HMS Bounty in trouble... - Page 78

Capt.aaron · #**771** 11-19-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by PCP

Sorry, MARSEC levels?

Do you mean that like here they can close selectively a Port?

Regards

Paulo

They can decide they have reason's for security threat and or weather and stop all commercial trafiic.

killarney_sailor · #**772** 11-19-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by casey1999

Question:
Could the Coast Guard have prevented the Bounty from sailing when it left the dock prior to hurricane Sandy? If so, under what regulation? If someone had called the CG and said they did not think Bounty should sail, would the CG do anything or just let her go? Can the CG restrict boats/ships from sailing into certain weather systems like a northeaster or hurricane, seeing the CG will be called for help when somthing goes wrong?

Had an interesting example of this last year. We were in the Galapagos when the earthquake and tsunami from Japan happened. The first reaction of the Port Captain, actually connected to the Ecuadorean navy, was to close the harbor and not allow anyone to leave. They actually sent a patrol boat out to retrieve one boat that had left, not because of the tsunami but just because they were leaving and had their zarpe (clearance document). This was obviously the wrong decision since the harbor pointed pretty clearly toward Japan, but we had several hours notice. I was going to go ashore to the Port Captain's office and explain why I was going to leave, clearance, closed port or not and why others should leave - when the PC got word from someone that everyone should be in deep water (not hard there) an hour before the tsunami was to hit.

I think this points out the sometimes difficult dynamic between the responsibilities of the governing body (USGC, Ecuadorean navy, et al) and the responsibilities of the master of a vessel. I hope I am never in the shoes of the captain of the Bounty, but I think it is simplistic to suggest that it was a clearcut decision either way.

nolatom · #**773** 11-19-2012

They can also declare a planned departure to constitute a "manifestly unsafe voyage", see section (g) here:

§*177.07***Other unsafe conditions. :: PART 177--CORRECTION OF ESPECIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS :: CHAPTER I--COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY :: Title 33 - Navigation and Navigable Waters :: Code of Federal Regulations :: Regulations :: L

Thing is, while it is tempting to opine that a voyage "was" manifestly unsafe after a casualty, if this very considerable power is used too often, we are looking at the "nanny state" which most mariners hate.

So in my experience the Coast Guard (meaning a District Commander, the decision actually gets all the way to the Admiral) uses this weapon very sparingly, and usually it's the vessel's condition, rather than the captain's planned route or tactics, that triggers such a finding and termination of a voyage. And they are particularly reluctant to tell a skipper who wants to ride a storm out at sea, that he can't.

Would more people live if they declared a voyage manifestly unsafe if there was even a little doubt? Yes. But at what price freedom and 'captain's discretion', which typically (okay, not here I admit) saves many more lives than it costs?

PCP · #**774** 11-19-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt.aaron

They can decide they have reason's for security threat and or weather and stop all commercial trafiic.

What I am asking if it is like here? The Port captain has absolute authority in what regards safety and sometimes, if he finds it adequate, he can, for safety reasons, close the port not to all commercial or pleasure craft but just to some types of boats.

For instance in Figueira da Foz, a marina on a river near the mouth and also a Port, the Port Captain frequently closed the port to boats smaller than 10m, when the waves on the bar would make dangerous the crossing of the bar for those boats. I am not discussing if he is right or not. If he finds so his ruling is final. He can do whatever he pleases in what regards safety if he finds it justifiable. Of course if he takes absurd measures he has to justify himself to his superiors, but only later.

Well, for you to understand better, here all Ports are regulated in what regards security not by civilians but by navy officers. The Captain of a port is always a Navy officer and I guess only one of those would have the balls to say that the Bounty was not authorized to leave port. Or am I wrong?

edit: I guess Nolatom replied to my question but that need to go till the Admiral seems not very practical on what regards effective measures when they are needed.

Regards

Paulo

MarkofSeaLife · #**775** 11-19-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolatom

Would more people live if they declared a voyage manifestly unsafe if there was even a little doubt? Yes. But at what price freedom and 'captain's discretion', which typically (okay, not here I admit) saves many more lives than it costs?

I think the tall ship industry in the USA may well be shivering in their shoes.

And I think we can say that for the future of cruising as it is now, we are lucky that not all 16 died!

nolatom · #**776** 11-19-2012

Paulo, the Coast Guard, though having lots of peacetime missions, is also a military service, and they and their predecessor services (the Revenue Cutters of the Treasury Dept) took in all major wars at sea.

So the Captain of the Port is typically a Coast Guard Captain, or Commander. And they have much authority to order ships to move,or not move, depending on the security needs of the port or any other event which requires such action in the interest of safety, preservation of the port, and the like. So sounds not unlike your Navy Port Captains.

A blurb on Coast Guard history from the 'good book' Wikipedia ;-)

History of the United States Coast Guard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of the United States Coast Guard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the need to go to the Admiral is to make sure this rather drastic step of ordering someone not to sail from a nice harbor on a nice day because of what might happen later at sea, isn't overused of taken in haste by some Lieutenant down on the waterfront. Usually Admiral follows the recommendation of the Captain of the Port, who knows his/her Lieutenants.

JulieMor · #**777** 11-19-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt.aaron

I know exactly what I would of done, I would of told him he's a flipp'n moron and physically stopped him from leaving the dock.

Too bad you weren't on board. It may have been the second Mutiny On The Bounty but lives would have been saved.

Capt.aaron · #**778** 11-19-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulieMor

Too bad you weren't on board. It may have been the second Mutiny On The Bounty but lives would have been saved.

Indeed, I hope the next generation of schooner kid's learn from this and realize these Capt guy's are'nt demi gods as so many of them think they are.
I was taught early to respect the captains orders until they are down right rediculous.

ShoalFinder · #**779** 11-19-2012

Something is still missing.

As I said in my earlier post, since I am Captain Obvious, the Bounty crew were not conscripts. Why did all of them decide to go on what so many have labeled as an obvious suicide voyage? Not one of them could be compelled to sail against their will.

Even in the U.S. Navy, nobody is going to tackle you if you decide to walk off the brow even as the lines are being singled up. Oh, your ass is grass alright... but nobody's going to tie you up and force you to get underway. Better to have discipline problems OFF the ship than to bring them along for the ride. Follow the captain's orders on the ship or follow the guard's orders in the brig. But either way, you still have a choice.

So, why were 16 people complicit in such stupidity, if that is the argument that is being made- namely that the decision to sail would be obviously stupid, even to the most disinterested observer?

I say that 16 people would not be so stupid. Nor would they all be coerced by imaginary orders from a commercial captain of a display ship. The captain is the captain at sea-we live and die by following his orders, but on the hard he's one more boss at a job that you can quit. There's the door. This is still America.

Although a great number of smart people have posted wonderfully insightful opinions on this thread, it is all total conjecture at this point. There are 16 people who have to answer the question, because only they know the truth- and dare say not all 16 will agree when all is said and done.

MarkofSeaLife · #**780** 11-19-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShoalFinder

Something is still missing.

There are 16 people who have to answer the question, because only they know the truth- .

Oh no, they may not know the truth!! They may think they know. They may think they were going of their own free will.

But no they may have been deluded!

Young, naive, and deluded by lots of nice masts, a skipper with personality, a mate with a gold earring, the smell of adventure and "we are a team!" Or the other type: "yes, you go home to mummy you woooose. Go play with toys, you're not man enough to sail on a tall ship with us. Look how stupid you will feel when we arrive in Florida having beaten Frankenstorm".

No. The people inside the cult, the ones believing the cult leader may be the last to be able to tell the truth.