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.
 
#1,134 ·
I agree it almost doesn't matter how well it was built. The design specification was based on how it would look, not how it would float or sail.

Can we make it bigger to allow a camera dolly? "sure, OK"

THere was not a lot of calculation put in to righting moment and sail area or top speed, why would there be? And we do know that it was not built to the normal standard of the day for a ship of that type, the stringers were pretty far apart, etc. Whether or not it was 'strong enough' seems kinda irrelevant to me.
 
#1,139 · (Edited)
Found this vid, it answers some of my questions:

From comments on video:
"Sailing the Bounty II from Maine to Puerto Rico. In this video we're furling the fore-course sail because it's ripped up at one of the seams. We didn't get to finish because the fore-topmast snapped above us while we were aloft. You can see it hanging in the last few seconds. "

"We did do a lot of "motor sailing" to save time but when there's enough wind the engines don't really help much. I think in this video we weren't using them, except maybe to run the generators."

"And sorry, I don't remember how fast we were going but this isn't a particularly fast boat. I think 6 knots was about average but given these conditions we might've been going faster"

 
#1,140 ·
Found this vid, it answers some of my questions:....
Cool vid, but makes me laugh to think about people that say my cockpit is way too big to have the lines close enough on a blue water passage. I may keep this handy. :)

Also, seeing a modern inflatable on the deck, just seemed wrong. Whatever salty credit was due for climbing the rigging, was negated in my book. :)
 
#1,144 · (Edited)
I know how a boat like that is sailed (I like tall ships) and that's why I have said that sailing a boat like this in stormy conditions is not a thing for amateurs but for a very athletic and qualified crew and not a small one. For stormy conditions I don't mean a hurricane.

I really think you guys are exaggerating in what regards the sailing potential of the boat and in what regards boat condition and design. The boat was designed according to plans and made bigger. I bet that those alterations were made by a qualified NA. That alteration of ballast don't seem to me to have a great importance in what regards boat seaworthiness. It was projected by a NA and was designed to give the same RM that the boat had before. The alteration on the water line was not significant.

The boat was completely renovated few years ago and nothing remained from the original boat in what regards hull and rigs. On the shipyard where the boat was repaired recently, the same that made in the last years all the boat renew work, they said that the boat was in good condition.

What seems wrong to me was not properly the boat but the wiring we saw on the photos, the condition of the Generators (that they did not review on this maintenance) and the nonexistence of independent water pumps, namely diesel driven ones. That has special importance in a boat that the shipyard acknowledges that leaked. Some leaking can be normal on a wooden ship of that size but that only make more necessary to have a very good pumping system with an independent back up system and of course, clean bilges not to clog the pumps.

This is a XVIII century designed ship, that has the performance of a boat of that time and requires an athletic expert professional crew to be sailed in anything less than fair weather. Not even with a top crew a XVIII century captain would have sailed this ship to the proximity of an hurricane, if he could have avoided that.

Regarding the maintenance of the boat and its condition:

Quote:

BRIDGEWATER - The replica of HMS Bounty returned to the water after a month of scheduled repairs just one week before it set sail from Connecticut on Capt. Robin Walbridge's birthday last Thursday.
...
Eric Graves, president of the Boothbay Harbor Shipyard in Maine, said his yard completed about four weeks of routine maintenance on the vessel. The yard has also carried out two major refits of the ship over the past 10 years,

The work that was just completed included scraping and painting the bottom of the vessel, refinishing some interior woodwork and making three new spars.
.....
No planks needed to be replaced on the bottom part of the ship, but there was some "very minor" planking to do at the top of the hull, he said.
....
Graves said it was not included on the work order for his yard to check the generators, but he said the Bounty's maintenance crew checked them and there were no problems.

There have also been reports that the ship's hull leaked. Graves said while the shipyard did some caulking, it was "very minor; everything looked pretty good," and there was no concern of excessive leaking.

...Boothbay Harbor Shipyard built a new hull in 2002, including replacing all the bottom planking, the rudder and 95 per cent of all the frames.
...
A yacht brokerage firm also said the ship's John Deere engines were new in 2004 and that one of the 35-kilowatt John Deere generators was new in 2007 and the other was rebuilt that year.

The square sails and standing rigging were replaced at a boatyard in Alabama in 2005. In 2006, the Boothbay yard replaced much of the boat from the waterline up, including the ribs, the frames, bulwarks and planks on the deck. The interior was also changed, with four cabins and a new galley added.
...


Shipyard: Months of repairs on Bounty rang no alarms | The Chronicle Herald
 
#1,146 · (Edited)
The video I posted was taken Dec 2010 (2 years ago). This was after all of the work was done that you post above. This is from the poster of the video:
Uploaded by Marc Castells on Dec 15, 2010

"Sailing the Bounty II from Maine to Puerto Rico. In this video we're furling the fore-course sail because it's ripped up at one of the seams. We didn't get to finish because the fore-topmast snapped above us while we were aloft. You can see it hanging in the last few seconds. The royal yard is sitting on top of the t'gallant yard. I had to trim this video by 3 min for it to fit on youtube so if you actually watch it all the way through there will be some parts that skip. And again, the camera is tilted up a bit so you can't see what I'm doing with my hands but it makes for some cool shots of the bow while we're sailing."

If you look at the video at the very end, you will see the top mast broken and hanging, along with a lot of standing/running rigging. Lucky no one was injured. You wonder how the compelted the sail furl (as they state they did no finish because the top mast broke). In the video a lot of the rigging on the yard arm looks rusty (at the bolt connections). Imagine if the yard arm breaks loose with crew on it. If you pull up the video on youtube (not by watching on the posting), you will see all the interesting comments. Seems to me the "movie ship" Bounty was falling apart 2 years ago.

Search this on you tube to get the comments:
Furling fore-course sail on HMS Bounty and broken topmast
 
#1,156 ·
Guess that are not only in pleasure boats that Europe has a different policy in what regards inspections. Here, and in all EC, cars have mandatory inspections regarding safety on the road.

If I remember right, a new car does not have inspections for 3 of four years, after that it has a mandatory inspection every year. a inspection is not expensive, 25 euros or so and it takes only half an hour. It is made on local inspection centers that are certified for that, very well equipped and everything is inspected in several complicated machines: Brakes, suspension, direction, structure, rust, lights, emissions, tires and some more things I have probably forget. If the car fails in anything you have a given period of time to fix it, otherwise the car will not get a licence to circulate.

If the police get's you on the road with a car without a valid inspection title you pay a huge fine and you have a time for getting it approved on a inspection other wise the car will be put out of service.

With boats it is much the same thing, except that it is less industrialized, I mean, the inspection.

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,161 ·
Here is a little video of our Atlantic crossing in 2011. The wide-angle lens in the Go Pro camera tends to flatten out the waves a lot. And ditto on not having any really good storm footage as you tend to concentrate on sailing the boat during those times and not channeling your inner Spielberg.

 
This post has been deleted
#1,167 ·
.....You are not and obviously never were a friend of Captain Walbridge. The captain I know would not have put the lives of his crew in danger purposely. He was NOT reckless in any way. .....
I think you may have a better understanding of how emotions drive what one says (types) than you know.

If I had a friend kill someone, I can't say I would no longer consider them a friend, but I may not. That wouldn't mean we never were.

Unquestionably, in my opinion, he was reckless on a least this one passage. If I take him at his word (interview, personal profile, etc), he certainly was reckless on other occasions as well. It had to be purposeful, as he would otherwise have to be incredibly incompetent not to know of the danger and that does not seem to be the case. I've know many kind souls who were reckless for a variety of reasons. The dearly departed Captain had gotten away with it before, which is the devil's way of getting you to be reckless again.
 
#1,181 ·
Could you provide examples of when he was "reckless on other occasions"?
Welcome aboard. I guess your screen name indicates your interest in this topic and you've made it clear that you intend to be defensive.

The other occasions are well documented in interviews with the crew and his wife and, I believe in his and/or the ship's blog, which have all been discussed and linked in this thread.
 
This post has been deleted
#1,174 ·
i had a chance to work/crew on that ship while she was in Fall River ma.!998? always loved square-riggers- she was leaking bad- coast guard wouldnt let her leave port to boston.. my frend (is a proffesional shipwright(HMS ROSE re-fit) ,we built the last(wooden)Wenaumet Kitten(catboat) together at Bigelow's Boats Bourne mass) warned me to stay away from her- she was built as a movie prop- cheap/fast- and he didnt consider her safe.oct. i sailed out of Edg.Mass (sat.late oct-after the n'easter right after Sandy) , had a clear window w/highs from mich. to bermuda-my destination.solo. on a columbia sabre that i adopted/strengthened... 3 days out/south Nantucket/off soundings/gulf stream 4pm sky turned black, seas built to 20-30'- even higher,criss-crossing behind me, pooped constantly/loss 12v/pump/VHF/GPS, made s/w when i could... after 6days of this freak n'easter (out of SE?) i was getting too tired to stay awake, realized i was gonna die if i didnt get inshore, and set my course/lashed tiller for WEST, got into green water, got my anchor ready and fell asleep from exhaustion, woke up 10pm boat ontop of tidal surge surfing into shore one mile out. got off wave,jib alone,tried turning when another 8'surge pooped me, couldnt find anchor shackle) grabbed my passport/wallet, 4,5 waves planted me on the beach-SouthernShores,OuterBanks NC,barely got my feet wet but homeowners 911 me to hospital- a little chilled but alive... fatigue/exhaustion had me a little confused/dis-oriented through the ordeal but thats the last time i nod off in a n'easter _gerald nordstrom
 
#1,183 ·
Originally Posted by xymotic
............ seems like your're a new user and your username indicates perhaps you may be a little too close to this event emotionally.

This is a good observation and it would probably help this discussion if Bountydaughter would clarify her relationship/interest in the Bounty scenario.

Hopefully she's clear on the source of the letter referred to earlier.. it was not the work of any Sailnet member, but in fact an acquaintance of the skipper..
That may be correct and I also thought so.

This is a quick and easy way to possibly dismiss someones opinion which they have a right to and carries just as much validity as anyone elses. Why i understand the logic it can be flawed and to dismiss out of hand an opinoin because they had a close realtionship to the crew without investigating is dismissive. It means you cannot have an opinion which is relevant or correct which is not so. It was the primary reason I did not disclose my relationship to the Captain as many would just pooh pooh my opinions as because I was knew him.

Thats like saying we shoulkd dismiss Minniewaska opinions about an airplane crash because he is a pilot and knew the pilot and we know he will side with the pilot to the death and cant be objective. ( Sorry to use you as an example)

If the opinions are STRICTLY emotional and not centered in some kind of logic or reality, that is a good reason to question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xymotic
#1,186 ·
I am sorry, Julie but none were given an option to stay on shore.
They were given an option to be SACKED IMMEDIATLY!

none were offered alternate transport to the next port. they were given one hour to be thrown out of their HOME.

With NO MONEY

NO TRANSPORT

NO PLACE TO SLEEP.


Now, if I arrive at your house tonight and offer to chuck you OUT with no money, no car and no place to stay what do you do?


Mark
 
#1,188 ·
I am sorry, Julie but none were given an option to stay on shore.
They were given an option to be SACKED IMMEDIATLY!

none were offered alternate transport to the next port. they were given one hour to be thrown out of their HOME.

With NO MONEY

NO TRANSPORT

NO PLACE TO SLEEP.

Now, if I arrive at your house tonight and offer to chuck you OUT with no money, no car and no place to stay what do you do?

Mark
Do you know for a fact they were never offered alternative transport?

How does volunteering as a crew on a boat make that one's "HOME"?

Say you've just taken your seat aboard a commercial flight about to depart from SFO, and the captain welcomes you aboard with an announcement of his stated attempt to fly under the Golden Gate Bridge before proceeding to Sydney... Are you gonna remain aboard that plane, simply because you're uncertain about where you might wind up having to SLEEP that night?
 
#1,190 · (Edited)
And making it known that you don't have loyalty to a captain of 17 years on that same ship.

Nor loyalty to the rest of the crew.

And you are a whimp who doesn't like waves.

No. The peer preasure of bullying is right in this one.

"If you can't hack it you can go. NOW!"
Do you happen to have a cite for the evidence of such "pressure" applied by Walbridge prior to leaving New London?

As in, what he said precisely, to "make that known"?
 
#1,191 ·
I don't think we know what alternative offer was made to the crew, but the peer pressure argument is likely to stand, in my opinion.

At best, they were told they would keep their job, be put in a hotel, flown to FL and rejoin the crew. So, one would have to think what that would be like. To potentially rejoin a crew that just survived a hurricane and you didn't have the cajones to go along.
 
#1,193 ·
Just curious, when has there even been a 'worse' storm than Sandy? It had already killed 70 people before they left. And in terms of damages it's easily the worst Hurricane that's ever hit the US. I mean you can split some hairs and say a smaller area but cat 5 is 'worse' in some respects but I think overall that Sandy was a beast, and that was well known at the time.
 
#1,195 ·
At the time they were picked up by the Coast Guard, the Coasties reported 30' seas and 50 knot winds. So maybe to the Bounty crew, this wasn't the worst they had ever seen. That would certainly be true if they had actually been in hurricane force winds before. What made Sandy the worst in terms of loss was the failure of both generators (one was said to be non-functional when they left New London) which led to the inability to pump out any water, the sinking and the loss of life.

But that's an interesting question about what hurricanes they had previously sailed in before. The survivors can all say they sailed in Hurricane Sandy but, according to the CG, they were not in hurricane force winds at the time of the sinking. So the crew's claim they had sailed in hurricanes before could have meant simply being out on the water during a hurricane and skirting the outer edges. Walbridge did say something to that effect when he described how he "sails into hurricanes."

In the Halloween Storm of 1991, data buoys recorded wave heights over 100' yet that storm was not as damaging as Sandy because much of it was out at sea. Hurricane Grace didn't make the left hook like Sandy did and Grace wasn't nearly as big as Sandy but, with two other storms, produced some extremely dangerous conditions at sea (100 MPH winds and 100' seas). I have not seen any reports stating Sandy equaled or approached those conditions.
 
#1,197 · (Edited)
In Walbridge's comments about chasing hurricanes, he stated that he went for close to the eye of the storm and to the southeast quadrant. From what I understand, having listened to many reports from such storms, and experienced a good number (on shore), the highest winds are near the center, and winds generally lessen the further you get away from the center. Even seeking the southeast quadrant is not best...southwest quadrant is a better place, and heading for the eye is going to make the situation worse. And, given the eratic nature of hurricanes, any sudden change of movement direction, even a small one, by the hurricane could put you on the wrong side of the hurricane eye and into the deadly northeast quadrant. He also stated that you didn't want to be in front of the hurricane, but that's exactly where he was for Sandy.
That comment regarding being close to the eye is really puzzling to me.
 
#1,198 ·
I think the simplest explanation is that Walbridge left so suddenly Thursday to prevent the crew from catching on to how scared everyone else was and balking- Sal Paradise
Highly doubtful, highly speculative, and really doesnt mean anything

By Thursday everyone south of there was already geared up and ready for thestorm where we were. The Weather Channel and news had been forecasting for days. Unless his people were ostriches,,,didnt have any cell phones, werent internet connected at all, and lived as hermits and didnt talk to ANYONE at the docks for a week before then you could possibly be right.

They al have said they were goven the choice by Walbridge and choose to go for whatever reason. We can add your speculation to the heap of others wild speculations
 
This post has been deleted
#1,199 ·
In Walbridge's comments about chasing hurricanes, he stated that he went for close to the eye of the storm and to the southeast quadrant. From what I understand, having listened to many reports from such storms, and experienced a good number (on shore), the highest winds are near the center, and winds generally lessen the further you get away from the center. So while seeking the southeast quadrant seems appropriate, heading for the eye is going to make the situation worse. And, given the eratic nature of hurricanes, any sudden change of movement direction, even a small one, by the hurricane could put you on the wrong side of the hurricane eye and into the deadly northeast quadrant. He also stated that you didn't want to be in front of the hurricane, but that's exactly where he was for Sandy.
That comment regarding being close to the eye is really puzzling to me NC320.
so you take this boasting and bragging for TV and effect to be serious. He also said he sailed in 70 ft seas.....hmmm not likely
 
#1,201 ·
I think he was boasting also. I don't believe that they had experienced 95 mph winds, or 70 ft. seas, nor headed for the eye. And regarding the southeast quadrant, that's not where you want to be either, it's the southwest quadrant that is safest (my mistake in earlier post). But he did seem to be one who wanted to challenge storms a bit, based on his and other crewmates statements. And being at sea during a hurricane doesn't mean you have experienced a hurricane either. But maybe he began to believe his own sea stories....I don't know.
 
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