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.
 
#573 ·
One incredible aspect of this disaster is that they knew she would open up when pounded and had done so in the past. It's a given that any carvel construction is going to leak when it gets into heavy seas. Having owned many wood boats, including Wheeler, Egg Harbor, and Richardson, I can attest to the fact that leaking is inherent. Many times, after pounding across Gardiner's Bay or Block Island Sound, bilge pumps would work to keep up with seams opening up. It's part of what makes this mystifying. There were all kinds of things to inform them ahead of time to stay put. It should have been an obvious decision.
 
#574 ·
If find it quite curious that no member of the crew has even intimated that this was due to a freak occurrence, such as hitting something or a repair letting go. Why wouldn't they, if any were the case? Let's face it, as the terror subsides, they are all going to feel some degree of foolish for having set out on this passage. It must not have been as obvious to them beforehand, but its painfully so now. That alone might motivate one to suggest they couldn't see this coming, if it were true.

Perhaps they've been gagged by the USCG, but why? But defense counsel may have.
 
#576 ·
Unless you are the defendant, why would a witness be advised against disclosure of what they witnessed?

Also, unless required by law, it remains hard to believe that 14 people would all agree to voluntarily abide by the request. You can't get 14 people here to agree to anything.......
 
#578 ·
Some lawyer last week defending some rap star, when the rap star tries to talk in court: Shut up. I don't dance, you don't talk in court.

I reckon the lawyers are probably right into it, and not to find out what happened, but to look for damages for their clients.

"Forced to go to sea on a death ship into the Graveyard of the Atlantic during a Hurricane" that's gotta be worth bucks if the crew listens to lawyers....

Sorry, that's not meant to be cynical.
 
#582 ·
Forced to go to sea on a death ship into the Graveyard of the Atlantic during a Hurricane" that's gotta be worth bucks if the crew listens to lawyers...MarkSealife.
More speculative conclusions based on speculative evidence leading to unfounded emotion laden words leading to grandious ending.

How about we let the facts come out. Conclusions based on hypothesis by ametuers without a grasp on what is fact, what is rumor, what is contrived fact leads to nowhere really. Let the professionsals figure it out.

Ever notice the TRUE professioals are not predisopsing themselves to conclusions here?

Dave
 
#583 ·
#584 ·
or the several Tall ship Captains that said that Bounty's Captain should never had sailed out of Port with an hurricane out there-PCP?
I am not disputing this. How many times do I have to reiterate that. In fact why do you keep beating this dead horse?

There are many many more facts yet to be discovered here. The Captain has alreadt been found guility in the srena of public opion. The speculation of other so called facts are not facts and just wild speculation. Doesnt make any difference if they are obn gCaptain or and other blog sites that ANYONE can join.

In order for their to be lessons learned so this doesnt happene again, which if I rememeber you stated is your CHIEF concern ( sic) the investigation needs to be carried out.
 
#589 ·
Our buddy, Chef, has taken on the mission to preserve the Captain's dignity until all the facts are known. He's as entitled to that mission as most of us are entitled to point out how stupid the Capt was.

There is a saying in flying. You're only as good as your last landing. And it's true. I've never had a passenger that felt otherwise. Bird stike, get us on the ground alive. Engine failure, get us on the ground alive. etc. etc. That's your job as Captain and why we don't aim the pointy end at a thunderstorm, let alone a hurricane, even if we've survived a pop up storm before.
 
#590 ·
What I care about is NOTHING to do with the Bountys ship, captain or crew. What I care about is the myriad of cruisers and potential cruisers out there who, each year, sail around Cape Hatteras, through, across or against the Gulf Stream either in winter, Novermber and December, or in the Hurricane season June, and October.

It's those people who cannot wait till some enquiry is complete in two years time. They need reminding NOW that they should sail in the correct season, watch the weather, do not go through the Gulf Stream in more than 20 knots from the North, Or North East, and do not play with Northers, Hurricanes, Rages or the like.

Those are the points that can be gleaned from this disaster now and need to be disseminated now!

:)

The Caribbean 1500 starts in 8 days and remember two years ago a woman was killed when a boat tried to enter a cut in the Bahamas in a Norther in Rage conditions.
We have 8 days to ensure these folks know the responsibility is on themselves to set off in this race, not the organizers. If a Northerly comes up they must not go into the Gulf Stream, nor try the Bahamas cuts. Nor leave port at all if the weather is that bad.

:)

I don't need a ticket from a Kornflake packet to tell me that.


Mark
 
#593 · (Edited)
All this righteous pomposity from an anonymous troll who just wrote ( when someone handed him his ass) - Sal Paradise
Sal Paradise,

This is a rude remark, uncalled for and does not belong on the posting. It shows and inability to control your anger and discuss topics in a rational grownup way. In addition it does not add to the topic or help fellow sailors in general and is clearly a personal attack oriented comment. If you wish to be taken seriously future posting should not be personal in nature. Finally posts of a personal attack nature are against ther terms of service of this site.

Because you a relatively new with 60 posts you should understand that many us on on this site have learned to play fair with each other and can disagree strongly with each other from time to time or even freaquently and do it in a civil respectfully nature. Even with Paulo, whom I have had strong difference of opinion on this particular thread, I value his contributions to SN in many other threads and agree with him most of the time. Do not get caught up in your emotions here as it only the internet, but at the same time do not use that it is the internet to make personal characterizions of people. If that is YOUR agenda...try the off-topic threads where less emphasis is placed on political correctness.

You may not like I have to say... and you can disagree in an adult civil manner like all others...but what you cannot do is what you have done above. In the future keep your posts on the subject not on the subjects or your posts will be reported.

Respectfully,

Dave
 
#631 · (Edited)
Sal Paradise,

This is a rude remark, uncalled for and does not belong on the posting. It shows and inability to control your anger and discuss topics in a rational grownup way. In addition it does not add to the topic or help fellow sailors in general and is clearly a personal attack oriented comment. If you wish to be taken seriously future posting should not be personal in nature. Finally posts of a personal attack nature are against ther terms of service of this site.

Because you a relatively new with 60 posts you should understand that many us on on this site have learned to play fair with each other and can disagree strongly with each other from time to time or even freaquently and do it in a civil respectfully nature. Even with Paulo, whom I have had strong difference of opinion on this particular thread, I value his contributions to SN in many other threads and agree with him most of the time. Do not get caught up in your emotions here as it only the internet, but at the same time do not use that it is the internet to make personal characterizions of people. If that is YOUR agenda...try the off-topic threads where less emphasis is placed on political correctness.

You may not like I have to say... and you can disagree in an adult civil manner like all others...but what you cannot do is what you have done above. In the future keep your posts on the subject not on the subjects or your posts will be reported.

Respectfully,

Dave
Dave,

You might consider heeding your own advice. As I read it you've done exactly the same here on SN, and quite recently to boot.

Like this in the Rule 62 thread where Leocat66 simply suggested that the skipper of Rule 62 explain himself publicly. You lit into him like a pit bull.

Leocat66 he has no obligation to you, me or other sailors in this matter. I do not want to hear your ameteur criticisms or Monday morning quarterbacking of what happened.

This thread has had many knowlegeable contributors which has helped myself and others in thinking of what to do to prevent this situation/ scenario and how to handle it if we got into a similar fix. You are not one of them and your rant would serve as no learning experience to myself.

Dave
You called the guy an "ameteur" with regard to his posting yet what "facts" do really you about him to make that factually worded statement? What if he is a professional captain? Jumping to conclusions & speculation perhaps? You also told him others were knowledgeable and that he was not knowledgeable? Do you know that for a fact or is this speculation?

Just looking at this you suggest we should...;)

In this post it seems you let you let "your inability to control your anger and discuss topics in a rational grownup way" take over just as you suggested the poster above not do..

Didnt take long for the judgement police of SN to voice their opinions. Whos annointed you god to judge. Great commentary from an internet jockey sitting behind a computer. You have no right to use the word "we" amd you certainly dont speak for all sailors.
Personal....?

That's incredible. No insurance and your what 16? So if someone gets hurt on your boat or because of your boat they will have to sue mommy and daddy. They could loose their house. If they don't have insurance. Your needed to have this boat against their wishes and were encourahed by some on here to do that dispite how they felt and your inability to have the money to pay for even the simplest of safety gear point to absolute immature decisions.

I have followed you exploits for a while. I have to call it as I see it sorry no matter how unpopular that makes what I say appear. From your first posts to yelling out a fisherman thinking you had the right away to this escapade. To this latest reckless situation where you are putting others in danger needlessly, again through immaturity and lack of finances show that you need to learn responsibility.

Those on here who have teen agers and have raised children would not like if your kids got on the Internet and were encouraged by others to go against your wishes as a parent.

Those who find this clever or romantic about someone folllowing their dream, why don't you moor beside this child and let his boat smack yours.

Dave
Are we judging others with speculation? Do we know for a fact that "mommy & daddy" could lose their house? Is this not a personal attack? Calling him a "child" & using terms like "mommy & daddy" are certainly derisive words to choose when talking to a teenager. This post smells of derogatory personal comments and again included comments about ones lack of maturity. Where I come from calling someone "immature" is considered a personal attack and derogatory.

Do we know for a fact that Smallboatlover is any more or less mature than say Robin Lee Graham who sailed around the world on a shoe string budget, with no insurance, and then wrote the book Dove..?. Do we have all the facts to make those statements?;)

Please don't take this as an attack on you I just see a little hypocrisy in all this, in a pot/kettle sort of way.. If we are to be above the fray, and preach that, then we should strive for that ourselves, no??
 
#594 ·
What I care about is NOTHING to do with the Bountys ship, captain or crew. What I care about is the myriad of cruisers and potential cruisers out there who, each year, sail around Cape Hatteras, through, across or against the Gulf Stream either in winter, Novermber and December, or in the Hurricane season June, and October.

It's those people who cannot wait till some enquiry is complete in two years time. They need reminding NOW that they should sail in the correct season, watch the weather, do not go through the Gulf Stream in more than 20 knots from the North, Or North East, and do not play with Northers, Hurricanes, Rages or the like.

Those are the points that can be gleaned from this disaster now and need to be disseminated now!

The Caribbean 1500 starts in 8 days and remember two years ago a woman was killed when a boat tried to enter a cut in the Bahamas in a Norther in Rage conditions.
We have 8 days to ensure these folks know the responsibility is on themselves to set off in this race, not the organizers. If a Northerly comes up they must not go into the Gulf Stream, nor try the Bahamas cuts. Nor leave port at all if the weather is that bad.

I don't need a ticket from a Kornflake packet to tell me that.

Mark
SeaofLife
Mark,

You missed the boat literally...the 1500 has already started. Maybe you do need that tuicket from the Kornflake packet

Having done the Carribean 1500 3 times I can tell you if you need to learn this lesson from a Sailnet Blog on a social media site you dont have enough experience to be in the 1500 in the first place.

To beleive it is possible to avoid any northerners when traveling this route in Novem/ Dec when fronts cross the eastern seaboard every three to four days is not possible. In the past the organizers have started the race wheb they CROSS THE GULF STREAM on a day when the wind direction/ GS current are minimal.

So tell me since you brought it up....what were the lessons of Rule 62?

Dave
So let me ask since you mentioned it
 
#596 ·
Mark,

So tell me since you brought it up....what were the lessons of Rule 62?

Dave
So let me ask since you mentioned it
Well, since there remains a great deal of factual information that apparently will forever be unknown to us regarding the RULE 62 tragedy, and we are still awaiting the final determination of an "official investigation" which appears likely never to occur...

Wouldn't any attempt to answer your question involve, by your definition, little more than "speculation" on our part? (grin)
 
#595 · (Edited)
If anything, seems to me that most of the 'speculation' engaged in during the course of this thread has come from those who appear to be loosely "in defense of" of the captain. I have seen nothing to support the notion advanced that the BOUNTY might have been ordered to leave New London, for example - and yet, some hear have tossed that out as a potential mitigating factor... Aside from appearing purely speculative, it's a moot point, in any event. Even if the BOUNTY had been ordered to depart, Waldbridge still had many options to consider. He might have tried to get inside the hurricane barrier at New Bedford, or run up Narragannsett Bay... Or, put into a place like Pt Jefferson on the north shore of LI... Or, up the Hudson, or Delaware, or into Norfolk/Hampton Roads, or up the York or James Rivers... Any of which, he had time to do... No freakin' way would he have not only been ordered to leave New London, but to attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, as well...-JonEisberg
Our buddy, Chef, has taken on the mission to preserve the Captain's dignity until all the facts are known. He's as entitled to that mission as most of us are entitled to point out how stupid the Capt was.- Minniewaska
Respectfully JOn and Minnie and I do respect you both, I am NOT defending the Captains actions. From the beginning of this post I have said I beleived leaving with the knowledge of a brewing storm was not the correct thing to do and that he is ultimately responsible for that. Once we move away from that point that there is no need to keep coming back to to lay credence to the myriad of misinformation in a post, and the posts are examined for factual vs speculative information, it is my opinion that there is so much assumptions and misinformation that it is hard to see the contributing factors.

Why is that imnportant? If we just close the case here and say the Captain caused this and move on the only lesson learned....not like any of had to learn this lesson, is that he left in a storm. The constant barage of this in almost every post is the classic man needs a scapegoat and a person ton blame this on.

Those of you fixated by this continued blaring that the Captain shouldnt have left ( duh)
potentially are blinding yourselves and other readers to other factors here to learn from. Trying to learn from this is like trying to lkearn from a soap opera.

I have contended since my first post here not to rush to judgement on the causation of the actual sinking so that we may truly learn from this. Rush to judgement including posting erroneouos information, opinions from sources less thatn experienced, wild speculation does not in fact get at the causes of this accident and serves to confuse the issue as to what to beleive. I will not defebd the captains leaving as I beleive it was wrong. I will defend the need to keep an open mind and not rush to judgement on the other causitive agents.

Keeping an open mind in the midst of people calling you a troll is disconcerting, but still necessary. Keeping an open mind is important because there are other issues it appears here which may need attention to prevent a similar disaster from occuring where the Captain encounter heavy weather as a course of normal sailing schedule in one of these tall ship. I have already learned a great deal reading some of the "technical information" posted from REAL experts concerning sailing these vessels. I have a list of possible things which may be learned from this tradgedy, but have held off and will continue to until I really have more facts.

Continued posting about the Captains decision to leave is redundant. Its like getting a constant drum pounding sound which prevents you from hearing some of the other sounds. Those who do that and continue to prevent themselves from hearing some of the other sounds which we need to hear in order to learn more from this.

In addition those who challenge others facts on here are not doing it to be trolls, contrary in nature, picking a fight, defending the captain. Some people like myself do not like to be presented with suppostion and opinion cloaked as fact. If these half truths, conjecture and assumptions are allowed to stand they can be utilized to build other conclusions which are erroneous from them.
 
#597 · (Edited)
Respectfully JOn and Minnie and I do respect you both, I am NOT defending the Captains actions. From the beginning of this post I have said I beleived leaving with the knowledge of a brewing storm was not the correct thing to do and that he is ultimately responsible for that. Once we move away from that point that there is no need to keep coming back to to lay credence to the myriad of misinformation in a post, and the posts are examined for factual vs speculative information, it is my opinion that there is so much assumptions and misinformation that it is hard to see the contributing factors.
Fair enough, I understand your position, and I stated myself poorly if I've implied that anyone here is essentially "defending" the actions of Walbridge...

What I've simply tried to make clear from the outset, is my doubt that there will come to light any mitigating factors or evidence that will make his decision to depart New London when he did, and attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, appear to be anything short of "unfathomable", or impossible to justify in terms of any reasonable Risk/Reward analysis...
 
#598 ·
What I've simply tried to make clear from the outset, is my doubt that there will come to light any mitigating factors or evidence that will make his decision to depart New London when he did, and attempt to shoot the gap between Sandy and Hatteras, appear to be anything short of "unfathomable", or impossible to justify in terms of any reasonable Risk/Reward analysis..JojnEisberg .
Agreed
 
#599 ·
Well, since there remains a great deal of factual information that apparently will forever be unknown to us regarding the RULE 62 tragedy, and we are still awaiting the final determination of an "official investigation" which appears likely never to occur...

Wouldn't any attempt to answer your question involve, by your definition, little more than "speculation" on our part? (grin)JOnEisberg
In the case of Rule 62 we have a few similar notes to this incident
The Captain made a poor decision and brought his vessel into an area where a "rage" was occuring and it contributed to the sinking of the boat.

Are you willing to state that the Captain of the Rulke 62 and his actions led to their deaths. He in charge made a decision which ultimately cost the life of people, therefore he was ultimately responsible, correct?

In the case of the Farlones...the CG found they "cut to close" Are you willing to state the Captain caused the death of the others on the boat?

Not meant to be argumentative...just want to see the thinking with these incidents also.

Dave
 
#600 ·
I...

In the case of the Farlones...the CG found they "cut to close" Are you willing to state the Captain caused the death of the others on the boat?

....

Dave
The captain is the responsible for the safety of its crew and should avoid taking any risks that can put it at risk. On the Farlones incident obviously the captain was responsible. it was my opinion at the time and it is the opinion of the CG when they say he "cut to close". He could have avoided that risk.

As a mitigating factor the Captain on the Farlone incident was a non professional captain with a racing crew participating in a race. I would say that will racing some risks are acceptable but not any that put on jeopardy the lives of the crew or the boat safety.

The hugely different factor between the two accidents is that one happened with an amateur captain the other one with a professional Captain.

For what I understood in the US and in some countries like UK any person can be a Captain of a private sailing boat without any qualifications to do that. That is not the case with a professional Captain that is a highly qualified professional and certified in that quality by a licence.

Regards

Paulo
 
#633 · (Edited)
Well, since there remains a great deal of factual information that apparently will forever be unknown to us regarding the RULE 62 tragedy, and we are still awaiting the final determination of an "official investigation" which appears likely never to occur...

Wouldn't any attempt to answer your question involve, by your definition, little more than "speculation" on our part? (grin)JOnEisberg
In the case of Rule 62 we have a few similar notes to this incident
The Captain made a poor decision and brought his vessel into an area where a "rage" was occuring and it contributed to the sinking of the boat.

Are you willing to state that the Captain of the Rulke 62 and his actions led to their deaths. He in charge made a decision which ultimately cost the life of people, therefore he was ultimately responsible, correct?

In the case of the Farlones...the CG found they "cut to close" Are you willing to state the Captain caused the death of the others on the boat?

Not meant to be argumentative...just want to see the thinking with these incidents also.

Dave
Of course both skippers shoulder the ultimate responsibility, of that there is no question... However, I believe there are significant differences in their respective "degrees" of responsibility, the 2 incidents seem to me not to be so easily compared...

The Farallones incident by definition entailed a bit more risk, by virtue of the fact that they were racing. Everyone aboard that boat likely understood the challenging and risky nature of racing around that rock - that's a large part of the appeal, thrill, and satisfaction of doing so, of course. What was going on aboard that boat involved much more of a 'team effort' than would have been the case aboard RULE 62. The helmsman would have been taking some guidance from the navigator as to the course sailed, and some of the crew would have been riding the rail, looking to seaward. At no point in Bryan Chong's detailed account of the wreck, was any mention made of any concern from any of the crew that they might be cutting the islands dangerously close. Other boats had sailed a similar track, and IMHO had they been in that particular spot either a minute earlier, or a minute later, their rounding of the Farallones may have been uneventful... Elements of risk, mistaken judgement, and sheer bad luck all conspired in that particular tragedy, and in my view the mistake made by the person in command were nowhere nearly as egregious, or clearly defined, as the decisions made aboard RULE 62, or in the case of the BOUNTY...

FWIW, the primary lessons to be learned from the RULE 62 tragedy are the dangers of making a bluewater passage with an untested crew, the over-reliance and overconfidence in electronic navigation, and the failure to master or even attempt the practice of heaving-to...

And, perhaps most importantly, the failure to have large scale PAPER charts aboard... I'd be willing to bet almost anything that skipper did not have the ability to spread out a large chart of the Abacos/NE Providence Channel on a table before him, otherwise a number of perfectly safe options would have become apparent to him at a glance... However, that is pure 'speculation' on my part, of course... (grin)

Amazing to me, that one of the required items of the Caribbean 1500's Safety Inspection is not a compliment of paper charts for the Bahamas and Greater Amtilles, as potential bailout points from the rally... Perhaps that's changed now, but last time I heard, such was not the case...
 
#644 ·
To obtain a similar degree of information that could have been gleaned from an appropriate chart 'at a glance' generally involves considerably more 'work' - in the form of zooming, panning, atc - when using electronic means...
Just like you don't have to tell your head or eyes to move to see something I do not have to tell my hand on a mouse to pan or zoom. It just does it like your head and eyes do.

That's what I am talking about.

When one is so good at a skill it becomes automatic. My skill is in computers, not paper.

You will find more like that with the texting generation. How do they text so fast? How can they be so accurate? How can the communicate so succinctly with a IQ so low?

Like driving a manual car, changing gears isn't though of, it's just done.

the future is technology that's intuitive, fast and accurate. :)
 
#648 · (Edited)
Just like you don't have to tell your head or eyes to move to see something I do not have to tell my hand on a mouse to pan or zoom. It just does it like your head and eyes do.

That's what I am talking about.

When one is so good at a skill it becomes automatic. My skill is in computers, not paper.
Well, I'm guessing maybe, just maybe, the captain of RULE 62 might not be quite as facile with a computer mouse or chartplotter cursor as you are...

Otherwise, he might have noticed the myriad of other options that would have been plain to see, on a chart of the Northeast Providence Channel & Approaches spread out before him...

the future is technology that's intuitive, fast and accurate. :)
Not to mention, immune to something like, say, a lightning strike... (grin)

We'll just have to agree to disagree, is all... Look, I'm a big fan of electronic charting, I use it all the time... There is no better means of taking you from Point A to Point B, when you're certain Point B is definitely where you want to go... I'm simply arguing that it has certain limitations, is all... And, I imagine what happened with RULE 62 fits the scenario perfectly of what might have happened due to not having a large scale paper backup aboard...

Just my own gut instinct, nothing more... I could be wrong, of course - too bad we'll likely never know...
 
#601 · (Edited)
As a mitigating factor the Captain on the Farlone incident was a non professional captain with a racing crew participating in a race. I would say that will racing some risks are acceptable but not any that put on jeopardy the lives of the crew or the boat safety.-PCP
Not sure I draw the distinction about the mitigating factor here for the Farlone or Rule 62 Captains. He was the captain...he had many years experience...just because he didnt have or didnt apply for a Commercial captains liscence didnt mean that his responsibility to his crew and others was any different. I agree you would think that the BOounty Captain would have an icreased awareness due to his formal liscening and training.

I dont think the Captain of the Bounty, Captain of the Farlones, Captain of Rule 62 have any less responsibility to their crews than each other, nor do I think that mitigates their culpability or blame when it comes to contributing to the cause of the loss of life.

One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean that a mistake in judgement will not occur or is even less likely to occur. The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes, buut as we have seen humans are fallible and make mistakes even if they have best of intentions.

One of the reasons it is important to me to try and find out why he left is that that thought process which countered the obvious danger the storm presented should be examined and brought out. That is what we all can learn to recognize in ourself and others...the danger signs when the thought process goes against conventional wisdom is occuring so it can be headed off. Some of this was mentioned in the Rule 62 incident where the Captain allegedly gave in to the cries of his crew iwth seasickness and rough conditions to attempt and insanely diffeicult passage in shallow water when a "rage" was occuring. The lesson for us was that apparently the Captain gave in to pressures he should have stood fast to and that at all times as the Captain that you must make the best decison for the keeping of life vs the cries of the the crew.

It isnt enough for me to know that the Bounty Captain is responsible. In line with this I have tried to cut away the obvious statements attributed to him before in interviews as they could be taken out of context or been a bit of "puffery" and exageration. The reason I think this is the eyewitness statements of many who have come in contact with, sailed with, or worked with this particular captain. Most of not all of them speak to his professionalism, teaching ability and investment to his crew as opposed to an ego maniac Ahab who wanted to tie himself to the mast before the storm like Ahab or Forrest Gump.

I like wingnwing and others on here had met the man if only briefly. The snap judgement in the short time I was around him was not that of an extreme risk taker, but of a gentleman who was professional and loved his vessels as well as tall ship sailing. So what is pertinent in my mind is why would a captain credentialled, experienced and stable like him make such an egerious error. Hopefully some of the eyewitness accounts will open this window so we can see.

Again I state in NO WAY am I asking for, inferring or even thinking this abbrogates his responsibility to make safe decisions and mitigates his actions of pushing away from the dock into the storm.

Dave
 
#606 · (Edited)
.. He was the captain...he had many years experience...just because he didnt have or didnt apply for a Commercial captains liscence didnt mean that his responsibility to his crew and others was any different. I agree you would think that the BOounty Captain would have an icreased awareness due to his formal liscening and training.

....

One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean that a mistake in judgement ... is even less likely to occur. The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes, buut as we have seen humans are fallible and make mistakes even if they have best of intentions.

....
Dave
Dave,it seems to me that there are a contradiction in what you say :

You say "One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean .... a mistake in judgement ... is ... less likely to occur".

and then you say:

"The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes..."

Unless you think that formal training, the one that separates a licensed Captain able to operate commercial ships from an amateur captain (of his own boat) without any licence, will not contribute to a better and more informed judgement and therefore a lesser probability of mistakes, what you say is contradictory.

In fact you say:

" I agree you would think that the BOounty Captain would have an icreased awareness due to his formal liscening and training. "

and yes, in fact I think like that but the question here is : and you think also like that?

Regards

Paulo
 
#603 · (Edited)
So you may feel you scare people into your opinion but you don't scare me.-MarkseaofLife
Now you attributing motives to me...how weird when you dont know me. Hahah..I am trying to scare you?????. No I am not

I go back to a previous statement that you felt you needed to deride. Don't play in Northers or rages, hurricanes, wind against current, Cape a hatteras or the Gulf StreamMarkseaoflife
If you carefully read you will see I agree with this. On many other of my posts over the years I have warned of the same consequences around Hatteras. I have been extremely cautious personally and have taken the ICW route around Hatteras execopt for the 3 Carribean 1500 ( outside the GS) and a couple of deliveries I have made south to Florida/ Georgia. As the crew on the deleiveies I would have bailed off the trip had I felt there was not enough of a weather window to make it around through Diamond Shoals safely.

It is common sense what you have said about sailing into hurricanes, northern winds agains the north moving Gulf Stream, blah blah blah..we get your drift.

Most experienced blue water sailors know that entering an inlet where tide or current against wind will create exaggerated conditions. Sailing in the Plum Gut/ Race/ Watch Hill Passage from the LI Sound for instance for 12 hours a day puts you in a wind against cureent situation and will lead to steeper waves, So will inlets, Delaware Bays as just a few examples....so what. It doesnt mean they are not traversable. People wait for a weather window to cross to the Bahamias again common knowledge as they are waiting for no northern component to the wind. So what you state sir is the obvious...we know it so why would anyone including me dispute that.

And sailing in a hurricane is a ridiculous unecessary risk of life whether he was in, near or a million miles away from the Gulf Stream.

I will keep saying it till its driven through the skulls of all cruiser-sMarkofsealife
.
Mission accomplished,Maybe time to find another mantra.
 
#604 ·
#609 · (Edited)
Yes but he rises some questions and I wonder why these:

"What is the condition of my vessel and its equipment .. Is there that piece of equipment notorious for failing you at the worst time? Are the hull, deck, and hatches tight? Are the seams weeping? Are the engines and generators on a "wing and a prayer"? Where is that weakness, and every vessel has at least one, that the ocean will find its way into, claiming your ship? One must presume the longtime Master of the Bounty knew his vessel"

It is not normal for a Captain having a boat with seams weeping or with engine and generators on a wing and a prayer and if some equipment is notorious to fail, it should have been replaced or substituted.

So why he says specifically this? I guess that like us he had heard people saying that it was the case. Of course the ones that had said that could be wrong and therefore a proper investigation is needed but it just raises the odds that in fact the boat was not in the better condition, not to say in deficient conditions.

and here:

"Today we have satellites. There's little excuse to take the risk of sailing into bad weather. Good or bad, assume the weather will get worse. It will. It always does. For Bounty, add a hurricane along the way. If you think you can outrun it or avoid it you are betting your ship, your crew's and your own life on it. Did the Bounty make that bet?"

He is practically answering it's own question.

So yes, an investigation is needed to complete all the picture but fact is that we already know somethings, have strong evidence about others and with the things we know it is safe to assume that Bounty's Captains should have not sailed to face an hurricane in an old wooden ship.

There is a difference between an error and a mistake. This one is no mistake, it is a gross error that costed lives and an investigation is not needed to determine that. It is self-evident with what we know now. An investigation is needed to get all the picture that allowed this to happen and to recommend measures to never happen again or at least diminish the odds.

Regards

Paulo
 
#605 ·
The lesson to be learned from Bounty is most likely to be this and I believe there is a preponderance of actual evidence to suggest its odds are very high.

Being a nice, passionate and knowledgeable Captain accrues no benefit against continually taking on serious risks and having survived them in the past. We should all keep in mind, just because we've successfully lived through a past mistake, we shouldn't keep making it.

And, yes, the Rule 62 Captain is also presumably at fault. Understanding how or why they made a decision, doesn't change that. Although, we hope to learn from it. The best connection to that tragedy is how long it has been with no answers from authorities. The authorities are not invested in helping us learn anything, that's an optional side affect. They are only invested in whether their rules were broken and whether they may want to suggest new ones. Very different perspectives.
 
#607 ·
Disagree with your last three sentences. I've been on such a Board and we were indeed interested in educating the maritime public. That's why the reports typically posit proximate cause, contributing causes, findings of fact, and recommendations for the future. Why don't we wait and see on this Board too.
 
#610 ·
You say "One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean .... a mistake in judgement ... is ... less likely to occur".

and then you say:

"The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes..."

Unless you think that formal training, the one that separates a licensed Captain able to operate commercial ships from an amateur captain (of his own boat) without any licence, will not contribute to a better and more informed judgement and therefore a lesser probability of mistakes, what you say is contradictory.

In fact you say:

" I agree you would think that the BOounty Captain would have an icreased awareness due to his formal liscening and training. "

and yes, in fact I think like that but the question here is : and you think also like that?

Regards

Paulo
Like
OK no confusion in me. Lets put the words together

"The formal training and experience should minimize the possibilities of this mistakes..."
and then we MAY learn

"One lesson we may learn from this is that even though we have formal liscensing in place for commercial vessals, that does not mean .... a mistake in judgement ... is ... less likely to occur".
What it means maybe our assumption is wrong that formal liscecing does not mean less mistakes in judgement....*( maybe what we are requiring in the formal lisceincing has no bearing on judgement decisions).

For instance one part of the liscencing requirement is the number of hours required. As Minnie has said ( and I agree), if that prior experience has risking the vessel and surviving in two other hurricanes led him to feel no vulnerability and risk it again because he had success before. In this case his experience would work against him, leading to a fasle sense in scurity mistake in judgement . There fore even though you would think the formal liscence would be better, in this case it would not be.
 
#611 ·
That's why the reports typically posit proximate cause, contributing causes, findings of fact, and recommendations for the future. -Nolatom
That says it in a nutshell I beleive. And that from a previous board investigative board member if his credentials are correct.

I submit aside from the fact that he sailed into a hurricane, there is no concrete evidence about the condition of the ship that day which has been verfied, the captains and the crews sailing profile of the day, how they handled the emergency, etc. just speculatuion from past pictures etc.

First hand testimony is needed.

One question I still have which I am suprised has not been brought up. Why did they not have the CG come get them when the first emergency call went out. They were well past the storm center at that point and in the SW quadrant. Were the conditions at that point not warrenting an evacuation or should it have been done then.

dave
 
#622 ·
One must have 360 logged day's at sea to qualify for the OUPV ( six pack) test. Not an easy test what with the rules of the road and the plotting. A week long prep course helps with the coast guard exam but isn't necassary if you can pass. Next after more sea time opperating as captain of uninspected vessel's, you may test for the master ticket, depending on the tonnage of the vessel you'll get a 50 or 100 ton liscence of inspected vessels, the exam is mostly plotting, a prep course helps. Then you get the smallest of the commercial liscence, the 200 ton master/ mate. You must run as 200 ton mate for about a year, training under a captain in real life situations before the 200 ton master is issued, tough test. This test is 1/2 stability, and 1/2 plotting. They don't hand these things out as easy as you might think, the six pack and 100 ton are easier, but getting the time on tonage vessels for the 200 takes a lot of time and training, add the master of tow TOAR, to the lisence and your talking years of training and school, plus the endorsement's that you need like STCW, RADAR CERT, radio opperator, rfpnw, etc. It's months of prep-classes to prepare for the test, coupled with years of on the job training before you are elegable. I've worked long and hard to get to 200 ton and it only get's more difficult from here. I don't know what tonnage the Bounty Captain had, but he made a bad and complacent decsision none the less.
 
#625 · (Edited)
There are a sh!t laod of dip sh!t's running boats out there. All the way up to unlimited tonnage dudes. It's amazing they can go through all the motions and come out incompitant on the other side. But they do.... in all professions, look at that Costa a$$ hole. It's usually the Acadamy Brat's that prove useless and the Hause pipe guy's that you can count on.
 
#626 ·
There are sh!t laod of dip sh!t's running boats out there. All the way up to unlimited tonnage dudes. It's amazing they can go through all the motions and come out incompitant on the other side. But they do.... in all professions, look at that Costa a$$ hole. It's usually the Acadamy Brat's that prove useless and the Hause pipe guy's that you can count on.
Stop sugar coating it - tell us what you really think. :D :D :D
 
#632 ·
RC,

I resepct your advice and dont see it as an attack.

Understand in this particular thread I know I have acted over-agressively. I understand I have in this thread and feel justified due to the nature of the posts which were also directed at me of a personal nature as well as defending a friend ( the Captain). We all react differently and have different tipping points on different subjects.

In this thread, most of the posters IMHO were respectful and even when accusing the Captain of his obvious responsibility did it in a measured fair way. He deserved to be hammered for the actions he took. His aggregious error cost another their life and also his own. He paid the ultimate price for his actions. IMHO I also beleive there are other responsible parties, but that wont be apparent until the investigation ends. What he didnt deserve are out of context remarks, innuendos, and half truths.

Some went about it like rabid dogs throwing out innuendos, half truths, unsupported musings and purposly disparaging a dead mans reputation without thought. It was these which I "fought fire with fire" so to speak. Thats the only language they understand. They dont get "political correctness".

Just the way it is my friend. I will always defend my friends. I dont apoligize for that loyalty. My friends deserve that. So now all know Robin Walbridge was more than some news story or internet figure to me.

I will remain my normal loving self (sic) on other threads ( sans off topic)

As a side...I really dont get "angry" about stuff on the internet.
 
#639 ·
You should know how to use both and rely on neither. During passage we always have our paper charts spread out on the Nav Station, and plot out position every 1/2 hour. After all the elctrontics can fail. I understand the ease the plotter is now a days to most ( I have a c90w) and also an I Pad. I also have ease using the charts as thats how I learned. My wife it has been easier to teacher her the chart by using the IPAD or plotter first.

As far as Rule 62, I never heard on of the causes was not that he didnt have charts laid out on the table.

Jon,
He CHOSE to come in to shallow water where he did and he didnt have to. He could have stayed put in deep water. Hove to and gone nowhere.. an taken his lumps like everyone else did.

IMHO He like the Captain of the Bounty placed his ship in jeopardy when he had a safer choice.

One of my lessons for me from this is that the Captain has the responsibility to do the safest thing and that sometimes the prerssures and pleadings of the crew concerning their comfort level must be ignored to maintain that safety. They were never in immediate danger until he placed them there by his actions.
 
#642 ·
As far as Rule 62, I never heard on of the causes was not that he didnt have charts laid out on the table.
I thought I'd made it clear, that's nothing but pure speculation on my part...

Jon,
He CHOSE to come in to shallow water where he did and he didnt have to. He could have stayed put in deep water. Hove to and gone nowhere.. an taken his lumps like everyone else did.

IMHO He like the Captain of the Bounty placed his ship in jeopardy when he had a safer choice.

.
Not sure why you're directing that at me, I believe I've been as vociferous as anyone around here, right from the start, in being critical in the decisions made aboard RULE 62 that led to that tragedy, or in pointing out the numerous superior options he had...
 
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