunk the ship. There have been unverified rumors about leaking planks, failed genrators and engines, pumps which failed. All this could have happened in a gale also.

This enough would not prevent a similar fate IMHO and there needs to be a deeper or more thorough means of inspection, vertification and verification of the vessels maintainence amnd structural integrity just as an airplane undergoes before it flies at all. I agree with Minnie in his ststement about the need for certification of the Tall ships/ Tourist ships. I beleive the full inspection will point out and recommend changes to the current method or certification ( or not) of these vessels.

In addition you also have contributed in the assertion indirectly that there needs to be assurance of a more "professional" overall crew other than the Captain aboard the ship. While I dont necessarily agree with the "cult" analolgy, especially the Jim Jones comparison you jumped to, I do think that you pointed to a potential flaw in the staffing of these vessels which convey tourists. Again IMHO there needs to be more than one lisneced ( Captain) individual on board. The running of these ships requires a certain degree of specialization. Even though I have sailed for 4 years, I would have no real clue how to sail a ship like this, her capabiliteis, as well as her critical deficiencies and danger points.

I will continue to point out so no one misconstrues my opinoin, none of this exonnerates or minimizes the Captains decision and leaving the dock in the direction of an impending storm.

Dave

[PCP]

Originally Posted by Hartley18

Is that what the boat license said, Paulo?? What source?

I'd be very surprised if it did.. such decisions are usually the responsibility of the Captain. It's his job to know the capabilities of his ship and if something goes wrong (like this) he's the one who has to explain (just like the captain of Costa Concordia had to).

Sorry Hartley You have understood me wrongly I have said : "if the boat licence specified " not that it said that. I guess that it is an unlimited license.

What I have said it is what I think a licence of an old wooden replica of a XVIII century boat should say. I hope something similar comes out of this. I expressed the idea on this post:

Originally Posted by PCP

I think that it will end the possibility of these ships to be classified as unispected passenger vessels (like the Bounty) and that all ships will have a mandatory proper inspection and not one only over safety items aboard.

As I have said, and agreeing with what you say, many of those ships, but not all, are fair or moderate weather ships and not able anymore to sustain with safety heavy weather.

I hope that as a result of those inspection these ships to be reclassified regarding the sea conditions they are authorized to sail. This seems to me the ruling that can prevent better more accidents and that will allow the Tall ships that have conditions to sail unlimited to carry on with their activity.

Regards

Paulo

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by PCP

What I have said it is what I think a licence of an old wooden replica of a XVIII century boat should say. I hope something similar comes out of this. I expressed the idea on this post:

Ok. Perhaps martime law is different in the US (but I don't think so).. The idea you suggest be implemented is called "Survey" over here and any vessel capable of carrying paying passengers must be "In Survey" to legally do so - for insurance reasons.

"Survey" means that the vessel must meet a whole host of detailed safety criteria, have regular evac drills, safety inspections, etc. etc. It is a very expensive process, but has been a part of commercial shipping for as long as I can remember.

There should be no need to change anything: HMS Bounty is not someone's private yacht.. and given she could carry paying passengers, I'd be surprised to hear it if the mandatory inspections, etc. you mention were not already being carried out.

[PCP]

Originally Posted by Hartley18

Ok. Perhaps the law is different in the US (but I didn't think so).. The idea you suggest be implemented is called "Survey" over here and any vessel capable of carrying paying passengers must be "in survey" to legally do so.

"Survey" means that the vessel must meet a whole host of safety criteria, have regular evac drills, safety inspections, etc. etc. It is a very expensive process, but has been a part of commercial shipping for as long as I can remember.

HMS Bounty is not someone's private yacht.. and given she could carry paying passengers, I'd be surprised to hear that the mandatory inspections, etc. you mention were not already being carried out.

No, I don't think the boat was inspected except in what regards having the legal safety equipment. I am refereeing to a structural inspection to the hull, rig and masts, I mean a serious one to the ship. That is one of the legal holes that was discussed at length on the gCaptain forum. We will know for sure after the investigation.

Quoting :

C.Captain
(Ship captain?)

Just to get something clear here. BOUNTY was not a "Sail Training Vessel" which are inspected under 46CFR subchapter R and have a minimum safe manning determination. BOUNTY was an 46CFR subchapter C uninspected passenger vessel which is worse as far as any oversight goes regarding safety of construction and equipment.

The Bounty fiasco and an undeserved black eye


quote:

Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPVs) more than 100 gross tons carrying 12 or fewer passengers;....

Uninspected Passenger Vessel (more than 100 GT)

Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPVs) more than 100 GT are also regulated in 46 CFR Subchapter C and are allowed to carry 12 or fewer passengers, at least one of whom is for hire. The U.S. Coast Guard does not formally inspect these vessels, although they may be boarded for examinations. Large charter yachts, also known as mega-yachts, are the best known representatives of this class of vessels.


Comm Rerport Summary

The boat was also classified as a dock attraction and on that quality was mandatory inspected, for that purpose, or at least it was what I understood.

Way back on this thread someone from the bounty showed the inspection paper with inspections from the CG. I asked if those inspections were related with the status of the boat as a dock attraction and I am still waiting for a reply, so I guess they were.

Regards

Paulo

[MarkofSeaLife]

Originally Posted by Hartley18

"Survey" means that the vessel must meet a whole host of detailed safety criteria, have regular evac drills, safety inspections, etc. etc. It is a very expensive process, but has been a part of commercial shipping for as long as I can remember.

.

Well, Hartley, the USA has really screwed this one up, if it is as we have been reading over the past few days.

The tall ships get around the passenger regulations by calling passengers volunteer crew, or similar.

Means the ship doesnt have to Survey, in Australian parlence.

The difficulty is going to be quite remarkable when the enquiry is held:
1) will the Coast Guard brush it under the carpet?
2) will the Coast Guard start requiring propper inspections of all tall ships, thus making them all unviable finacially?
3) will the government do some trick to save the tall ships?

One thing that might not be obvious in Australia is that there are a LOT of tall ships in the USA and people treat them with remarkable affection.... Vastly more affection than some would think justified.
Some might say this overly affectionate treatment is just not worth the lives put at risk.

The world has quite a few tall ships and they are astronomically expensive to keep up. Remember that story only a few months ago of the Argintinian navy tall ship that was commandeered by creditors when it arrived in Europe? The Argentinians couldnt pay!


Mark

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by PCP

No, I don't think the boat was inspected except in what regards having the legal safety equipment. I am refereeing to a structural inspection to the hull, rig and masts, I mean a serious one to the ship.

So am I. What a mess..

So, HMS Bounty never carried more than 12 paying passengers? A ship that large?? and it's obviously a little more than a "dockside attraction" so I'd have thought it would fit a the "sail training" category myself..

FWIW, under the Survey system, "Restricted Survey" is also possible, being the usual stuff with a bunch of conditions attached, but

Originally Posted by PCP

Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPVs) more than 100 gross tons carrying 12 or fewer passengers;....

Uninspected Passenger Vessel (more than 100 GT)

Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPVs) more than 100 GT are also regulated in 46 CFR Subchapter C and are allowed to carry 12 or fewer passengers, at least one of whom is for hire. The U.S. Coast Guard does not formally inspect these vessels, although they may be boarded for examinations. Large charter yachts, also known as mega-yachts, are the best known representatives of this class of vessels.

That is indeed a bit of a weak point. It sounds like they're saying a charter vessel doesn't really have to be any different, or follow any different safety proceduresm to any other yacht so long as they don't carry more than 12 passengers?

My parents used to own a charter yacht (carrying 12 or fewer passengers) and that most certainly got inspected once a year out of the water... with all the various hoops and hurdles required to be jumped through as a result.

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by MarkofSeaLife

Well, Hartley, the USA has really screwed this one up, if it is as we have been reading over the past few days.

The tall ships get around the passenger regulations by calling passengers volunteer crew, or similar.

Means the ship doesnt have to Survey, in Australian parlence.

That makes sense. We have a few Tall Ships over here (Enterprize, HMS Endeavour, One&All, James Craig..) and I'm sure that doesn't wash for them - they're either "in survey" or they don't leave the dock.

At least one of them has been a lot further at sea than HMS Bounty ever went: HMS Endeavour has been around the world at least once, playing a bit part in the filming of "Master and Commander" in the process.

Originally Posted by MarkofSeaLife

The difficulty is going to be quite remarkable when the enquiry is held:
1) will the Coast Guard brush it under the carpet?
2) will the Coast Guard start requiring propper inspections of all tall ships, thus making them all unviable finacially?
3) will the government do some trick to save the tall ships?

One thing that might not be obvious in Australia is that there are a LOT of tall ships in the USA and people treat them with remarkable affection.... Vastly more affection than some would think justified.
Some might say this overly affectionate treatment is just not worth the lives put at risk.

The world has quite a few tall ships and they are astronomically expensive to keep up. Remember that story only a few months ago of the Argintinian navy tall ship that was commandeered by creditors when it arrived in Europe? The Argentinians couldnt pay!

We may not have anything quite like the Argentinian ship, but people over here do get seriously stuck into the (fewer) Tall Ships we have - a few of which really aren't worth repairing but they raise funds and do so anyway.

For example, one of the biggest lost causes in these parts is this one. You can join up to be a Deck Officer if you like.. on a ship that will never float again!.. but they're preserving history and that's fine - just so long as nobody gets hurt in the process.

[chef2sail]

We know what the law says.

Does anyone know for sure without a shadow of doubt what inspections if any the Bounty went through or did not go through? The fact they may not have been required is not proof that they didnt.

First hand knowledge or report from a government agency will suffice. I prefer not to make assumptions and hypothesis unless it is a known fact.

Anything other than that is conjecture and unfounded speculation.

Dave

[Capt.aaron]

I know the Western Union , the ship that laid the phone cable to Cuba was over and over again failing their Coast Guard Inspection, until finally they passed after a huge structural refit, and they are only sailing around the Bay with tourists. It's the Coast Guard who say's yay or nay in the end. Most of the big ocean Tall ships are steel, like the Eagle. The ones I see that are sea worthy are Sweedish or Dutch. It takes a government to fund these things properly.

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by Capt.aaron

I know the Western Union , the ship that laid the phone cable to Cuba was over and over again failing their Coast Guard Inspection, until finally they passed after a huge structural refit, and they are only sailing around the Bay with tourists. It's the Coast Guard who say's yay or nay in the end. Most of the big ocean Tall ships are steel, like the Eagle. The ones I see that are sea worthy are Sweedish or Dutch. It takes a government to fund these things properly.

You're right - most of them are steel - although this one HMB Endeavour is a world traveller (via the Horn no less!) and certainly not steel..