SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

HMS Bounty in trouble...

278K views 2K replies 105 participants last post by  PCP 
#1 ·
The HMS Bounty is a tall ship that was built in Nova Scotia in 1961 for the MGM movie "Mutiny on the Bounty", starring Marlon Brando...she appears to be in trouble from Hurricane Sandy.

From ABC News:
2:55 AM EDT: Coast Guard spokesman David Weydert tells ABC News, "The Coast Guard received notification that the sailing vessel HMS Bounty was in distress. We responded by sending out a C-130 aircraft and we're currently monitoring the situation."

And the ships website confirms she is in harms way:
TallShipBounty.org

I sure hope this story has a happy ending.
 
#791 ·
Yes I guess it has similarities but here a Port captain is never a lieutenant-.PCP
Our larger ports are not under the jurisdiction of Jr Officers at all. Comparing the area amount of waterways between coastal Portugal and the entire United States not a realistic comparison. Portugal has less coastline than Florida or Maine . Therefore their will be less ranked officers in charge of some of the minor tribuataries and ports.

Here is a quick refernece to the CG. One of their major missions is SAR and always has been

 
#796 ·
There are a ton of amatuer sailors that are absolute pro's. There are professional sailors that suck. Like the cattle-maran kids in key west harbor. In my world, if the boat is less than 85 feet it's tiny and therefore rather easy to handle, the boat I steer at work is 400 feet long when all hooked up. It's relative. You don't want mariners with no formal training driving vessel's of significant tonnnage and gurth, however I bet some of the 1600 ton guy's I work with would be sh!tting there pants off shore in a 28 foot sail boat. They'd be lost and almost none of them know how to sail.
 
#802 ·
On Insidenova.com there is an interview with the "engineer". Article is called Surviving the Bounty. He had joined the ship two months ago. Captain explained at the dock what was up and said he'd understand if they wanted to bail.

Had been around small boats all his life. Received basic safety training and some instruction on climbing the rigging. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a crack diesel and genset guy. He owns a handyman business, not exactly qualifying credentials to be in charge of big marine diesels and gensets.

No mention of the fact that maybe if they had a proper engineer the engine wouldn't have failed.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
#805 ·
On Insidenova.com there is an interview with the "engineer". Article is called Surviving the Bounty. He had joined the ship two months ago. Captain explained at the dock what was up and said he'd understand if they wanted to bail.

Had been around small boats all his life. Received basic safety training and some instruction on climbing the rigging. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a crack diesel and genset guy. He owns a handyman business, not exactly qualifying credentials to be in charge of big marine diesels and gensets.

No mention of the fact that maybe if they had a proper engineer the engine wouldn't have failed.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
You mean this?:

quote:

The storm was not unexpected by the crew; Walbridge had called everyone on deck to tell them about the approaching hurricane before they left Connecticut, saying he would under-stand if people decided to get off the ship, Barksdale said.

Everyone stayed.

"Naturally I was a little hesitant about that, but [the captain] explained the situation and it seemed like he had a pretty good strategy," Barksdale said. "We were going to try and get around the hurricane. Nobody knew that it was going to have the in-tensity and size it ended up having."

Rough winds and waves shook the ship for about a day and a half.
Crewmembers had to cling to parts of the Bounty or they would be thrown overboard.

Around midday Oct. 28, the crew noticed the ship was taking on more water than normal. Mechanical problems developed, including the failure of one of the main engines and the water pumps. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Bounty's land office were alerted.

Conditions worsened later in the day. Crew members began pulling out immersion suits - used to keep them dry and warm in the water - and stuffing dry bags with rations in case the order came to abandon ship, Barksdale said.

Up until the early hours of Oct. 29, the crew's priority was saving the ship.

...

When the battered and sleep-deprived crew went on deck in the hours before dawn, waves continued to hammer the ship. The Bounty had taken on so much water she was almost on her side with her three masts in the ocean."It became apparent that you didn't have much choice, you were going in that water," Barksdale said.

....

Barksdale became a crew-member a few months ago, when his friend and the Bounty's first mate, John Svend-sen, asked him to fill the engineer's spot on the crew. Barksdale had declined last spring due to family and business obligations, but agreed this time thinking if he turned down his friend again, Svendsen would stop calling.

....

As the engineer, Barksdale was responsible for the engines, electrical generation and water systems. He was with the crew for almost two months.
Barksdale has been around small boats for most of his life, but this was his first experience with a tall ship. Before setting sail, he received basic safety training and some instruction on climbing in the rigging.

....

His life already has started re-turning to normal, with work calls coming in for his small business, Honey-Do Handyman. His clients and friends have sent cards, called and emailed since they heard about the Bounty.

Surviving the Bounty: Va. man recalls sinking of HMS Bounty during superstorm Sandy - INSIDENOVA.COM: Virginia & Region: headlines, headlinesscs,

Well, this seems to bring new information:

The Engineer was an Handy-Man and the pumps failed prior of at least one engine. The "engineer" aboard should know about that.

Regards

Paulo
 
#803 ·
Why should prudent citizens pay for expensive rescues to guys that are stupidly risking their lives in inadequate boats and without the knowledge to do what they are doing. It is their fault anyway. Why should all pay for their stupidity
Should we just rescue the guys on the Berring Sea who fish for crab in horrendous conditions?

Dave
 
#804 ·
No Dave, I think that even the people that is just left do die because they cannot pay the hospital bills should be saved.

what I mean is that good sense is needed here and if the good sense continues to lack and the number of rescues continue to raise, someday we will all have to pay, kind of the rescues being paid by a mandatory insurance...and that is not going to be cheap:)

Regards

Paulo
 
#821 ·
Please post a link to your source for these statistics. I did not realize that the frequency of rescues was actually rising and I would be very interested in seeing this.

Or does it just seem like this because of TV shows like Coast Guard Alaska and web sites like Sail net?
I thought it was evident. Why don't you look yourself the data? It is not difficult.



Cospas-Sarsat Distress Alerts

Regards

Paulo
 
#830 · (Edited)
I thought it was evident. Why don't you look yourself the data? It is not difficult.



Cospas-Sarsat Distress Alerts

Regards

Paulo
Sorry, but you're playing games with the numbers. The chart you show is not total number of SAR missions, it's the number that involve the Cpspas-Sarsat system. Basically the chart shows growth in the implementation of that system, not a growth of the overall number of SAR missions.

The RITA data that MarkofSeaLife linked shows quite definitively that there has been a dramatic reduction of SAR missions

1985: 60,775 cases; 88,000 sorties
2010: 22,226 cases; 23,159 sorties

There are many other metrics on that site, and virtually every one shows a sustained and dramatic reduction of incidents over the past 25 years. The trend is unmistakable.

So while it may initially seem plausible that "false security" of electronics is leading to more accidents, it is not true. In fact, the statistics would seem to show the opposite - that the new technology is making people safer and helping them to avoid accidents. And when accidents happen, the likelihood of successful rescue goes up.

So maybe we should tone down the rhetoric a bit. Safety is getting better, not worse. Fewer incidents are happening. Fewer people are dying. Technology is a good thing.

I'll repeat my prior suggestion that TV shows, proliferation of camcorders and camera phones, and the instantaneous publicity of incidents by the blogosphers makes it SEEM like there are more incidents, but the data prove that there are actually fewer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: therapy23
#808 ·
Before you are allowed to depart on an ocean crossing passage, you will be required to post insurance or a bond that would cover your rescue if needed.
How are you going to enforce this? Does it mean going to the Carribean? Fishing of the coast of NJ in winter for clams> Oopelio crab fishing in the Bering Sea?
 
#809 · (Edited)
Not sure, but then I am not sure how the government is going to enforce Obama Care. How will Obama Care be enforced for the many (and growing) population of homeless, unemployed americans, whom have little or no assets, no address, and do not file taxes?

Any off shore passage that requires an overnight stay on your boat at sea would require the insurance/bond. This would only apply to pleasure boats (including "display" boats).
 
#811 ·
Even if I don't like it a bit, a mandatory rescue insurance will be an effective measure
.

I agree with this

But we dont even have mandaory boat insurance here. How would you require someone like smallboatlover to get this when they dont even want to purchase liability or insurance against environmental damage ? Mandatory...oh man that wont resonate well with most
 
#812 ·
Most boats need to be registered with the ported state, even very small day sailors. Maybe the states could require insurance when registering. The same way cars are required to have liability insurance when registering.

Actually, the states would like this, another way to make money off boaters. Part of the money could go to the federal government to pay the Coast Guard.
 
#825 ·
Maybe we should revisit the whole cult and brainwashing thing again.
Following and trusting too much yes...cult...no IMHO

As I stated earlier, I consider an incident like the RULE 62 tragedy to be a "GPS-enabled" event, no way would that guy have attempted that move 30 years ago- JonEisenburg
I dont agree that this was the reason. I am suprised that you arent consistant in your thinking here and dont blame the Captain of the Rule62 as you did the one on the Bounty fully for not excercising good judgement in staying at sea. Its a huge leap to say that he went there because of a chartplotter. Do you even know if it was functioning? He should have stayed in deep water as there was no danger of his vessels sinking there. He lacked the experience to sail the 1500 in the conditions he was in or he erred in judgement...just like the other Captain. He is to blame for ther death of the passanger....just like the other Captain. He placed the ship in the dangerous position...just like the other Captain. He gave into the pleadings of his crew...bad jusgement again. He would have attempted to go in where he did wether he had a chartplotter or charts.

I certainly agree tha reliance on electronics soley is dangerous and short sighted. But lets face it if used in conjunction with the tried and true navigational aides as well as proper judgement the elctronic instruments can be a great advantage in safety. Electronics can be used to enhance safety and shoulkdnt be dependied upon soley for safety.

If the Captain on the Titanic had radar...chances are the ship wouldnt have hit the iceberg and his route would have been further south as he saw them on his scope/ plotter. How may would be lost without EPIRBs?

Fighting or demeaning the use of electronics keeps you further and further back in the dark ages. Its like fighting the use of computers.

Dave
 
#826 ·
As I stated earlier, I consider an incident like the RULE 62 tragedy to be a "GPS-enabled" event, no way would that guy have attempted that move 30 years ago- JonEisenburg
I dont agree that this was the reason. I am suprised that you arent consistant in your thinking here and dont blame the Captain of the Rule62 as you did the one on the Bounty fully for not excercising good judgement in staying at sea. Its a huge leap to say that he went there because of a chartplotter. Do you even know if it was functioning? He should have stayed in deep water as there was no danger of his vessels sinking there. He lacked the experience to sail the 1500 in the conditions he was in or he erred in judgement...just like the other Captain. He is to blame for ther death of the passanger....just like the other Captain. He placed the ship in the dangerous position...just like the other Captain. He gave into the pleadings of his crew...bad jusgement again. He would have attempted to go in where he did wether he had a chartplotter or charts.
Sorry, but I'm really mystified by my apparent inability to make myself understood by you on this point... (grin)

There is no 'inconsistency' in my assigning responsibility for both these tragedies to either captain... Let me try one more time to make it clear: THEY ARE BOTH SOLELY, AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS(ES) OF THEIR VESSELS AND CREW...

I'm only surmising that the skipper of RULE 62 thought such a transit of the North Bar Channel was do-able, due to his undue confidence in the accuracy of his means to navigate that cut, at night, in a rage... One more time: IT WAS LIKELY A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN HIS DECISION, NOTHING MORE...It's possible, of course, that he might have attempted to do so without such means at his disposal - but I simply find that possibility highly unlikely...

So, then, how do YOU know that he WOULD have attempted to enter that cut that night, nevertheless? Whether he had a functioning plotter, Explorer Charts, or not?
 
#828 ·
Jon,

Sorry I frustrate you by my lack of understanding or agreement

So, then, how do YOU know that he WOULD have attempted to enter that cut that night, nevertheless? Whether he had a functioning plotter, Explorer Charts, or not?
Fact is he did enter it. He chose to head for land because the people on board were sick and complaining/ pleading. Most of the other vessels in his situation rode it out or hove to. He had that option and chose to set a course for the land under pressure from his crew. He took a perefectly sound boat in no ral or apparent danger and put it in danger by entering shallow waters and attempting to run the North Bar Channel

It was you who assumed he had a chartplotter on and that he wasnt looking at his charts, not me by your post. He would have done the same thing 30 years ago with just charts IMHO, he was just reckless........just like the Bounty Captain
 
#829 ·
Fortunately i can help you out.
RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year

RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year

As posted earlier in this thread and great stats too!
From 1980 till now the drop is about 2/3. I.e. 30 years ago there were three times the number of rescues by the coast guard in those statistics provided.

Half as many people dies nowadays as 30 years ago.
I am actually suprised. I though it would be more too. I guess that shoots the whole electrontics has lerad to more dangerous sailing taking more risks theory and costoing us more money.

Now whos the first one going to say these arent accurate or most events arent recorded?????
 
#871 ·
Fortunately i can help you out.
RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year

RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year

I am actually suprised. I though it would be more too. I guess that shoots the whole electrontics has lerad to more dangerous sailing taking more risks theory and costoing us more money.

Now whos the first one going to say these arent accurate or most events arent recorded?????
I wont argue the numbers. The same statistics running from 1964 to 2011 can be found on the U.S. Coast Guard's website under statistics. If we're talking about use of taxpayer dollars in compensating the CG for rescuing "irresponsible and inexperienced" sailors, then paid subscriptions to private rescue firms would not apply. It is my opinion that distance from land only affects time and cost. If you cast off the lines and sail 5 miles out, you still run the risk of requiring rescue for any number of events. The shorter distance will not elliminate cost/time, only reduce it. From what I gather from looking at the CG statistics, nearly every column shows a downward trend. My interpretation is that boating has become more safe, not less so.

I do agree that boat skippers should know there limitations and not operate on the "press button = get rescued" mindset but for professional mariners or powerboaters to say that sailing offshore in a small boat is burdening the CG and taxpayers needlessly is like the pot calling the kettle black. IMHO, mom and pop sailing to Europe for the first time with all the latest electronics and safety equipment is no more dangerous than the jackass in the cigarette boat flying through a crowded harbor trying to impress the girls or the container ship crossing the same ocean who nearly collides with mom and pop because the watch would rather catch a nap than maintain a proper watch.
 
#836 · (Edited)
Thanks to MarkofSeaLife for finding that RITA site. I think you realize by now that the data show that people FEEL safer because they ARE safer. A few may take foolish risks, but that data seem to show that those fools are in the minority, since the incidents are dropping.

I remember when people claimed that seat belts caused drivers to drive more recklessly because of the false security that they provided. The data have also proven that myth to be wrong.
Amen to that

This is why I often ask people to show me the data when they state certain "facts." A close look at the data usually reveals the truth, and sometimes it can be surprising. I think that was the case here.
Rick, No wonder. If they did that they couldnt generate the same hysterionics with the real data.

Same reason you shoudnt rush to judgement and over speculate using suspect sources of information. Only a real investigation seperates the wheat (facts) from the chaf ( bulls//t)
 
#840 ·
On the Rule 62 v Bounty debate:

Similarity...... both Captains appear to be fully responsible for the loss of life among their crew.

Dissimilarity...... The Rule 62 Capt appears to have been attempting to ease the pain of their crew, while the Bounty Capt seems to have caused it.

Irony..... I'm not aware of getting results of an investigation into Rule 62, which would suggest that isn't where the answers are going to come from.
 
#845 ·
Only on Sailnet would someone find fault with wearing too much safety gear when floating in th. ocean in a hurricane. lol

By the way, I thought Bounty's fenders were too small, and they had the wrong brand of anchor. :laugher
 
#852 ·
I am quite sure that ships and fishing boats are not having more accidents but lesser
Based on what? Why do you say this? Whats your metric here?

, so if the numbers are increasing that can only mean more deep water pleasure boat accidents
.

If the above is not true then this statement isnt also. I thought the information was that the number was decreasing ???

Very dangerous to post hunches as fact then draw a conclusion from that.
 
#854 · (Edited)
Based on what? Why do you say this? Whats your metric here?

...If the above is not true then this statement isnt also. I thought the information was that the number was decreasing ???

Very dangerous to post hunches as fact then draw a conclusion from that.
Dave, a bigger safety record and lesser accidents with ships and fishing boats is a constant since XV century. On the last 15 years the nanny EC parliament and government bodies has issued a lot of regulations regarding mandatory safety requirements on boats, ships as well as more demanding mandatory qualifications for crews. It has also offered premium money incentives for fishermen to get ride of old boats. Due to all that the number of accidents have significantly diminished here.

I guess that all developed countries have a similar policy in what regards maritime safety and that would be very odd that those policies would not have resulted in less accidents.

I wish you good luck into proving otherwise. With all the money spent in maritime security it would be a front page scandal if you find out that all that money was spent in vain and that actually the accidents were more frequent;)

Regards

Paulo
 
#855 ·
Paulo,

You keep refering to government bodies issuing mandatory requirements such as insurance and increasing compliance regulations. This must be something specific to Portugal or European countries.

Insurance is not required in the United States in many areas. Government regulations are not as intrusive it appears as in Portugal. It is far more diffocult to enforce laws/ policies in the United States than in a country the size of New Jersey or Florida like Portuagal is. Because of this many of your statements which you write down dont really apply to this country. They are not wrong...because they occur in Portugal, but what is wrong is that you ASSUME they occur everywhere else when in FACT they do not. Maybe we should learn the best practices in Protugal and apply them to the US. Maybe some will not be applied because they only work in a small relm or scope and cannot be enforced in a larger context. Because of this sometimes your frame of reference is not the same as mine or others from the US. That does not make us wrong or mean that US sailors are n ot in their right mind, as it IS NOT mandatory here.

I don't know if it is mandatory in the US but nobody in its right mind will cross an Ocean or make a long passage without one
Many coastal sailors here do not have EPIRBS. In fact very few of the sailors I know personally have EPIRBS even though they sail in large bodies of water. ( I have both a boat beacon and personal ones)

In addition you state things like they are facts when in fact they are opinions. When asked for supporting documentation you are throwing it back on the questioner.

For instance you stated--
I am quite sure that ships and fishing boats are not having more accidents but lesser, so if the numbers are increasing that can only mean more deep water pleasure boat accidents
.

When asked about how you arrived at this conclusion, whether there were facts supporting your speculation you now want me to disprove it with facts???? Disprove the wild speculation based on wrong assumnptions and reading of the data?

Ok....you stated that you were quite sure there were ships and fishing boats having less accidents...again based on what...your hunch????? Well I am not so sure this is the case. It would stand to reason that there are more ships and fishing boats than in the past, and the fleet gets older each year. more boats in decreasing good condition...so why would there be less accidents or SAR calls. In fact there may be more and oit would stand to reason there are morte, because there is now electronics to do it more.

The trend I find in your posts is that you post like the things you say are fact as opposed to saying IMHO or IMO. You have been challanged a few times on the validity of your facts and throw it back at the challenger and in a number of instances have been shown to have in error. The problem here is that some of the newbies may actually beleive what you are saying is factual which would give them a false sense of security or knowledge.
 
#857 ·
Paulo,

You keep refering to government bodies issuing mandatory requirements such as insurance and increasing compliance regulations. This must be something specific to Portugal or European countries.

... Government regulations are not as intrusive it appears as in Portugal. It is far more diffocult to enforce laws/ policies in the United States than in a country the size of New Jersey or Florida like Portuagal is. Because of this many of your statements which you write down dont really apply to this country. They are not wrong...because they occur in Portugal, but what is wrong is that you ASSUME they occur everywhere else when in FACT they do not. ...
....
Jesus Dave, you get confusing things. I talked about laws issued by the European parliament that are mandatory not only in Portugal but in all members states and that is most of Europe.

I am not talking about insurance but laws that regulate safety requirements and crews requirements in ships and in fishing boats. Do you mean that US has not any? You are certainly kidding and I would bet that in the US those requirements 15 years ago were less demanding then what they are now. Maybe Nolatom or CapAaron can clarify this.

Regards

Paulo
 
#859 ·
Well, that is a possible attitude. Not one that somebody responsible should take if a crew or a family depends on him.

Anyway, nobody responsible would have sailed the Antartic seas with an old wooden boat like theirs if what was at stake has more then their own lives that they have decided to risk for the sake of adventure and the possibility to explore beautiful places. Given the circumstances and having a perfect notion that they were taken risks that they could avoid it is perfectly understandable that they think it was unreasonable to ask for someone to risk his life to safe them.

Anyway was you have said, a commendable decision and one that many that take unreasonable risks don't share.

The boat:



Regards

Paulo
 
#864 ·
Can you imagine the number of deaths in sailboats from Sandy if their were no weather forecasts from this new fangled technology which some makes people take increased risks.

I have yet to see any real PROOF other than a few unsubstantiated opinions that more people are risking their lives because of the use of chart plotters. It is kind of like saying because you have a better chance of surviving an accident with a seatbelt we will all drive faster and risk more.

Statistics show the numbers are down...hard to justify people are taking risks you are speculating on.

I think it's very cavalier to assume because they have EPIRBS they take greater risks. The reason people get them is because thy want to survive accidents. Remember in the US they are not required of recreational boaters. So you relly think people with EPIRBS take a risk f their lives r the boats because they think they can get rescued. You have very little faith or real world knowledge of people to assume this. Especially with data which says the opposite.

Prove you assumption. Find ten people on on Sailnet with EPIBS. Then ask them if they risk their lives or boats more. Go ahead. Lets see if you can o that.

Dave
 
#865 ·
Statistics show the numbers are down...hard to justify people are taking risks you are speculating on.

Dave
I have only my own stats... In my 4 years and 1 circumnavigation I have not known anyone who has died. I do know four who have lost their boats but survived. These are actually people I know as in I have met. Nor friends of friends. Have heard of some on the Internet, but that's different.
So 4 years no deaths.

Now read any of the circumnavigator books from the 1970's and 80's and each of them knew someone who died cruising.
Lin and Larry Pardy met quite a number including 4 or 5 on a steel hull boat that was lost in the Indian Ocean.

So I think it's gotten much, much safer. And I agree with Dave I am not more reckless because I have an EPIRB, I am LESS reckless because I was anchored in a cyclone when I thought it was smart to risk the cyclone season... Now I all away sail in the correct season... Looking death in the face makes one more careful.
 
#867 · (Edited)
RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year
Here are the US statistics you fail to address and accept. Read the informnation. Incidents are down YTY, losses are down YTY. This blows a hole in your whole premise that things have gotten worse since 1985 with the advent of GPS. The data doesnt support you arguments.

The question is, with the increasing number of idiots that have to be saved, for how much tine the tax payer will remain without saying: Why the well I am paying for idiots to be saved from their own stupidity?
Do you see where you assumption is wrong. Irs not increasing and you havent proved that the % of recreational boaters is increasing within these numbers either

The point is that I consider that help makes many to consider that now it is easy to sail to any place and that can induce a false sense of security that leads unprepared sailors to attempt passage that they would not have tried if they had do not that help.
Unprepared sailors...what does that mean. No experience. A sailor who used to sail by charts...me now has the added advantage of having GPS and Chartplottrer to aid my charts. Some would say that makes me a better prepared sailor. Experience is a whole other matter. As you stated a chartplotter doesnt make you understand how to handle difficult weather.

I am not deaf or blind and even if there are here many that have sailed much more than me I have been around for some decades and more than 20 000nm. 10 years ago it was very rare to hear a mayday call. In this season I head 5 or 6 and as you now the VHF range is pretty limited.
I respect your experience as well as many others like Jon. I have some also having sailed for over 40 years, two Atlantic crossings, numerous deliveries, trips, and sails from the Mid-Atlantic to the Carribean with well in excess of 40,000 nm. I also sail in an area which has a large number of sailing boats, and havent noticed an increase at all in CG or rescues. In addition I sail to New England up the coast every year. It is my opinion that the average sailor of today is much safer with the new electronics. Excluding power boaters it has been my observation that many sailors supplement their charts and available information with GPS as well as advanced radar today. This added information helps prevent them from sailing into shoals, sailing into danger sailing into oncomming weather. It is much better to sail when caught in fog with radar and a chartplotter tha without like in olden days. That does mean however because I have radar and a chartplotter I will set out into a dangerous area with a false sence of security. It means when mother nature throws unexpected conditions at me that I am better prepared to handle them and therefore less likely to have an accident.

The GPS position although not perfect gives continual updated information which can only be used as an advantage for the average sailor who wants to be more informed rather than less. Sailors for centureies have set out on voyages with little or not enough experience. Many on SN even laud their "dreams" of some people who have dubious credentials making passages to the Carribean frequently.

This is only one part of the equation when making a crossing or coastal voyage and certainly the technical sailing skill is the most important piece.

No, don't confuse things. I Think the the plotter, the GPS and the Epirb are great and make the live easier to everybody, what I am saying is that modern technology, making navigation easy increased the number of non experienced sailors that attempt to make passages or cross oceans, simply because without GPS you could not navigate an ocean without being experienced and now you can. Certainly you will agree with this too?
To state that people with limited skills and experience just take off on coastal and crossings just because they have an EPIRB or a chartplotter is an unfounded and illogoical assumption again not based in fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion though. There are plenty of idiots in the world. There are plenty of "experienced" captains ( Bounty/ Rule 62) who make wrong decisions which cost life or injury, this despite thier previious experience.

But when the inexperienced sailors gets bad weather under way (that would not be a problem from an experienced sailor) they will find suddenly that after all it was not so easy and that they realy don't know how to cope with it.

Well, not a big problem, they have an Epirb and someone will pick them and the insurance will pay for the boat. They just have to say that they were making water and sink the boat when they are picked up. It is all very easy and risk free... very easy
You have got to be kidding. You think they go out offshore and have this attitude. You really thinkj they think because they have an EPIRB and insurance they will risk their lives. I dont hang around ANY sailors like this. Point one out to me who posts here on SN. Do you have sailkors like this where you sail in Portugal? If you doi I would stay far far away from them

To me chartplotters, EPIRGS, Weatherfax, Radar are addtional safety measures the modern sailor who travels offshore has today. It doesnt make you a better sailor,,,,just a better informed one. A better informed Captain has more information to make better risk/ reward decisions. Modern technology doesnt add or replace the technical sailing skill or experience of the Captain. It also doesnt take away from that skill either.

Maybe thats why the RITA FACTS and FIGURES show a decrease in incidents and deaths despite and obvious increase in the number of recreational as well as commercial vessels.

Dave
 
#868 ·
Here are the US statistics you fail to address and accept. Read the informnation. Incidents are down YTY, losses are down YTY. This blows a hole in your whole premise that things have gotten worse since 1985 with the advent of GPS. The data doesnt support you arguments.

Do you see where you assumption is wrong. Irs not increasing and you havent proved that the % of recreational boaters is increasing within these numbers either
...
Maybe thats why the RITA FACTS and FIGURES show a decrease in incidents and deaths despite and obvious increase in the number of recreational as well as commercial vessels.
Jesus Dave, how many times I have to say that this figures that you quote

RITA | BTS | Table 2-49: U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Statistics, Fiscal Year

regards not only to deep water boat SAR but to all CG rescues and that the huge majority are beach or coastal rescues that has nothing to do with boating much less with deep water boating rescues?

Regards

Paulo
 
#870 ·
Would you consider the opinions of people like Don Street, or Steve Pavlidis, "unsubstantiated", as wel

I mentioned Steve Pavlidis ...

He simply wants no further part in contributing to what he considers to be a very dangerous, unseamanlike trend among some cruisers today...

]
I call their opinions a load of old fashioned hogwash.
It's fools like those that use the fear of their own skill falling by technology's wayside to try and instill fear in the up takers of technology.

However as much as they pontificate the less the new generation listens.

Is total twaddle to not look forward, but look back

Those people sound like the Astronomer Royal who stymied the progress of chronometers in the English navy for DECADES. What a up himself moron.

Mark
 
#872 ·
Would you consider the opinions of people like Don Street, or Steve Pavlidis, "unsubstantiated", as wel

I mentioned Steve Pavlidis ...

He simply wants no further part in contributing to what he considers to be a very dangerous, unseamanlike trend among some cruisers today...
I call their opinions a load of old fashioned hogwash.
It's fools like those that use the fear of their own skill falling by technology's wayside to try and instill fear in the up takers of technology.

However as much as they pontificate the less the new generation listens.

Is total twaddle to not look forward, but look back

Those people sound like the Astronomer Royal who stymied the progress of chronometers in the English navy for DECADES. What a up himself moron.

Mark
So, you won't be using STREET'S TRANSATLANTIC CROSSING GUIDE on your passage over to the Med, one can safely presume? Nor any of the Imray-Iolaire charts he's created? Not to mention, his TransAtlantic Chart of Gnomic Projection? Too bad, it sounds pretty useful:

It is amazing when looking at a course line of Gnomic Projection: Bermuda to the Azores, if you swing north to pick up the prevailing westerlies you discover you are very close to the southern limit of the ice bergs. On the face of this chart we will be showing the position of distinctive icebergs that have been recorded through the years. One of them almost reached Bermuda and a number of them have drifted down as low as 30°.
Also on this chart are shown the major port to port courses, for going both eastwards and westwards across the Atlantic.

On the back of this chart you will find weather charts for May, June and July; October, November and December. We are only showing those months, as boats should not be trying to cross the Atlantic, sailing to or from the Caribbean outside those months. The weather charts will not only show roses for every 5° square, but it will also show the areas and frequencies where gales are expected, also areas and frequency where waves can be exptected of 12 feet or more. May, June and July weather information will show where the icebergs can be expected, and areas where the growlers have been recorded regularly.
Your post really should be preserved for posterity... Pavlidis and Street, 2 men probably as intimately acquainted with the breadth of the Bahamas and Caribbean as anyone alive, not to mention Street's 40+ years as an insurance broker in the yachting industry... And, as to their use of "technology", you obviously haven't the slightest clue as to how a guy like Steve Pavlidis creates his cruising guide's charts in the first place...

And yet, here we have the opinions of such "fools" deemed "hogwash" by a poster on Sailnet...

Freakin' CLASSIC...
 
#873 · (Edited)
Again, speculation as to why the skipper of RULE 62 attempted to enter the North Bar Channel that night will likely forever be just that - pure speculation... My hypothesis is simply what I consider to be most likely, based upon the above described patterns of behavior I've observed over the years, and the extraordinary amount of trust ALL of us place in our ability to fix our positions today... I simply see a panicked, desperate captain, inexperienced in running inlets or cuts, who believed playing the video game on his chartplotter would lead him to safety... That's my hunch, nothing more...
You, however, have appeared to insist this could not possibly have been the case, and that this particular captain would have entered that cut in any event, whether he had such modern means of navigation at his disposal... I'll ask once again - how do you KNOW that, to state it with such assurance?
Jon- mine is pure speculation just like yours. Nothing more nothing less. I just place less responsibility on the chartplotter than you. The Captain of Rule 62 was not some rube dock socializer and had a fair amount of experience. He had plenty of time to think through his fateful decision. He was respoinsibile for his crew. He had many times to divert and heave to. It was recommended to him to do so by the race organizers in one oif his last radio check ins.

To put this in perspective every cruising guide published for the Bahamas says ' these cuts are impassable under 'rage' sea conditions.
Fault is the Captains...not the boat...not the chartplotter....it was the Captains decision just like the Bounty.

Since you mention it, I would have to add what I often see as an undue amount of faith in the accuracy of modern forecasting/weather routing as another double-edged sword that SOMETIMES leads voyagers to take chances that a more prudent sailor would have been unlikely to do decades ago... Unquestionably, the greatly enhanced accuracy of modern forecasting, and the ease of access - both pre-departure, and while underway - that today's voyagers enjoy to weather information has made voyaging FAR safer today than in the past...
Totally agree about the two edge sword. But we arent going backwards here. Not using technology

My scenario presents the actions of an inexperienced, panicked captain, who made a VERY bad decision contrary to the most basic rules of seamanship... To accept your hypothesis, however, one needs to accept that he still would have entered that cut without the modern electronic tools available to him... That, armed only with a sketch chart clearly intended for daylight use only, in good light, and without knowing with any degree of real precision - off a dark, featureless coast bounded by reefs, absent any lit navigational aids whatsoever - either his own position, or the location of that cut... That he would have proceeded, in rage conditions, through such a passage anyway?

Hell, Dave - I'm only suggesting that the guy made an extremely poor decision based upon an inordinate amount of faith in modern technology... What you're suggesting, is akin to a belief that the guy must have been clinically INSANE... (grin)
He was not thinking clearly all along. The last part of the act at night just piled on all the wrong decisions al along. He would have attempted this during daylight also proabably IMHO. He was driven to get releif ashore.

Thats where the learning comes in on this, not to throw away the chartplotter thats like saying if he didnt have an engine he wouldnt have attempted this. The learning is the demands placed by a tired sick crew on the captain and his inexperience or inability to deal with it in the safe way.

I'm sorry that you consider my opinions to be "unsubstantiated", as they are simply the results of what I have observed over a period of over 3 decades as a delivery skipper, and roughly 2 decades of cruising aboard my own boat... Be that as it may, I can assure you I am not alone in sharing some of these opinions
I value you opinions...just dont agree with them in this particular case. You experience is vast and speaks for itself

30 years ago, that guy would not have been there, to begin with... Modern cruising rallies only came into existence after the advent of GPS, after all. It's hard to me to imagine that a skipper who obviously never mastered the simple art of heaving-to, would have mastered the far more complex art of celestial navigation which would have been required to have gotten him there to begin with
We cant live in the past. I doubt whether the celes nav I learned 30 years ago would do me much good now as I dont practice it often. Sailors back then with celestial nav were still wrecking their boats on the coast of North carloina. The answer isnt to go back to the old days here. We cant. The answer is to understand the limitations of your experience and how it realtes to the increased information we have now. I dont think my chartplotter gives me an increased sense of infalliabilty or causes me to take more risks, because I depend on it. Thats where I differ from your thinking.

I will bet we run our vessels similarly when offshore. I will bet you dont turn off the chartplotters on the deliveries you do. I will bet you dont chart your course through celestrail navigation 100% of the time. Ill bet you use charts, use the plotter, record your position and rely on your experience. Ill bet you watch the GRIB files anddont think they are more than 60% accurate. Ill bet you have confidence in your past experience to get you through the unknown conditions as well when they are thrown at you. Ill bet that has taught you to be cautious at all costs, because the pentalty for not...is life. I will also bet you like I have made mistake, but we recovered from them...as thats how we learn. I will also bet we wouldnt have decided to do what either the Bounty or Rule62 Capatins did. We would have hove to. We would have not come in at night. We would not have approached a shore during conditions like were preesent day or night.

Its important to know how much experience you have and when you are also overwhelmed by conditions and know you limitations personally, the limits of the boat, and the limits of the crew. This Captain got his false sens eof security not from the chartplotter IMHO, but from over stating his own qualifications to himself. There is also a false sense of security that they are traveling in a Rally. f course he didnt listen to the more experienced ally organizers and went off on his own.

Jon, I value your opinions greatly. They are based on your experiences, just like mine. I enjoy reading them. Much of the time they are congruent. When they are not it doesnt make either of us less than. Just two farts with differing opinions sharing them openly. Others can read and form their opinions from their own experiences or lack of them. Thats why I post mine, to help others as well as have others critiuqe mine so I can learn from them to become a better sailor myself. The better I can become the better decisions I will hopefully make. Like you there are times when I am responsible for others, especially offshore and the best decision will always be the best thought out with as much information input as possible for me.

Dave
 
#874 ·
We cant live in the past. I doubt whether the celes nav I learned 30 years ago would do me much good now as I dont practice it often. Sailors back then with celestial nav were still wrecking their boats on the coast of North carloina. The answer isnt to go back to the old days here. We cant. The answer is to understand the limitations of your experience and how it realtes to the increased information we have now. I dont think my chartplotter gives me an increased sense of infalliabilty or causes me to take more risks, because I depend on it. Thats where I differ from your thinking.
Sorry, but I remain completely baffled by my apparent inability to make myself understood on this matter...

OK, One More Time...

I am not suggesting some sort of wholesale "return to the past", or "throwing away our chartplotters", or any such dismissal of the use of today's technology... Someone, anyone, show me precisely where I have advocated such an approach, please...

I have tried to express that a chartplotter was a likely CONTRIBUTING FACTOR, not the sole CAUSE of this incident... I don't know how many more different ways I can try to make that plain... Still, I think it was likely the decisive factor in the skipper's decision to go against the advice of the rally organizers and others, I simply cannot imagine he would have summoned the nerve to enter that cut, in those conditions, without such means of navigating/piloting at his disposal... On that, I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree...

One last time, let me shout it from the mountaintop: I LOVE MY CHARTPLOTTER!, and all the convenience, confidence and security it affords me... Definitely, some of the best money I've ever spent, almost on a par with my Sailomat windvane...

I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to return to the Good Old Days, or consign my electronic nav aids to the trash bin - nor am I encouraging anyone else to do so... I'm simply suggesting that this technology is often being MISUSED by many sailors today, that is all...

Even, when it's doing its best to convince me not to believe my own lyin' eyes...

 
#878 ·
guess the problem of following blindingly a plotter has some similarities with people following blindly car GPS information. People believe in that even when obviously the information doesn't make any make sense and that is about what you are talking about. That blind trust that in a car is funny is dangerous on a boat.PCP
Of course. This goes without saying. Common sense.o That IS why the warning appears when it turns on. There is a little sign on side mirrors in car reminding someone everythime that objects appear further.... So what.

Most of us know not to trust the chartplotter blindly....We are not children, we can read....most of us have imnstances where they have been off....so what, we know that........ Next issue.

Jon,

Soooooo,,,what causes a Captain of a boat, with more than just casual dockside experience to run toward a shallow narrow channel, in 40 knot winds opposing tide conditions, large ocean swells and breaking waves, experienced for hours on end, 2 members of the crew too sick to stand watch, pleading with the captain, broken autopilot, obvious rage conditions during daylight hours. Why the chartplotter of course.

Sooooo what causes a Captain, 500 ton Master liscence, 30 years offshore experience to leave port in a wooden boat used as a movie prop and head toward a developing hurricane, new fangled pumps necessary to keep the boat dewatered ( no old fashioned manual pumps), differing stories on maintainence condition of the vessel. Why the pumps of course were contributory to the boats sinking. They gave the Captain a slase sense of security he would be able to keep the boat dewatered. The pumps were a contributory cause.

Thats your argument

In both cases it is the Captain who exercised poor judgement in putting his boat in compromising positions in the first place. Walbridge on Bounty for sailing into a hurricane, and Ross on Rule62 for sailing toward the Bahamas. We know Ross had been tried to be dissuaded from doing this, he continued on for a day and a half putting his boat further and further in jeopardy when he could have turned away or hove to. Walbridgre could have sought port or shelter but kept sailing on. Even IF and Jon must assume this IF Ross;s chartplotter was working and IFhe used it to try and navigate at night. It is clear in broad daylight for hours he was fine with the decision to run the rage to allieviate his crews...and maybe even his self imposed desperate condition. At any time, any time he could have just hove to and mitigated the motion on the boat and waited for the rage or conditions to eventually subside. The Captain placed the boat near the Bahamas where the danger was awaiting, just like the Captain sailing close to the hurricane where the danger was waiting. Similarly they are both help responsible for the actions. The use of the chartplotter if we beleive it worked to run at night was just a side reference as he never would have been there had the Capatin not run the boat to the shallow Bahamas and shore.
 
#882 · (Edited)
Jon,

Soooooo,,,what causes a Captain of a boat, with more than just casual dockside experience to run toward a shallow narrow channel, in 40 knot winds opposing tide conditions, large ocean swells and breaking waves, experienced for hours on end, 2 members of the crew too sick to stand watch, pleading with the captain, broken autopilot, obvious rage conditions during daylight hours. Why the chartplotter of course.

...

Thats your argument
Right from the get-go, I have referred to the RULE 62 tragedy as a "GPS-enabled incident"... Check my initial post on the matter again, should you still have any doubts...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ed/69910-sinking-rule-62-a-23.html#post673266

Unless my understanding of the English language is fundamentally flawed, "enabling" is not the equivalent of "causation"...

en·able
transitive verb \i-ˈnā-bəl\
en·ableden·abling
Definition of ENABLE
1
a : to provide with the means or opportunity - training that enables people to earn a living
b : to make possible, practical, or easy - a deal that would enable passage of a new law
c : to cause to operate - software that enables the keyboard

Synonyms: allow, empower, let, permit
We can only speculate what CAUSED Ross to attempt to enter that cut that night... I suspect it was a combination of many factors - panic, exhaustion, desperation, inexperience, a profound ignorance of the risks involved, an overwhelming desire to simply get himself and his crew off that damn boat which trumped all reason, lack of mastery of the technique of heaving-to, a total disregard for the most elemental caution against entering unknown harbors at night, sheer stupidity, the unawareness of other relatively nearby safe havens, an intense craving for a Bahamian rum drink or ice cream cone, or who knows what else...

All I am suggesting is that it was the extraordinary precision and accuracy which electronic charting would have afforded him, likely CONTRIBUTED to his decision to proceed, and that an attempt to enter that cut in those conditions made any sense whatsoever...

I always endeavor to express myself in these discussions clearly, and with precision.... Again, I invite you - or anyone else - to show me something I've written which implies I believe the chartplotter aboard RULE 62 to be a direct CAUSE of that tragedy, or would absolve the captain of any responsibility in the slightest degree... If I believed a chartplotter was the "cause" of the tragedy, I would have said so... Thus, my use of the word "enabled", instead...

Where we appear to disagree, is in your belief that he would have entered that cut in any event, he was so determined to do so he would have done so even without the help of the pinpoint accuracy of a GPS, or today's state of the art e-charts... I simply doubt that, and believe he would not have been emboldened to attempt that cut - especially, at night - without those particular tools to enable him to do so... That's just my hunch, and I think it's one that is reasonably substantiated by what I've witnessed over the years, but we'll never know for certain, of course...

It's been fun, Dave - but I'm gonna have to call it quits on this issue... If I haven't been able to make myself plainly understood by now, chances are I'll never be able to do so...
 
#879 ·
Something that was not posted here. I don't know how I have missed it since it was published on Sail-World, a web page that I normally read. Well, better late than never:

Quote:

"Michael Tougias, an expert on deadly sea tragedies the author of five nonfiction books chronicling heroic and dramatic sea incidents, was interviewed on an American television show about his work.

The Herald Sun reported that when asked by the announcer if any ships would venture out in Hurricane Sandy, his answer was, 'No way,'' and he continued, 'Only large ships like aircraft carriers can manage that kind of storm in that area. I was so surprised when the news flashed about the Bounty.'

'You don't want to be anywhere near the merging currents in a storm,' Tougias was reported as saying. 'There are a whole lot of reasons not to be out there.'

He said the Bounty's captain and owner had ample notice of the impending hurricane and its scope, Tougias said.

'I think he had a schedule and was trying to outmaneuver the storm,' Tougias said. "

Sail-World.com : Search for HMS Bounty's Captain called off - investigation begun
 
#880 · (Edited)
The Herald Sun reported that when asked by the announcer if any ships would venture out in Hurricane Sandy, his answer was, 'No way,'' and he continued, 'Only large ships like aircraft carriers can manage that kind of storm in that area. I was so surprised when the news flashed about the Bounty.'
The US Navy sent many ships out to sea from Norfolk smaller than aircraft carriers

'I think he had a schedule and was trying to outmaneuver the storm,' Tougias said. "
This quote is conjecture obviously a nd should be discounted

Two mistakes in one

Anyway we all agree the Captain should not have sailed.
 
#883 · (Edited)
JOn .

He was on a mission, He made the bad decision when he entered turned the boat toward the Bahamas into shallow water against advice from the rally organizers. He had plenty of time to heave to, continue on and instead against advice and logic he chose to head for shore and shelter.

Wether you want to quibble over the word enable or cause makes no difference really. Decisions get traced back to the Captain. You asked for an example of implication and you statement below for instance I believe you give a mixed message here when you embolden the Cause word. Unless you are using invisable ink I see the word caused not enabled and I see it emboldened in caps.

We can only speculate what CAUSED Ross to attempt to enter that cut that night -
In the spirit of carefully posting these read differently, especially from a person with your obvious credentials

Maybe you meant to write it this way

We can only SPECULATE what enabled Ross to attempt to enter the cut that night

I always endeavor to express myself in these discussions clearly, and with precision.... Again, I invite you - or anyone else - to show me something I've written which implies I believe the chartplotter aboard RULE 62 to be a direct CAUSE of that tragedy, or would absolve the captain of any responsibility in the slightest degree... If I believed a chartplotter was the "cause" of the tragedy, I would have said so... Thus, my use of the word "enabled", instead...
I agree this thread has run its course. There are other tragedies happening for the SN comment on. All we can do now is wait for the results of the inquirey which will give us insight into any of the factors which enabled/ caused the sinking of the Bounty once she arrived ibn the teeth of the storm
 
#884 ·
.......All we can do now is wait for the results of the inquirey which will give us insight into any of the factors which enabled/ caused the sinking of the Bounty once she arrived ibn the teeth of the storm
Other than for trivial value to know about her final hours, I don't see how that information will shed any light on this tragedy. I would like to see the results of their interviews on the departure decision.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top