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.
 
#227 ·
I can't imagine anything coming from the investigation that could result in me saying, "Okay, now I see why he had to set sail in the direction of a hurricane. Not his fault." I haven't seen anything written here and I've racked my brain to figure what could have possibly compelled him to set sail. And I have yet to read one comment, anywhere, that says, "Yeah, given what we all knew at the time, I can see heading out to sea like he did," or anything even close to that.

We know when he set sail there was a hurricane thrashing the Bahamas. He knew of the hurricane. (If he didn't he should never have been a captain of that ship.) We know his destination was Florida and that he headed south. What more could possibly come out of the investigation that could exonerate him from blame?
 
#229 ·
What more could possibly come out of the investigation that could exonerate him from blame?-JulieMmor
I dont know. I knd of agree, but I want to wait until the facts come out.

We dont know how much pressure he was getting from outside interests. I know he could have said know to that, but we dont know. There may be others responsible for his leaving on this schedule.

Exonerate is a big word here....that implies guilt. "To free from blame.
To free from a responsibility, obligation, or task"

In the USA were are presumed innocent till proven guilty. Guilt is determined by theall the facts after an independent investigation.
There may be shared responsibility here. I know to you and others that sounds incredulous, but it may be true.

Again my point here is not to defend the captain. It appears on first look you may be right It is to say that a rush to judgement before all of the facts are in and certainly no first hand statements is unwise, unecessary and smacks of poor judgement itself.

People on here have been criticised recently, given Darwinism awards foor poor judgement even though they knew all the facts before they made decisions to remain on their boats during the storm, even to the extent they were said to have poor judgement

Now some of the same people who did the above want to judge and pillory this captain without all the facts yet. Who is the one with the poor judgement

I propose we give the sailing Darwin Awards to everybody who stayed on their boats thru Sandy ( I mean those in Sandy's zone of damage). If you stay aboard, nobody thinks you are brave, we think you're a moron. You endanger your life, you endanger any rescuers and you make sailors in general look foolish.Frogwatch
I have yet to hear anyone who survived a serious storm by deciding to ride it out say they would do it again. That alone should be enough to compel anyone who is predicted to be in harms way to leave. But there are always those who believe there's something special about them that enables them to fend off the onslaught of Mother Nature-JulieMor

If you stayed aboard then sell the boat NOW before you endanger somebody else.-Frogwatch
And then the voice of reason steps in, look at everything before deciding or judging

It depends on the particular situation. There are too many variables to set some sort of mindless rule designed for the least capable sailor. Not all storms require abandoning your boat. Some people are capable of making that call on their own-smurphy
My question...why CANT you wait until most or all of the facts are in....what compells you to rush to judgement...people who rush to judgement scare me big time...maybe that means on their boats they will rush to judgement and not get all the facts to make a proper decision therefore endangering others.
 
#232 ·
people who rush to judgement scare me big time...maybe that means on their boats they will rush to judgement and not get all the facts to make a proper decision therefore endangering others.
Interesting. My job description actually says I need the skills to make decisions and take actions without knowing all the facts.

Sometimes you don't have and no matter how much time passes, you will never have all the facts. But you still need to make a decision, as no decision can be worse than making the wrong (ie. not perfect) decision.

A lot of times this is the case on your boat, time is of the essence.

People who need all the facts before making a decision scare me, especially on a boat, where by the time that get all the facts the boat has sunk, struck a reef, or people are dead.
 
#230 ·
I'm waiting to hear more about why she was taking on water.

Ironically, the absolute first mention of this tragedy that I recall, insisted Bounty was not off the Coast of Hatteras, because there was rumor she sailed East of the storm.

That said, I really can't even think of a scenario that could be learned that will justify having departed on this trip. I may be proven wrong, but the reason will have to justify risking lives of people reportedly not experienced on Bounty to assess the risk for themselves. Even if the weather and inexperienced crew were not the direct cause of the sinking, it put even more lives at risk to rescue them.

There seems to be a common denominator that those that met the Captain are most protective. That may be equally clouding perspective.

While some don't want to hear speculation, I submit this in the spirit of demonstrating this isn't a witch hunt, but rather an attempt to understand. My suspicion is that Robin was a good Captain that survived many difficulties at sea and each one emboldened the thought that risk was more manageable. That would, in fact, be a good lesson for others to learn, IF it proves to be the case.
 
#237 ·
While some don't want to hear speculation, I submit this in the spirit of demonstrating this isn't a witch hunt, but rather an attempt to understand. My suspicion is that Robin was a good Captain that survived many difficulties at sea and each one emboldened the thought that risk was more manageable. That would, in fact, be a good lesson for others to learn, IF it proves to be the case.
Interesting way of articulating it, Minne, the more so as this was a storm of unprecedented characteristics. Nicely done.
 
#233 ·
The height of waves is largely determined by fetch. Their shape is determined by currents, depth and bottom topology. This storm was so wide that there was a huge area of maximum wind over a long stretch of water. Watching the NOAA wave height charts as it approached shore, there were 42' waves on the dangerous side of the circulation! While it was crossing the Gulf Stream off the Outer Banks, a NE wind opposing the Stream likely made some monstrous breaking waves.
 
#234 ·
A lot of times this is the case on your boat, time is of the essence.-Casey 1999
Of course . A lot of time we need to make instantaneous decisons on our boats I agree however this thread wasnt about that. I also understand your comment about people who need all the facts all the time. That can be equally indecisive and poor judgement.

Is that the case here, what harm in waiting for the all or most of the facts to come to light. Do you think two days is enough time for you to understand the WHOLE situation. Will someone be in danger if we wait a week or two to hear what the survivors say? The company he worked fors statement? The CG ivestigation?

Is this one of those times an instantaneous decision is required? Again the sign of maturity and experience and judgement. To be able to tell the difference when a decision must me made immediately with the information you presently know or wait a while until more information is available to make a more responsible jedgement.

Understand I am in agreement with most of you that he PROBABLY is responsibile in some way or percentage

In this case of the Bounty and the Captains role in it, why does this have to be decided immediately until all or even most of the facts are ascertained? Common even the most strident of you dont have much to go on. You dont have any first hand peoples statements, you dont have first hand knowledge, you dont have the CG report, you dont know the comnditions really first hand...just what charts tell you, you have a U tube statement you keep harping on and you dont have all the information that the captain knew and when he knew it, You also dont have the reason for the boat sinking. Thats a lot of stuff there. Yet you already want to foist the blame on him publically. What will imminently happen if we wait a little.

Why o why the rush to judgement
 
  • Like
Reactions: wingNwing
#239 · (Edited)
Is that the case here, what harm in waiting for the all or most of the facts to come to light. Do you think two days is enough time for you to understand the WHOLE situation.

In this case of the Bounty and the Captains role in it, why does this have to be decided immediately until all or even most of the facts are ascertained? What will imminently happen if we wait a little.

Why o why the rush to judgement
The fact is that he sailed into a hurricane, not just any hurricane, but one of the largest on record. And historically, October is the month when most of the monster hurricanes are generated.

Why not wait till all the facts come in? The major fact is in: the ship sailed into a hurricane.

Why not wait longer for more facts? The sailnet posse needs to be ready to move on to the next disaster.
 
#236 ·
Not bad, a Lion troll.

Who is attaching who? and about what?:paulo
Paulo,

The person I addressed it too knows the answer but he wont come out in the open and say it. I beleive it was directed at me. Some sign of disrespect .

Actually I am proud to be a Chesapeake Lion. Its a great place to keep a boat and where I live and sail most of the time. In additon I sail to Ne and the LI Sound and have some bluewater time in. There are a number of us who have looked into getting a Chesapeake Lion flag after some of us were called that before. Now being deemed a troll....thats a horse/ boat of a different colour.

Dave
 
#240 ·
Interesting article. The author beautifully romanticizes life at the sea and tells a story that tugs at your heart strings. This is what draws us to the sea. And we become one with her.

Maybe this is both a celebration of one life and the mourning of the loss of another. It seems the captain lived life the way he wanted and his death could be seen as a celebration of that life. But what of the life of the crew lost? Only those who knew her can answer that.
 
#245 · (Edited)
Some of the content on the first site, one for professional Captains:

The Idiot aboard ( I am somewhat reluctant to call him 'the Master') posted a pretty interesting note on Saturday.
It read something like this: " we are heading out, some would call this wrong. It is a calculated risk".

Well buck-o me thinks you have a different set of calculators than a prudent seaman! And for him to post such a dumb statement shows he was wrestling with the prudence of this decision and trying to justify it.

Another guy:
They sure are acting like they are reckless yachties. Not only did they put themselves in grave danger by trying to sail aroundp Cape Hatteras during a hurricane they will also be endangering the CG chopper crews who will have to go out and save them.

Another:
No I am sorry but a voyage of choice not necessity in an old ship into a storm of historic proportions? I don't care about hull condition or experience of the master or crew. We're experienced professionals here and don't need a USCG report to judge this one. If the ship is truly lost then it is a massive failure and if people are lost then it is manslaughter!

Another:
Michael Murray, a former crewmember on the Bounty, raises issues that may implicate the owner of the vessel:


I will say this about the Bounty... As memorable and as valuable of an experience it was to be an integral part of her first restoration as her bosun, I left the project a few weeks early along with several others because of the reckless decisions that were made by the owner at the time that put people at risk.

Namely, a decision to remove a 35x35 inch bowsprit that was rotting without the proper support left a 17 year old 3rd mate severely injured after he toppled over the headrail along with several others. I remember that nightmarish scenario like yesterday when I saw it all go down up on the foretop. That, most definitely, never needed to occur...

My guess is that Capt. Walbridge was overruled as to a decision to continue on with the voyage to St. Pete in the face of this monster storm. If that is truly the case, then it is indicative of a management condition, that unfortunately, has now finally resulted in such a majestic and endearing vessel to come to grief. Truly tragic in every sense of the word!

another:
This whole thing is totally tragic. So surreal watching this whole thing play out on GCaptain and internet blogs. Having made comments prior to the rescue attempt, I take solace that my negative comments towards the captain were made during the period that the HMS Bounty organisation reported ALL hands safely aboard liferafts. I wonder where they got there info. Let us at least respect the dead, for he is surely lost at sea. Obviously, mistakes were made, yet I find comments praising his death to be rather sickening. Anyone posting that his family should be happy of his death so he won't have to live in shame, should be ashamed of themselves. The man did have a wife, son , and daughter, and my heart truly goes out to them. I believe the scrutiny should now fall on the HMS ORGANISATIOn. I do agree, I hope all the insurance money goes to the deceased female crew's family. Someone who personally new Walbridge assured us here that the comments supposedly made by him on the Bounty site were my his words. Really curious to see how this one plays out now that scrutiny will now fall on the organisation!! The man was well intentioned.despite making a dire mistake, that hopefully only cost him his life. However, I would not be surprised to learn he went into the water after Claudene. Let's hope she makes it, I pray the reports of her dying at the hospital are false. A death at sea probably isn't nearly as romantic as books and movies make it out to be. At least the last stage of hypothermia you get drunk and happy, all things probably seem right in the world, when they are truly not.

Well, I am going to read the rest of it ...it is really interesting.
 
#246 · (Edited)
I have been reading on that Captain's forum and there are there interesting stuff. This time about the Bounty:

Yes, the bounty was an uninspected vessel classed as a dockside attraction.The ship was only allowed to take up to 12 passengers.

.......

So that means it should never put to sea. I feel that Chief Rob is correct in assuming what he thinks it sounds like: a dock side attraction is a 'dock side attraction' and not a vessel for sailing with or without passengers, at the very most as Near Coastal. And....how do you determine an "un inspected vessel classed as a dockside attraction" but is allowed up to 12 passengers? Seems to be a large grey area here.

.....

as an uninspected passenger vessel, BOUNTY's hull was not in any way obligated to hull examination by the USCG.

....

I am sure the investigation will touch on this subject to the great dismay of the carnival boat crowd.

.....

Here is what I feel is the most disrespectful aspect of the 'Industry'. The industry depends upon almost solely "paid" crewmembers who PAY for the privilege of being allowed to crew! These people are on a 'pay to play' vessel. They are not considered passengers, because they are necessary to operate the vessel. The sail training org has used this as a way to help cover operating expenses for years. They are in effect taking paying passengers for hire, using them as crew, and as far as anyone outside knows they are signed on as crew. Only a couple people on the ships are actual professional deckhands. Likely the Captain is the only one with a license.

....

Having sailed through many on the bounty I can tell you, we would have to keep the pumps running almost constantly to keep the boat dry. When it was dead calm out, we would still pump out the ship every hour. That is the reality of these wooden ships.

...

So a vessel that leaked this amount, departed for sea KNOWING it was dependent upon power operated bilge pumps for surviving, and did NOT have plain old mechanical hand operated pumps? THAT is your redundancy you were discussing a couple posts ago. Having two electric pumps on a wooden hull is ok.... IF there is a hand pump as backup. Every sailboat I have been on has one.

Sorry Charlie, that right there is all I need to hear about the negligence of both the Captain AND the owner for allowing the vessels to sail (at all)
I would venture to guess that they started taking on more water than they could handle, engine room floods, no more power...

there are two motor/generators and two engines on the Bounty. One MG was in continuous use because the other MG was broken and had been that way for at least a year. The running MG was never turned off even in port because they "were afraid it wouldn't start again" if they shut it down. There is a water tight door below the galley however there is a 1' x 2' gap underneath the WTD which wouldn't seal. The aft mast was broken from the previous storm they endured. There was little or no way to keep water from going into the ship via the deck because there were no hatches on the deck. The bottom line is that the ship was in very poor mechanical condition even to the most ignorant of inspectors. It certainly should not have been taken into rough seas.

...
Without doubt! In wildly short and steep stern seas, that horn timber and rudder would be twisting constantly and it was only a short matter of time before all the plank ends sprung and then popping the planks off the frames forward from there. With the engine and generators all aft, that was the first space to flood and I hazard to guess that the vessel did not have an emergency generator or an emergency bilge pump?

....

With this scenario, the way to save the vessel would have been to have to wear ship to bring her head to the sea and to stream anything possible in the form of a storm anchor to hold the head up. With the strain off the sternpost, the flooding might have subsided enough for the pumps to keep up with the inrush of water. What I want to know is each and every step Walbridge took in the 12 hours prior to the loss of the vessel? The survivors hopefully will tell us soon.
...

As you can all see this is pretty bad. No inspections at all? Jesus I know that in the US you don't like rules and regulations but this seems plain crazy to me:rolleyes: And by the way, it is not normal to a wooden boat to make that amount of water...it is only normal in an old boat that should be grounded ore have a complete refit.

...
 
#248 ·
I have been reading on that Captain's forum and there are there interesting stuff. This time about the Bounty:

Yes, the bounty was an uninspected vessel classed as a dockside attraction.The ship was only allowed to take up to 12 passengers.


Sounds like another shining example of the benefit of free and unregulated capitalism. It certainly demonstrates the "self regulating" nature of that philosophy - too bad people had to die for such Friedmanesque purity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JulieMor
#253 · (Edited)
Re: HMS Bounty

The following link details the HMS Bounty's inspections.

cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=345399]USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page
I always said that the boat was in a legal situation.

Do you care to en-light us?:

I understand the boat is classified as a dock side attraction and was inspected as one.

The BOUNTY was not inspected as a Sail Training Vessel under 46CFR subchapter R but has a subchapter C uninspected 12 passenger vessel.

There are a huge difference between the requirements needed on a Dock side attraction classified ship and the ones needed on a ship classified as a Sail training Vessel.
 
#256 · (Edited)
?????????????????????????

The Bounty was in this class:

uninspected passenger vessels over 100 gross tons, carrying 12 or fewer passengers for hire.

These regulations will implement this new class of uninspected passenger vessel, provide for the issuance of special permits to uninspected vessels participating in a Marine Event of National Significance (e.g., OPSAIL 2000 and Tall Ships 2000), and develop specific manning, structural fire protection, operating, and equipment requirements for a limited fleet of PVSA-exempted vessels.


https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-the-passenger-vessel-safety-act-of-1993-pvsa

In the link you posted:

Under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention, administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), vessels of any nation signatory to the convention and over a certain size or carrying more than 12 passengers and operating internationally must comply with the requirements of the Convention with regard to construction, safety equipment, manning, crew training, etc. Compliance is documented in a "SOLAS Certificate" issued by the ship's national maritime authority.

This is not a ship that carries more than 12 passengers and i don't know if the size will make it a SOLAS ship, but let's admit it is.

US-registered vessels listed in this directory will generally fall into one of the following categories: Small Passenger Vessel, Sailing School Vessel, Oceanographic Research Vessel, and Uninspected Vessel. For each category there is a comprehensive set of regulatory requirements governing construction and arrangement, watertight integrity and stability, lifesaving and firefighting equipment, machinery and electrical systems, vessel control and equipment, and operations.

With the exception of Uninspected Vessels, all categories of US-registered vessel are subject to Coast Guard inspection on an annual basis. Upon satisfactory completion of the inspection, a Certificate of Inspection (COI) is issued, and must be permanently displayed on board the vessel. The COI spells out what waters the vessel may operate in (its authorized route), how many passengers or sailing school students may be carried, how many crew must be carried and what qualifications the master and crew must have, the requirement for and location of lifesaving and firefighting equipment, and so forth.

Although not inspected annually, Uninspected Vessels (which are generally vessels less than 65 feet in length and carrying 6 or fewer passengers for hire) must still comply with requirements for safety equipment and a licensed skipper. The type of COI to be issued to inspected vessels is determined by both the size and construction of the vessel and the operating intentions of the owner. Some vessels carry dual certification.
.....

Attraction Vessel certification is required whenever a vessel is open to public boarding or conducts dockside programs. The vessel may be permanently moored to a pier, or it may also be certified under one or more of the above subchapters, but the Attraction Vessel COI (ATCOI) certifies its safety for dockside programs and visitation only.


So the Bounty had to have an attraction vessel certification (and to be inspected on account of that) and, as an Uninspeted vessel, is not subject to Coast Guard inspection. But even if it was what would be verified would be the requirements for safety equipment and a licensed skipper. not the hull integrity and condition or the water tight condition.

If the boat was inspected in what regard water tight condition the boat would have failed because it needed to have the pumps working every hour even with the boat stationary as one member of the crew had stated.


....
 
#257 ·
Back when I was in the Coast Guard learning to be a marine inspector long ago, the saying I heard about uninspected vessels (referring to the rule that more than six paying passengers required a Certificate of Inspection):

"You can drown six---you can't drown seven"

I suppose you could change this to 12 and 13 as the circumstances may warrant.

I await the Board of Investigation with interest. In my experience the Coast Guard is not unwilling to criticize themselves when warranted (read the report of the sinking of the SS MARINE ELECTRIC off the Delaware Capes as an example). Even more so if the NTSB gets involved, they regularly ping on the Coast Guard while sharing investigatory jurisdiction with them. I wonder if they will join in on this Board as they often do.
 
#258 · (Edited)
I see no harm in the sailors here who have gone on long offshore/ocean passages and faced departure and routing decisions discussing the evidence, options available to the vessels skipper, and then providing their opinions regarding the Bounty captain's decisions on departure and the track chosen. Such discussions help us all learn from each other's experinece and knowledge.Billyruffin
Thank you for the thought provoking post. I have great respect for your experience and read your posts always. You manage to present your opinion which is well thought out, but also not accusatory. I couldnt agree with you more about the track he took,as well as the consequences of taking that track. Having done both Gone outside the GS ( both south and north and sailed closer through/ around Diamond Shoals, I have always advocated in many other SailNet threads what I perceived as the dangers of the inside route and for me personally, I avoid it and have not gone on vessels anymore with captains who chose the route.

]I see no harm in the sailors here who have gone on long offshore/ocean passages and faced departure and routing decisions discussing the evidence, options available to the vessels skipper
You will find on very few of the posters have this experience, but many have offered opinions or accusations and they did so without hesitatuion or hardly any information at all

My biggest problem with the postings are the rush to judgement to afix blame on the captain entirely, and then the glee to assassinate his character. This isnt done by a group of savy well experienced ocean and blue water sailors ( my apologies to the few who have this experience) but is being done by the armchair quarterbacks who start analyzing the situations as soon as the story comes apparent. It leads to this feeding frenzy which can prevent them from looking and absorbing other details as wells as focusing on unimportant snippets of u tube postings as the paramount reasoning. Its like its a story of thodse damn shows following network news at 7 PM. The SN jury has already found the captain guilty as charged and not even waited for any evidence of the companies pressure or involvement, statements from the survivors. or atatements from professionals.

As this continues to play out with more and more information a clearer picture will take place. Already we have some CG reports and some people on a CG blog which I have seen are less vitriolic and hype minded than the posts on SN. There are key pieces of information I would like to see before I damn the Captain in hell like most of the SN posters. ( Funny many of the interviews I have seen with the Captains professional aquaitences do not paint a picture of a reckless man), I would like some eye witness testimony or statements ( what happened on boartd, sea state, how she got in trouble other than what we can see on GPS position fixing and storm histroy, I would like a professional report concerning the condition of the ship before it left ( not speculation reposrts of cousins whoi visited the ship once or saw it, but people who recently refit it and worked on it, I would like to know what role the company played in coercing or pressuring the captain to leave the dock in the first place.

None of us know for certain that this storm and waves were the only things directly responsible for its sinking. Which one of you know for a certain that there was no failure of the bulkheads/ structure on the ship which could have happened on the very next
passage, heavy weather or not. How do you know there was not a material defect in the refit, wrong materials used, designs not followed?

I have my initial opinions of what has happened here. I question mightily him leaving and sailing into this particular enlarging storm with any ship let alone the one he had. I question like you trying to squeeze between a storm and the "Graveyard of the Atlantic. I also question why....why a man with good credentials and experience0 ( better than almost everyone on here casting judgement) would make this decision. Maybe then that gets answered we will find the real culpruit in this is just not him and that someone may be hiding behind the screen or that someone was negligent in the repair of the ship.

Ultimately he will be held with some of the responsibility because he was the captain of the ship. I am pretty sure of that.

When a plane crashes in bad weather do you think immediately that the captain was responsible and get on the internet blaming him/ her. If you saw him drinking with dinner two nights before...do you assume he/ she was a drunk and that caused it? Do you blame it on the heavy weather? The route he took...he could of flown around it or landed somewhere else. See in this instance...very similar to this incident there is a very detailed investigation and NO ONE declares after 1-4 days after the event happend that it was the captains fault. Here however those rules dont apply. Thats what I have a problem with

Dave
 
#259 · (Edited)
T....

You will find on very few of the posters have this experience, but many have offered opinions or accusations and they did so without hesitatuion or hardly any information at all

My biggest problem with the postings are the rush to judgement to afix blame on the captain entirely, and then the glee to assassinate his character. This isnt done by a group of savy well experienced ocean and blue water sailors ( my apologies to the few who have this experience) but is being done by the armchair quarterbacks who start analyzing the situations as soon as the story comes apparent. ..

...

Dave
Dave,

I don't think the comments that were made by professional sailors on a professional forum were less harsh than the ones posted here. This ones were posted even before the boat was in a mayday situation. They knew already what was going to happen with all probability. Your post and your comments regarding arm chair sailors deserve to be complemented with the voice of professionals and mind you, there was not a single voice in disagreement among them. They are arm chair sailors too?:

.....
Sure lets take a wooden hulled sailing ship out into a hurricane, whats the worse that could happen?
.......
Oh but you see it's a sailing school vessel.
Fully seasoned crew ready for anything.
.....
From their Facebook page:
Bounty Update 10/28 2012 11PM EST
One of Bounty's generators has failed....they are taking on more water than they would like.
THE CREW AND BOUNTY ARE SAFE.....
At 2118 hrs The Coast Guard issued an Urgent Marine Information Broadcast for the HMS Bounty taking on water 90 miles SE of Cape Hatteras, with 15+ people aboard....THAT HAS BEEN RESCINDED...
The Captain will await till morning to determine if Bounty is in need of any assistance.
.......
Guess the captain needs a sea story
......
They actually left during a hurricane ? The captain is an idiot and should lose is license if that is the case. Needlessly endagering 14 other lives...very bad decision!!
.....
All I can say is pray for them. My local news station reported they sent out a mayday and have lost all propulsion...
......
I will be praying for them througout watch this morning. Perhaps the captain should stay onboard when they are rescued. Just kidding, but he should never be allowed command of another vessel for the rest of his days!
....
Update 7 minutes ago from CBC news. Abandoning ship!! CG working on rescue ideas, C130 on scene. I want to see this ******* cPtain crucified!!!!
.....
This captain should be in jail.
......
Indeed, if he survives he needs to be tried and hopefully convicted of reckless endangerment leading to manslaughter if others die of course.

In looking at the track from the woodenboat website, I suspect that what this clown was thinking was that if he maintained being on the west (good) side of the storm, that he'd have favorable winds throughout and a following sea to ride. Seems fine on paper, but a ship's hull works harder in a following sea that a head sea because they corkscrew so violently. I suspect that the hull worked so hard for so long that all the seams have sprung and that was that.
......
The praise people are heaping on the captain and saying he made the right choice on the bounty's Facebook page makes me sick. One went so far regardless of the outcome she would have never weathered the record storm surge dockside in new London. WHO CARES! She sinks at the dock its a loss but it still doesn't put 17 people 100 miles offshore in a 60 knot blow. The fact that people still make decisions like this, especially after incidents like the loss of the schooner Phantome baffles me.
....

The Idiot aboard ( I am somewhat reluctant to call him 'the Master') posted a pretty interesting note on Saturday.
It read something like this: " we are heading out, some would call this wrong. It is a calculated risk".

Well buck-o me thinks you have a different set of calculators than a prudent seaman! And for him to post such a dumb statement shows he was wrestling with the prudence of this decision and trying to justify it.

......
They sure are acting like they are reckless yachties. Not only did they put themselves in grave danger by trying to sail aroundp Cape Hatteras during a hurricane they will also be endangering the CG chopper crews who will have to go out and save them.

....
No I am sorry but a voyage of choice not necessity in an old ship into a storm of historic proportions? I don't care about hull condition or experience of the master or crew. We're experienced professionals here and don't need a USCG report to judge this one. If the ship is truly lost then it is a massive failure and if people are lost then it is manslaughter!
HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy

Do you still think we have been too severe or out of line?

Regards

Paulo
 
#260 ·
As I have quietly followed this thread, careful not to pass judgement (and realizing I lack the experience to do so), I keep wondering whether the nature of the failure might have led to a similarly fatal result in less severe conditions. It is possible that the storm had little or nothing to do with the root cause of the accident.

It seems that not enough facts have been disclosed to determine this. So many people have repeated the speculation that the boat lost a plank under the stresses induced by the storm that it's easy to mislead oneself in believing that actually happened. So far as I can tell, that is PURE speculation and there has been NOTHING to support that.

So while it's interesting to speculate, we do need to be very careful not to "pile on" based on that speculation.

I do have a lot of experience with investigating safety incidents in the workplace, and in the vast majority of cases the question, "What in the world was he thinking when he did that?" usually has a straightforward answer that suddenly makes everyone realize that the case is not nearly as black-and-white as originally believed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chef2sail
#261 · (Edited)
As I have quietly followed this thread, careful not to pass judgement (and realizing I lack the experience to do so), I keep wondering whether the nature of the failure might have led to a similarly fatal result in less severe conditions. It is possible that the storm had little or nothing to do with the root cause of the accident.

It seems that not enough facts have been disclosed to determine this. So many people have repeated the speculation that the boat lost a plank under the stresses induced by the storm that it's easy to mislead oneself in believing that actually happened. So far as I can tell, that is PURE speculation and there has been NOTHING to support that.

So while it's interesting to speculate, we do need to be very careful not to "pile on" based on that speculation.-Takefive
Yea....a voice of reason and wisdom

Rick all the amateur sleuths here know that couldnt be the case..... thats why they have decided already that it was the captain to blame. We dont need any facts

Here is their straight line reasonsing.

Captain wanted to chase a hurricane. Captain left knowing he was headed at a storm. Captain took a route to keep himself away from the strongest winds, though pinning himself against the GS and a notorius trecherous area. Ship sent a distress call that it was taking water...ship sent a distress call it was abondoning ship.

From this the sleuths have deduced that the storm caused the sinking because the captain wanted to sail into it and should be held responsible.

Lets see....lets use that similar airplane analogy again.

Airplane takes off during a rainstorm. Captain seen the week before before having a drink with dinner. Captain feels pressure to leave on time by his company and is cleared. Captain takes a route perscribed by control and flies upward throgh a growing t storm. Captain gets past a lot of the major wind, but comes upon a mountain chain notorius for increased turbulence because they are. Captain sends a Mayday call and plane disappears off radar. Plane crashes

1 hour after the crash is reported Sailnet pundits begin to analyze what they know and come up with the conlcusion the captain is responsible because ultimately the airplane captain is in charge of his plane, should have refused to leave, should have found an alternative route and he probably had a alcohol probelm which contributed. Gilty as charged and the ruining of his reputation can now begin. Sailnet pundits only see weather and the captain as pertinent information. Salinet pundits speculate about training of captain, Maybe a wing fell off, age of airliner fleet, maybe there was a bomb, maybe it was terrorists.

6 months later NTSB issues report saying there was wearing of the electrical wires and spark of electrical wires in one of the fuel tanks which occured because of a flawed design or improper insulation during a routine maintainence overhaul. While wires were covered by fuel...no problem...once the tanks became somewhat empty the wires sparked and caused an explosion which downed the plane. Captain died along with passangers. Weather played minimal or no imnpact in crash which would have eventually occured away, Captains reputation ruined forever.

All I am saying not enough of the important facts in evidence to draw conclusions or pass judgements yet
 
#262 ·
Chef, I get your point, but chill out with the pilot analogy. Whenever there is a crash, there is mass hysteria far beyond anything you've seen here. If you've ever read an NTSB report, they are almost always determined to be the fault of the pilot in command.

In fact, if you launched a flight into analogous conditions, your licensed would suspended. All flight weather briefings are recorded and if you made similar public statements, the FAA has less patience than anyone on the thread.
 
#264 ·
The concept you are discussing is known in the law as "proximate cause" - whether there is a legally recognized causal connection between the breach of a duty and the damages caused.

What you fail to realize is that the captain is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his inexcusable decision to set sail toward the likely path of a hurricane.

There exists the unlikely possibility that some superseding, intervening cause resulted in the death of this young woman. For instance, if she died from food poisoning on board and just happened to stumble overboard just as the ship was sinking, or if the Navy accidentally bombed the ship as part of aerial bombing practice, then the captain's asinine decision to take to sea may not have been the proximate cause of her death. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting a superseding, intervening cause of death.

On the other hand, if she died because the ship lost a plank or the bilge pumps failed or the engine failed or she was hit by a loose life raft on deck, those would all be events that inexorably follow from the failure of the captain to exercise prudence in his decision-making. It is reasonably foreseeable, in fact likely, that mechanical failure during a storm on that ship would result in a sinking an a loss of life, even though such mechanical failure in calm conditions would cause no permanent harm. It is reasonably foreseeable that a ship like the Bounty might founder and capsize in gale or hurricane conditions, so the captain who put the ship in that position will be held responsible for all consequences not due to a superseding cause.

People are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their failure to live up to their duties as reasonably prudent people, in this case, a reasonably prudent professional captain. A reasonably prudent professional captain of a ship like the Bounty does not set sail in the face of an impending, unpredictable hurricane. The estate of "Captain Hurricane Chaser/"There is no such thing as bad weather" and everyone responsible for employing someone with knowledge of his apparent lack of judgment will now be responsible for all reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligence, including the death of this woman. That seems perfectly fair and just to me.

Some of you apparently do not embrace that concept. Some on this listserv refuse to accept the responsibilities of a ship's captain. Your passengers and crew do not assume the risk of your faulty decision-making just because taking to sea is risky venture. When you assume responsibility for other's lives by commanding a boat, you are required to be PRUDENT - which means wise, judicious, careful, cautious and discreet. You have no legal right to gamble, play the odds, and take risks with other's lives at stake. If you do not like that legal liability, then sail solo and do not summon rescue forces

There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him. This is very simple: he put the boat in harm's way and harm resulted.
 
#266 ·
What you fail to realize is that the captain is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his inexcusable decision to set sail toward the likely path of a hurricane.

...

People are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their failure to live up to their duties as reasonably prudent people, in this case, a reasonably prudent professional captain. A reasonably prudent professional captain of a ship like the Bounty does not set sail in the face of an impending, unpredictable hurricane. The estate of "Captain Hurricane Chaser/"There is no such thing as bad weather" and everyone responsible for employing someone with knowledge of his apparent lack of judgment will now be responsible for all reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligence, including the death of this woman. That seems perfectly fair and just to me.

Some of you apparently do not embrace that concept. Some on this listserv refuse to accept the responsibilities of a ship's captain. Your passengers and crew do not assume the risk of your faulty decision-making just because taking to sea is risky venture. When you assume responsibility for other's lives by commanding a boat, you are required to be PRUDENT - which means wise, judicious, careful, cautious and discreet. You have no legal right to gamble, play the odds, and take risks with other's lives at stake. If you do not like that legal liability, then sail solo and do not summon rescue forces

There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him. This is very simple: he put the boat in harm's way and harm resulted.
Exactly, very well said... Bottom line, the BOUNTY should not have been where she was, period... To suggest that "the storm had little or nothing to do with the root cause of the accident" is nonsensical. All other mitigating factors are reduced to the peripheral, after that decision to depart New London Thursday, and laying a course directly into the path of the storm, was taken...

I would invite once again suggestions from those who fail to grasp that, who ELSE besides the captain might bear responsibility for this tragedy? And, what possible reason might have compelled him to sail into the teeth of such weather in such a vessel to meet the schedule of being in St Pete by Nov 9?

Seems to me, we are left only with scenarios as bizarre and fantastical as his being forced at gunpoint to depart New London, or being convinced that innocent schoolchildren in St Pete would begin being beheaded hourly if the BOUNTY was not there on schedule... One has to grant that such compelling, mitigating circumstances MIGHT have been at play - but I'd suggest such a case was not bloody likely...

The guy simply made a really, REALLY bad decision... Certainly, there may have been factors that influenced that decision, but I'm still hard-pressed to imagine any that even remotely begin to EXCUSE such a decision by a professional mariner...
 
#265 ·
Hi all,

I've been following this thread here and other sites on this subject for a bit now. I'm new to the forum and fairly new to sailing as well. I will not pass judgement on what happened aboard the Bounty but as a 747 captain (an airplane of that size is in many ways, a flying ship), I, however, will say a few things since I do find a similarity as far as responsibilities go between both airliner and ship's Captains.

First of all, as a Pilot in Command, you are responsible for everything that goes on, into and about that aircraft that you are about to fly. It is your job to check the aircraft logbook that all maintenance has been properly carried out according to the prescribed guidelines

Same goes for the weather along the route, destination and alternates. The physical well being of your crew and passengers, physically and mentally. The cargo if there are hazmat or other DGs on board.

Actually, the Flight dispatch will send you all the info in a nice thick packet half the size of a phone book for every flight. They will brief you as well but if they screwed up, it is still your airplane. You are responsible for everything and I mean everything.

What I'm saying is that, as a Pilot in Command, you make the final decision, period. No one can force you to leave if you do not feel that either you, your crew or the aircraft is capable and can safely complete the trip. Not your Company, Chief Pilot, Union etc.

And not to take anything away from anyone, but I cannot just take a FAA test, buy an airplane and a nice white hat and be a Captain. The main difference here is that we, as far as professional pilot group goes, have to go through all kinds of emergency training scenarios and drills every six months. We must attend recurrent training annually (I believe freighters, tankers and cruise ship crew go through similar training). They pay us good money not to fly the airplane, the airplane can do all that by themselves. Heck, my 747-400 and land and come to a complete stop on the runway without me ever touching the yoke or the throttles. What they really pay us for is to make safe and sound judgements and prudent decisions.

As a pilot in command, the decisions are all yours and yours alone. Whatever decision you make, good or bad, you'd better be able to defend it if you ever ended up at that long inquisition table with no ashtrays, if you survive the incident or accident that is.
 
#276 · (Edited)
Hi all,

... They pay us good money not to fly the airplane, the airplane can do all that by themselves. Heck, my 747-400 and land and come to a complete stop on the runway without me ever touching the yoke or the throttles. What they really pay us for is to make safe and sound judgements and prudent decisions.

...
That is also the essence of a job of Sea captain. Of course you and them have to know a lot to know what is a safe and sound judgment and prudent decisions.

I confess that when I saw those very harsh comments on a professional sailing forum about the choices of Bounty's Captain, namely to go out on a small wooden ship with a hurricane coming and sailing out with a damaged pump system and without a back up system, I was shocked. After all it was one of them they were talking about.

Then I understood that it was precisely because it was one of them, a professional Captain, the reason they were so pissed: It should be basic to any professional Captain the exercise of safe and sound judgment and prudent decisions and that was not clearly the case in their opinion in what regards this case. It was just because it was not a navigation error or a mistake but such a basic thing that no Captain had the right to do wrong.

I found it funny that one of them, to characterize the attitude of the Captain, said he was behaving like an irresponsible Yacthee:D, I mean one of us, a non professional.

Regards

Paulo
 
#269 ·
Surely there can be reasons as to why he left port and sailed into a hurricane other than just going on some reckless, adrenaline-junkie mission. Could he have been asked to leave New London by harbor officials and turned down in New Bedford and everywhere else? You just don't pull into a harbor with a 190' ship and expect to find hurricane-proof dock space. Did the ship have adequate ground tackle to even attempt an anchorage up inside Narragansett? I doubt anyone had a mooring adequate to handle him. Could he have been pressured by the ship's owners at the risk of his job? No one knows and we may never know. What would any of us do if we were faced with no good place to use for a hurricane hole? Would we maybe try to put out to sea as a last resort? Let's hear the facts first before we hang this guy in effigy.

The fact is that he did put out to sea. That was his very bad decision. "Unfathomable" is Jon's appropriate adjective for this decision. He could have, instead, run her aground as a last resort rather than risk the crew. I just wonder why anyone with his experience would risk sailing into a hurricane in this apparently less than fully sound ship.
 
#270 ·
...I just wonder why anyone with his experience would risk sailing into a hurricane in this apparently less than fully sound ship.
Just a reminder that this ship is deemed less than fully sound only because of all the "facts" that we have "invented" on this board. Nobody that I know of here inspected her just prior to departure. This is the danger or our speculation - we echo what each other says enough times that we start to believe each other's speculation as fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brewgyver
#272 ·
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The concept you are discussing is known in the law as "proximate cause" - whether there is a legally recognized causal connection between the breach of a duty and the damages caused.

What you fail to realize is that the captain is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his inexcusable decision to set sail toward the likely path of a hurricane.

There exists the unlikely possibility that some superseding, intervening cause resulted in the death of this young woman. For instance, if she died from food poisoning on board and just happened to stumble overboard just as the ship was sinking, or if the Navy accidentally bombed the ship as part of aerial bombing practice, then the captain's asinine decision to take to sea may not have been the proximate cause of her death. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting a superseding, intervening cause of death.

On the other hand, if she died because the ship lost a plank or the bilge pumps failed or the engine failed or she was hit by a loose life raft on deck, those would all be events that inexorably follow from the failure of the captain to exercise prudence in his decision-making. It is reasonably foreseeable, in fact likely, that mechanical failure during a storm on that ship would result in a sinking an a loss of life, even though such mechanical failure in calm conditions would cause no permanent harm. It is reasonably foreseeable that a ship like the Bounty might founder and capsize in gale or hurricane conditions, so the captain who put the ship in that position will be held responsible for all consequences not due to a superseding cause.

People are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their failure to live up to their duties as reasonably prudent people, in this case, a reasonably prudent professional captain. A reasonably prudent professional captain of a ship like the Bounty does not set sail in the face of an impending, unpredictable hurricane. The estate of "Captain Hurricane Chaser/"There is no such thing as bad weather" and everyone responsible for employing someone with knowledge of his apparent lack of judgment will now be responsible for all reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligence, including the death of this woman. That seems perfectly fair and just to me.

Some of you apparently do not embrace that concept. Some on this listserv refuse to accept the responsibilities of a ship's captain. Your passengers and crew do not assume the risk of your faulty decision-making just because taking to sea is risky venture. When you assume responsibility for other's lives by commanding a boat, you are required to be PRUDENT - which means wise, judicious, careful, cautious and discreet. You have no legal right to gamble, play the odds, and take risks with other's lives at stake. If you do not like that legal liability, then sail solo and do not summon rescue forces

There is no rush to judgment. No further investigation will ever portray this captain as wise, careful or cautious, given what we already know about his decision-making in the circumstances. We are not required to search for a superceding cause to exonerate him. This is very simple: he put the boat in harm's way and harm resulted.-James Wilson
Guilty as charged no need to investigate and further says Judge Dred of Sailnet
 
#273 · (Edited)
Takefive, Apparently you missed the word "apparently." There are posts and links here that seem to support that there were mechanical problems. Having no manual pumps, imo, indicates a major deficiency if it is true.
 
#279 · (Edited)
No I did not miss that word. But using the word "apparently" implies that there are some actual facts to make something apparent. I have not seen enough actual facts to make anything "apparent." I've seen the same posts and links that you have seen, usually from anonymous, faceless sources. Very weak evidence IMO.

I'm not going to go back over every post and link that I've already read, but I seem to recall someone (here or on another message board) claiming to have been on the boat insisting that it actually did have manual pumps at the time he was aboard. So your claimed "major deficiency" may be fictional. I'm not claiming that other person is any more credible than your source, just that there are really no credible facts on this, and there's enough disagreement to negate almost all the current speculation. But enough people will read your post that a week from now someone will vaguely recall your statement and think it was an established fact.

This echoing back and forth of speculation-masquerading-as-fact is one of the dangers of the Internet, where people of differing opinions can latch onto whichever portion of the congnitive dissonance that agrees with whatever they choose to believe. It's the classic conflict between "truth" and "truthiness." Just because something seems plausible does not make it true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brewgyver
#274 ·
Hi all,

I've been following this thread here and other sites on this subject for a bit now. I'm new to the forum and fairly new to sailing as well. I will not pass judgement on what happened aboard the Bounty but as a 747 captain (an airplane of that size is in many ways, a flying ship), I, however, will say a few things since I do find a similarity as far as responsibilities go between both airliner and ship's Captains.

First of all, as a Pilot in Command, you are responsible for everything that goes on, into and about that aircraft that you are about to fly. It is your job to check the aircraft logbook that all maintenance has been properly carried out according to the prescribed guidelines

Same goes for the weather along the route, destination and alternates. The physical well being of your crew and passengers, physically and mentally. The cargo if there are hazmat or other DGs on board.

Actually, the Flight dispatch will send you all the info in a nice thick packet half the size of a phone book for every flight. They will brief you as well but if they screwed up, it is still your airplane. You are responsible for everything and I mean everything.

What I'm saying is that, as a Pilot in Command, you make the final decision, period. No one can force you to leave if you do not feel that either you, your crew or the aircraft is capable and can safely complete the trip. Not your Company, Chief Pilot, Union etc.

And not to take anything away from anyone, but I cannot just take a FAA test, buy an airplane and a nice white hat and be a Captain. The main difference here is that we, as far as professional pilot group goes, have to go through all kinds of emergency training scenarios and drills every six months. We must attend recurrent training annually (I believe freighters, tankers and cruise ship crew go through similar training). They pay us good money not to fly the airplane, the airplane can do all that by themselves. Heck, my 747-400 and land and come to a complete stop on the runway without me ever touching the yoke or the throttles. What they really pay us for is to make safe and sound judgements and prudent decisions.

As a pilot in command, the decisions are all yours and yours alone. Whatever decision you make, good or bad, you'd better be able to defend it if you ever ended up at that long inquisition table with no ashtrays, if you survive the incident or accident that is. -Alias
Understood. No one is disputing that the captain will be held responsible WHEN the investigation is concluded. Dont you have an investigation though when their is an incident, or do the summarily dismiss you?

Jameswilson...I am not a lawyer, but if there was a lawsuit arent there % of causality assigned ( not legalese)
 
#278 · (Edited)
Jameswilson...I am not a lawyer, but if there was a lawsuit arent there % of causality assigned ( not legalese)
In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, yes, there is an apportionment of fault. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction like Virginia, any negligence is a complete bar to recovery.

I am not sure where this will be tried and under what governing law. I assume the Plaintiff will try to put this in the most advantageous forum. Maybe a maritime lawyer on the listserv can jump in here and tell us whether this has to be brought in federal court under U.S. maritime law, or whether a state court would be required to apply federal common law/maritime law to this case.

I have not read any claim that the woman's negligence contributed to her death. While the defendant may try to claim some kind of assumption of risk defense to defeat a recovery and may even produce some kind of signed waiver, I question whether that would be effective in these circumstances, that she would have understood and reasonably assumed the risk of the captain sailing into a hurricane...or that as a matter of public policy such a waiver would be enforced.
 
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