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.
 
#1,073 ·
I'm sure a good lawyer could find lots more different types of proceedings... And then there's all,the different types of appeals in all the different courts for all the different proceedings.

I think some lawyers would be rubbing, judiciously, their hands together. A nice class action here could buy them their own boat!
 
#1,078 ·
I think this thread now needs its own theme song.

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn’t know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because…..

(Was the original Muppets or Fraggle Rock?)
 
#1,080 ·
I think this thread now needs its own theme song.

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn't know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn't know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn't know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn't know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn't know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn't know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because
This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it because
They didn't know what it was.
And, they keep on posting to it to it because…..
...I understand the bar analogy. I guess there are always a few drunks at the bar who say the same thing over and over again,,,,just because they are drunk and like the sound of their voice.

I get it.
Well, welcome to the bar:D

According with chief opinion you should be VERY drunk!:D

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,082 ·
It has been 10 or 12 days since I last checked but did any of
the crew members ever fill in with a lot of missing info ?
No they haven't ... And where something comes out its about the latter part of it or the rescue, not the early part of the voyage, determinations conditions, and the start or development of the problems.

It's been a info blackout. Quite weird.
 
#1,083 ·
It makes us less safe. Look at the other discussion about spending $700 to make coastal cruising safer. The entire thread became a debate about which electronic device to buy to allow one to call for help, instead of a discussion about how to make the boat safer and self-sufficient. Once one buys an EPIRB and a liferaft, one can engage in all kinds of stupid on any ill-suited vessel in any conditions!
?????????????????

James, one doesnt necessarily mean the other. Just because you buy an EPIRB or just because you buy a liferaft doesnt mean that you will engage in all kinds of stupid on any ill-suited vessel in any conditions. That discussion and points brought up by Minnie make me rethink the need for a liferaft for instance when I trvel north. The point here is that I already am going to travel north and already do travel north without a liferaft therefore I wish to do it and have my safety margin better, not because I have a liferaft I will more likely travel north.
 
#1,085 ·
No I dont have a liferaft, but am purchasing one this year. We genrally dont tracvel more than 15 miles offshore and only for 3 weeks of the year ( no excuse meant) but thats not to say that I havent thought about it.

In the past when I went way offshore on trips we rented one. On any deleiveries I am a part of offshore I wont go without one present.

I do promise I will not become more risk oriented once I purchase one.:eek::eek:

Dave
 
#1,086 ·
No I dont have a liferaft, but am purchasing one this year. We genrally dont tracvel more than 15 miles offshore and only for 3 weeks of the year....
At least around here, rafts can be rented, if you only feel you need one for that short period.

Rentals are a bit expensive. However, if you properly recertify your own raft, that is also expensive, and many don't do it. If you rent, you always have a certified raft.
 
#1,087 ·
When I started sailing we had a compass and a VHF. Then we bought a depth sounder and speed indicator. We could now avoid slowly shallowing waters and we'd know exactly how fast we were going when we hit that thing while in the dense fog.

One time we left Green Bay and planned a stop at Beaver Island. We set our compass direction to hit the center of Beaver Island, an island about 13 miles long. Smartypants me decided to aim for the south end so we could then turn north towards St. James Harbor. You know, to save some time. ;)

Once we were out on the water, a dense fog enveloped us. I could barely see the bow. It was so dense whatever part of my hair that was exposed to the elements was soon soaked. And it was cold, 55 degrees. A weather forecast onshore said it was 95.

I heard fog horns and imagined tankers or freighters all around us. My eyes were almost popping out of my head as I strained to try to make something out of the fog soup all around us. My ears were tuned to rippling waters and any sign at all we were nearing another vessel. I was on edge the whole time.

After over 12 hours I knew we missed the island. Just as it was starting to get dark I saw the Michigan bluffs, not more than 1/4 mile ahead. I had no idea where we were. If we went north and Traverse Bay was to our south, our next harbor was Mackinac Island and there was some treacherous shoals that lay before us that we'd have to navigate in the dark with only a compass.

My dad said, "Aim there" and pointed us south. After a discussion about how he knew that was the right way, I gave in. Within about an hour we were entering Traverse Bay. It was dark by then. I knew Little Traverse Bay and I knew how to get to Little Harbor and with the lifting fog and lights from all around, we made it safely.

At least twice more we had fog incidents, still having only the compass to guide us. I had by then completed two Power Squadron courses and a course in celestial navigation, but wasn't at all confident in my ability to locate us any closer than a mile from where we may be.

Then we got a LORAN. Our first trip was from Chicago to Saugatuck, MI. He hit the mouth of the harbor dead on. I was sold! The sextant became a museum piece and was only taken out of the wooden box to show friends how "they used to do it in the olden days". Then I would talk of how difficult it was to actually know where you were and pointed to that white box and say, "That will tell you exactly!"

That was over 30 years ago.

I can see how easy it is to rely on all the electronics available to us today and feel comfortable you know what you're doing. Navigational aids that will tell you exactly where you are. Sounders that map the bottom all around you. Up to the minute weather information coupled with computer models that can actually accurately predict what the weather will do. And when all else goes wrong emergency positioning locator beacons that many believe will bring a helicopter to save them within a few hours.

It's easy to become complacent.

But boats aren't made as well as they used to be. The need for speed has reduced the seaworthiness of many sailing vessels. Many buy boats for their interiors and their price without knowing what a bluewater boat is or without ever having been caught in a gale or a squall. And advertisers aren't going to bring that up in conversation unless they are selling a bluewater boat.

Imagine mandatory certifications for anyone who takes the helm of a boat. There would be a lot of screaming. Things won't change until something massively tragic happens. But with the sailing/boating community representing such a small percentage of the population, I don't see even a great tragedy creating changes.
 
#1,089 · (Edited)
When I started sailing we had a compass and a VHF. Then we bought a depth sounder and speed indicator. We could now avoid slowly shallowing waters and we'd know exactly how fast we were going when we hit that thing while in the dense fog.

....

Once we were out on the water, a dense fog enveloped us. I could barely see the bow. It was so dense whatever part of my hair that was exposed to the elements was soon soaked. And it was cold, 55 degrees. A weather forecast onshore said it was 95.

I heard fog horns and imagined tankers or freighters all around us. My eyes were almost popping out of my head as I strained to try to make something out of the fog soup all around us. My ears were tuned to rippling waters and any sign at all we were nearing another vessel. I was on edge the whole time.

....

At least twice more we had fog incidents, still having only the compass to guide us. I
...

That was over 30 years ago.

I can see how easy it is to rely on all the electronics available to us today and feel comfortable you know what you're doing. Navigational aids that will tell you exactly where you are. ..

It's easy to become complacent.

But boats aren't made as well as they used to be. The need for speed has reduced the seaworthiness of many sailing vessels. Many buy boats for their interiors and their price without knowing what a bluewater boat is or without ever having been caught in a gale or a squall. And advertisers aren't going to bring that up in conversation unless they are selling a bluewater boat.

Imagine mandatory certifications for anyone who takes the helm of a boat. There would be a lot of screaming. Things won't change until something massively tragic happens. But with the sailing/boating community representing such a small percentage of the population, I don't see even a great tragedy creating changes.
That remembers me the longest 36 hours of my life, on my 80 years'old 22ft wooden sailing boat, a bit more than 30 years ago. I had just a fixed compass a azimuth compass and charts, no VHF but one of those old logs that were towed behind the boat, I mean till a big fish eat the thing:D

And there I was, coming home alone at the end of my vacations (along the the west Portuguese coast). I was doing the final leg from Cascais to Peniche.

I raised the fisherman anchor and sailed out of the bay at 4.00 AM with some wind, making about 3.0K. Well, I was only going out because I had wind, with no wind I was not going anywhere because I had no engine at all.

I had waited for that wind for three days. I passed the river bar turned North, passed Cape Raso and at dawn near Cape da Roca the mist come in and turned into a deep wet fog. With a very weak head wind and the canvas wet by the mist I sailed the next 36 hours tacking the boat from one side to the other with almost no visibility at all, day and night alike (full moon).

Cabo the Roca is a big rocky cap with a bad temper and it is also the Western part of all Europe. There are there many times a strong south current created by the dominant North winds and at large passes one of the busiest world's shipping lanes.

Without seeing nothing and without instruments I sailed towards land till I head the waves breaking against the rock wall and then turned to the sea till I hear the sound of the ship engines. It is amazing how the mist can propagate the sound. About 30 hours later the mist and fog started to raise and I saw that I had passed the Cape but had only make about 6 NM to the North. Well, no problem, there was a weak wind and I was moving making about 1.5K. More six hours at that speed and I should get to Ericeira with day light to stay on anchor and rest.

But then...the mist and the fog started to close again. I was preparing myself for more 12 hours of sailing by the ears when I saw a small fishing boat. I call them, explained the situation and ask them if they mind to get me a tow after having finished fishing. They said that with that mist and fog coming in they were returning right away to Ericeira (they had also only a compass), maybe 6NM North. I get my lift and they didn't accept any money at all.

I arrived there quickly, went to shore eat like a king and slept (aboard) like an emperor. Next day come up as a perfectly good sailing day and even having a moderate wind on the nose I made the 23Nm back to Peniche in about 7 hours arriving at noon.

Today I make voyages of 2000Nm and I don't fell the same sense of accomplishment I used to fell when I sailed on that old boat along the Portuguese coast and made it to Port. And I had always made it to Port;)

Of course today is much more safer and I don't even agree with Julie regarding today's boats being unsafer then older boats but to the great dismay of my kids I still don't fell safe sailing at night with the radio playing music, so, no music at night when we sail;). I still trust my ears and fell discomfort sailing at night without hearing what is going on, even if it is the sound of silence broken by the water rushing by the hull.

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,088 ·
Imagine mandatory certifications for anyone who takes the helm of a boat. There would be a lot of screaming.
Already in place in Canada.. it's not onerous, and not particularly qualifying, but everyone, youngsters included, need to have a PCOP (Pleasure Craft Operators Card) for any powered vessel - including your 7 foot tender with a 2 hp outboard. It was phased in over a period of time, and was issued to anyone who had ever taken, or takes, the Canadian Power and Sail Squadron basic boating course as well as being offered separately, even on-line.

Fees are reasonable and there's been little hue and cry, though I imagine there are a lot of crusty oldtimers still boating without it....
 
#1,091 ·
Interesting article, Roger (once I actually found it!!). Nice magazine/site too..
 
This post has been deleted
#1,095 ·
What I wonder about is that the period of time where the Bounty took on too much water seems to coincide not with the pumps failing so much as with the loss of propulsion. I am wondering if, once they lost steerage, they got sideways and spun around and overstressed the hull. Would it have been better to put all effort into trying to sail rather than work on the engines and pumps? Sometimes survival comes down tobuying time.

I would also like opinions about hull stress Bounty was subjected to when they lost propulsion sometime Sunday. I've read that in fact the pumps operated during Sunday night even after the engines quit. From the Bounty specs online, I read she was equipped with (2) 35 kw generators. If thats true , and I think it can't be, but - those are massive, each one easily capable of powering 2 pumps. The engineer stated the second generator was the last thing to go, but that for reasons he " didn't want to speculate" about, the water suddenly came in faster than they could pump out. Many have speculated that a plank sprung or some type of seam opened. I would like opinions as to whether the first course of action should have been to get sailing, get steering and point the ship so as to be more stable and less stressed. I wonder if that were even possible in those conditions , on this type of ship with 16 people.

The timeline seems to be that things were fairly normal, " all is well" as they said Sunday on FB and then they lost propulsion. Shortly after that, the engineer, first mate and captain all went into the engine room clearing pumps, and the crew put up some sails. But in the ABC interview they said " we had so little control" The engineer described being exhausted from holding on as the ship " twisted" . He also said that Walbridge and the fist mate were in there helping him. My question, which I don't think we can really answer, is what if the captain and first mate put all their energy into furling sails and steering the ship east thereby minimizing hull stresses. I wonder if it even occurred to them to try and stabilize the ship, or if they were fixated on the engines and pumps, " Stewing over them" as Claudene Christian wrote.

What if Walbridge put everything into sailing during those last hours? Would that course of action have reduce the hull stresses and delayed the big leak long enough for the ship to survive Monday morning? And wouldn't still sailing bounty be a more stable ship? That would have been a much better scenario. Helicopters overhead, a deck to launch rafts from, daylight. Or did they fixate too long on the engine room? Leaving the ship to twist and roll in the hurricane eventually leading to catastrophe when the ship rolled and threw everyone into the water in the dark.

I got this idea from another article -- Sal Mercogliano, a former merchant marine who is now a maritime historian at Campbell University had this perspective -

In the 18th century, the original Bounty's full crew would have hoisted smaller storm sails to keep the ship plowing in one direction. But that didn't happen as things began to go wrong on Sunday, including the reported loss of diesel power.
Powerless "that ship would have been careening on all three axes and it's possible that a hole opened up, a plank loosened up, and once she lost power there's no chance to get storm sails up and manage them with just 16 people on board - remember, the original Bounty had a crew of 100," says Mr. Mercogliano.
Mercogliano answers to that question when he says: "there's no chance to get storm sails up and manage them with just 16 people on board - remember, the original Bounty had a crew of 100",

He is exaggerating a bit because the original HMS Bounty had a crew of less than 50 and not all were sailors, but that ship is not a Yacht and the two professional sailors, the captain and the first mate would not be able to sail the boat and take care of the sails alone without the help of a qualified crew. We are not talking about small sail areas like on a yacht. Even on a storm the sail area needed to steer the ship would have been significant if compared with the sail of a small boat and their handling much more complicated.

The boat was making water and the pumps were running already for a long time. The situation, as you say, seemed to be controlled till the moment they had problems with the engines and stayed with only one generator....but you don't mention an electric problem that was clearly stated and that I think it is on the origin of the pumps not working. They were electric pumps and with the system shorted even if they had the generator still working it will not be able to put them working.

Some photos that were posted show a very poor electric installation and the ingress of water could have been on the origin of the electric problem.

Anyway, even making a controllable amount of water, one that the pumps could handle, the moment the pumps went out of service they where domed because they had not an independent reserve pump system and the boat was making water. They had one hydraulic pump system connected to the engines and other electric depending on the generators. In the past they had had an independent diesel pump system as main but they had not replaced it when he broke some years ago.

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,094 ·
A nicely thought out post.

There are so many things to wonder about... But it may come down to just a little something that's the death knell.

You mention twisting. It's been mentioned before, too. Now remember the ship was off Cape Hatteras, in contrary current with a strong wnd that had been there over many days. Also any waves coming from the center of the hurricane itself would have been coming from the south, against the wind waves from the north.

With those waves and that twisting its quite likely a plank sprung... And if it was forward it would have made the flooding worse to drive the boat forward.

Maybe it was water inundation, or sloshing around that caused the engine and generators, or pumps to fail. Remember the roll in that video? I the engine room that would have been putting forum foot of water all over the engine room!

In the 18th Century if Bligh had known there was a hurricane he would have been a long way away. All sailing ships would.


Mark
 
#1,096 ·
This was posted in another thread as if there was not already enought threads about the Bounty. I guess it belongs here. Comments please;)

December 1, 2012

AN OPEN LETTER

Dear Robin,

It has been a month now since the USCG stopped looking for you. Claudene is dead and BOUNTY, like you, is lost at sea as a result of your decision to sail directly towards Hurricane Sandy. Your action reminds me of the movie "Hunt for Red October". I am thinking of that captain of the submarine hunting the other submarine. The captain on the hunt for the fleeing sub threw all caution away in his hunting effort. Why did you throw all caution away by navigating for a close pass of Hurricane Sandy? I was so surprised to discover that BOUNTY was at sea near Cape Hatteras and close to Hurricane Sandy Sunday night October 28th! That decision of yours was reckless in the extreme!

The outcome of your action makes you the only captain of the current crop of long experienced American maritime licensed sailing vessel masters' actually willing to voyage anywhere near a hurricane! Did you not remember the fate of the FANTOME? Like BOUNTY she was a slow, less than 10 knot capable vessel under engine power. Not fast enough to run out of range of the reach of Hurricane Mitch. Additionally the master of FANTOME had too much confidence in hurricane forecasting accuracy. Mitch made an unexpected left turn after consistent movement westward before slowing down to near stopped about the time FANTOME made her run eastward from Belize trying to escape Mitch. A stationary hurricane is nearly impossible to predict future motion. To the best of anyone's knowledge (FANTOME was lost with all hands) Mitch ran right over her. You, on the other hand, maneuvered directly toward a very accurately forecast and steadily moving Hurricane Sandy with a slow moving vessel of wood construction, FANTOME was of metal. Also, BOUNTY is quite a bit smaller than FANTOME. Still you aimed all but directly at Sandy. That was reckless my friend! Was it wise or prudent to set off into the teeth of Sandy in BOUNTY? Did it make any sense at all? Virtually all of your professional friends and colleagues back here do not think so, not at all.

You told everyone you were going east around Sandy. But you did not even try to do so. Your track line indicates unequivocally a trail all but directly toward Sandy. When I heard east around was the strategy I immediately wondered about it. I am not the only one to know that BOUNTY is not highly powered with her engines. You yourself are publicly recorded as saying BOUNTY is under powered. Looking at weather conditions east of Long Island for Friday October 26 it is clear there were northeast winds. They were not strong winds...near 5-10 knots at the buoy 50 miles SE of Nantucket with a slight sea of between 1-2 feet. But windage of any sailing vessel under auxiliary power is significant. A full-rigged ship has a whole lot more windage. 5 knots of boat speed into 10 knots of wind means a lot of drag slowing BOUNTY down...maybe with the underpowered engines BOUNTY could barely reach 5 knots of boat speed? Saturday Oct. 27 at the buoy wind had increased to around 15 knots NExE and sea had increased to around 3-4 feet. With staysails set and motor-sailing what would BOUNTY have been steering? Maybe something south of true East? What kind of speed would BOUNTY have made? On Sunday Oct. 28 wind had jumped to 30-35 knots NExE and the sea was up around 12 feet and building. Considering those big bluff bows of BOUNTY and massive windage in her rigging you probably decided to abandon the "go east around Sandy" strategy long before even trying it out because of the increasingly slow progress BOUNTY would eventually be making with ever increasing winds and swell from the northeast plus the knowledge the wind would eventually veer to east and on toward southeast as Sandy moved north forcing BOUNTY to turn southward and even southwestward and that would be back toward Sandy. You may also have still been doubtful of Sandy actually turning NW. Considering Sandy did go toward land rather than toward sea, had you tried to go eastward as you originally intended with any kind of will, BOUNTY might have wound up pretty far away from Sandy's center, but the storm was so big you might actually have met conditions somewhat similar to what you actually met by heading straight toward Sandy. Having to abandon BOUNTY well out to the eastward would likely have been at a location somewhat further away from rescue assets than you actually were. So, ironically, it may actually have been fortunate for your crew that you did not try to go eastward.

An even more distressing puzzle is brought forth by BOUNTY's steady movement directly at Sandy after you had abandoned your original notion of going east around. Friday Oct. 26 forecasting confirmed an even higher confidence Hurricane Sandy would turn left after some more time going north. But BOUNTY continued straight southward! Why did you not turn for New York Harbor? The light northeast flow I describe above was occurring all the way down past the mouth of the Delaware Bay. You could have gone way up the Hudson River. With the NE'rly wind behind BOUNTY is it likely speed might have been more than 5 knots on her way to New York? Alternatively, by my calculation, at 5 knots BOUNTY could have diverted toward Delaware Bay and gone up that bay and through the C & D Canal by late Saturday night. Wind in the Upper Chesapeake Bay Saturday night was light and variable with a forecast to increase from the NE overnight into Sunday before backing toward the north and continuing to increase overnight Sunday into Monday. At midnight Saturday northeast wind strength in Baltimore Harbor was actually 10 knots. Late Sunday wind had backed to north and increased to near 20 knots. If BOUNTY were in the Inner Harbor of Baltimore by early Sunday she would have been sheltered from wind by all of those tall city buildings that ring the north side of the Inner Harbor. There would have been no sea action. Harbor water levels did indeed increase above normal, but only by 3-4 feet. BOUNTY would not have floated over any dock. Even if she had, the damage would unlikely be the loss of the ship and certainly not the loss of any life!

So what was it you were thinking by not diverting toward shelter once you knew about the confirmed forecasting that not only continued to indicate Sandy going ashore in New Jersey but also Sandy would likely be the largest hurricane in some time? No slow boat was going to be speedy enough to get out of Sandy's long reach from where BOUNTY was on Friday. Certainly resurrecting the "east around" strategy would be impossible now that the distance to Sandy had reduced bringing with the reduced distance soon to increase NE'rly winds, soon to start a steady veer through East. But a slow boat would have had time to get inshore from where BOUNTY was on Friday before Sandy's strength was felt. Why did you persist in steering BOUNTY directly toward Sandy? Was it confidence in her physical strength after all of the rebuilding over the last several years? If that was the case, that is recklessly cavalier to the extreme! Not even the big powerful tug and barge combinations that regularly ply the East Coast were fooling around with facing Sandy! But you were. I find myself wondering again…What were you thinking?

On top of this, you told folks during the south bound journey directly toward Sandy that it was safer to be at sea. Hmmm...an interesting & vague notion that. It is true the US Navy in Norfolk goes to sea ahead of an approaching hurricane. But they are high endurance (high speed) ships with mariners trained and contracted to go in the way of danger, not young keen professionals & volunteers on an harbor attractions' vessel!

I understand there might be two reasons for sending a navy fleet out. One is their wind resistance at the dock…and probably also concern for extra high water from storm surge. That wind resistance could play great havoc keeping the ships tied to the dock. Maybe wreck the pier by the pressure against the dock. Extra high water causes all kinds of concerns. The other reason is our nation's security. A navy bottled up in port for a hurricane is not a navy able to provide for national defense. Meanwhile those navy ships have a lot of speed they are capable of. And they do not hang around at sea in the path of a hurricane. They keep going out to sea to get away from the rough seas that will be created by the approaching hurricane. Making 20 knots means they could be 480 nautical miles to the eastward in 24 hours. Something not possible with a smaller slow boat that departed closely ahead of Sandy with the idea of protecting itself from dock damage on the premise it would be safer instead to experience big seas as well big winds creating them. Now that is just plain illogical thinking! With a choice between suffering strong wind by being inshore while avoiding big seas verses being at sea with both big seas and strong winds you should have diverted Friday as soon as you got the updated weather forecasting confirming Sandy was going ashore in New Jersey.

Yeah, you were a reckless man Robin. I would not have continued to proceed as you did. Frankly, I do not know anyone with a lot of experience in large, slow (still faster than BOUNTY), strong, steel motor vessels like the powerful tug & barge combinations we see plying the East Coast would have considered heading toward a hurricane like you did with Sandy…not only forecast as going ashore rather than turning towards sea…but also described as a "storm of the century". Those tug & barge operators would seek shelter inshore or not proceed to sea at all. I also do not know any sailing vessel masters that would head toward a hurricane as you did with hopes of negotiating a pass like two vessels meeting head-on. The tug & barge industry has a lot of reason to stay on schedule. Lots of money at stake with timely delivery. But it is even more money if there is significant damage from big seas. Plus, if the cargo is chemical or oil there is the cost and criminal consequences of a polluting spill. I cannot imagine there was any reason existing that would force BOUNTY to directly approach a hurricane. Loss of BOUNTY is so permanent. No more voyages after losing the ship…don't you know!

But the loss of life is the most tragic. You not only lost your own, you lost that of Claudene's. Hell man, the BOUNTY can be replaced. But why ever risk loss when it is so much more important not to risk a crew member's life? Having BOUNTY remain in port, or seek port when it became evident Sandy was not going to turn eastward as most often hurricanes do, might have meant damage to BOUNTY, but unlikely any loss of life. If you found no dock willing to accommodate BOUNTY up the Delaware or in the Chesapeake Bay, put her in the mud and hang on. Doing that would mean no reason to fear sinking completely below water. Even if she were to roll on her side while aground she would not have sunk below the surface. Maybe she would have become a total loss, but the crew could remain sheltered in her hull, assuming there was no safe way to get off of her and ashore before high winds arrived. Putting BOUNTY aground for the winds of Sandy because of no dock option would have been a bold decision! Actually, I believe your request to get to a dock would not have been turned down. However, all of the above was avoidable by not going to sea at all. Your focus should have been the same focus of all of your East Coast sailing vessel contemporaries…not go to sea…rather get tied up in as safe a place as you could find…not waste time trying to gain some distance toward your intended destination.

Robin, for all of the experience you have, it was recklessly poor judgment to have done anything but find a heavy weather berth for your ship, rather than instead intentionally navigate directly toward Sandy with no thought given to deviate if the original plan of yours was not panning out. During the nineteen years you were master of BOUNTY you were the single reason she remained active. Under your command she went from being an aging wooden vessel with all of the typical problems age brings to a vessel, to a reviving vessel as a result of several significant re-buildings over the last several years. You were a hero in everyone's eyes. Deservedly so I will freely add!!! I so respected your even, steady persistence to celebrate what BOUNTY could be and as a result was becoming. After years of barely surviving coastal trips here in America, after significant rebuilding, you successfully managed two safe and productive European voyages. That success was surely destined for more voyages to ports thrilling throngs of public in love with BOUNTY's roll in Hollywood movies. But that future is gone now. Because you chose to do something that no one of your experience, and all those young professionals with less experience, several that sailed with you, would have done. Some might have sailed and diverted. Some might have sailed with the plan to get some distance south along the coast then duck inshore long before any real impact from Sandy would be felt. But most did not depart at all. They worked from the start locating as safe a harbor arrangement as could be figured out. Up there in Southern New England is the fine port of New Bedford with its storm dyke to protect the fishing fleet. Surely BOUNTY would have been welcomed? I cannot conjure any reason why your friends in New London would not have responded with welcome of shelter had you asked.

While there are many memories I have of conversing with you about things marine affecting what we do as masters of sailing vessels, we never discussed the topic of delivering on schedule as promised and the problems of failure to arrive as promised. This is coming oh so very much too late, but I feel compelled to share that during my many years as master of vessels, there has never been any pressure put on me to make sure promises of arrival were kept. What I was told is that safety was most important. Safety of the ship was desired. But safety of the crew was most essential. As a result I have been master aboard when I have had to inform the company the intended arrival would not occur as scheduled due to weather. Sometimes the weather concern involved a hurricane. Sometimes the concern was a cold front and resultant head winds or a typical mid latitude low passing by. The decision we were going to be tardy to the destination port had to do with risk of damage to the ship. Preventing ship damage most often meant there would be little to no additional risk of injury to the crew and in the case of an inspected vessel also the passengers. Yep, unlike BOUNTY, most of the sail training vessels in America are certified and inspected for underway activities; several in the American fleet are certified for ocean service. Those that are wood built are pretty strong. Yet they avoid hurricanes. Being tardy always meant there would be another opportunity in the future. With BOUNTY now gone, with you and Claudene as well, there is no future to share with Claudene, with you, with BOUNTY, for all of us…for everyone.

If confidence was the basis in your decisions, no ship is invulnerable. And in a career at sea one cannot avoid every gale or nasty storm - but you set out with the BOUNTY with whatever her strengths and weaknesses into the biggest one some of us have ever seen dominating the Western North Atlantic. Many stronger, faster ships than BOUNTY chose to stay in port for this one. What was your need?

Well my very recklessly cavalier friend. I cannot say I told you so. But I sure can say I am surprised! Not Robin! This stunt is so amateurish as to be off the scale! But stunning surprise of surprises! It is Robin! Heading directly at a hurricane in a small, slow boat. Instead of running and hiding...or not venturing out at all. You have provided everyone with a great deal of hurt and sadness and consternation as well a firestorm of gossip nearly full of blame and foolishness directed at the whole of our sailing community.

That is an inestimably be-damned legacy my friend.

Signed,

Jan C. Miles
 
#1,164 ·
My question to you sir, is why would you address a letter to a man who cannot respond? What is your intention of this letter? What do you aim to prove by writing it? Does it make you feel good to trash a man's reputation that is not here to defend himself? You refer to him several times as "my friend". Those words could not be more untrue. A friend would never put in print the words that you have even if they might be thought. Shame on you. 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 am appalled at your words especially from someone he thought of as a friend.
 
#1,184 ·
And THEN he in fact steered that ship towards a hurricane...
According to the Weather Channel documentary and testimony from the crew, the Bounty headed SSE out of New London, CT. One of the crew (I think it was Doug Faunt) said that at one point they adjusted course to head SW toward the leeward side of the hurricane.

Josh Scornavacchi said when they all had been given the choice to stay ashore or sail into the hurricane, they all chose to go because they had faith in the captain and themselves and had been in storms far worse than Hurricane Sandy.

All three crew members who were interviewed in the documentary said the entire crew was aware of the intent by Walbridge to sail Bounty into a hurricane.
 
#1,185 ·
According to the Weather Channel documentary and testimony from the crew, the Bounty headed SSE out of New London, CT. One of the crew (I think it was Doug Faunt) said that at one point they adjusted course to head SW toward the leeward side of the hurricane.
Of course, you have to sail SE to get out of Long Island Sound from New London. I don't recall seeing much, if any, SE progress long after they cleared Montauk.

Josh Scornavacchi said when they all had been given the choice to stay ashore or sail into the hurricane, they all chose to go because they had faith in the captain and themselves and had been in storms far worse than Hurricane Sandy.

All three crew members who were interviewed in the documentary said the entire crew was aware of the intent by Walbridge to sail Bounty into a hurricane.
How could they possibly have been able to rationally process their faith in themselves? How many indicated that they had been in a hurricane before? How many had heavy weather experience on Bounty, let alone a Tall Ship, let alone any ship?

Faith in the Captain, for sure, but that's obvious from the fact they stayed aboard. The Captain had to have given them reason to believe this was an acceptable risk.
 
#1,097 ·
Some more details about the final days/hours that I haven't seen reported before... Sounds like the engineer Barksdale may not be as inclined to remain as silent as the rest of the crew in the wake of this fiasco... More information is revealed about the timeline of the failure of the generator(s), appears one may have simply run out of fuel, due to a damaged fuel gauge on the day tank...

Two tidbits in particular jumped out at me (emphasis mine):

The crew recognized that the ship was moving too slowly, and that they would be caught in the middle of the storm.

Walbridge wasn't saying much anymore. Once, when Barksdale went on deck to get some fresh air, he discovered that the captain had changed course, and that they were now traveling to the southwest...

...

At about 4 a.m., Barksdale realized that he had lost his battle against the water in the engine room. He climbed up to the lower deck, where he saw his fellow crewmembers, but not the captain. The others told him that it was time to abandon ship.

A Legendary Ship's Final Hours Battling Sandy - ABC News
 
#1,098 ·
Some more details about the final days/hours that I haven't seen reported before... Sounds like the engineer Barksdale may not be as inclined to remain as silent as the rest of the crew in the wake of this fiasco.....
Another notable report of Barksdale's feedback:

"There wasn't much time left to think about it and Barksdale hesitated for but a moment. If he wanted to go on land, he would have had to go into the cabin immediately to pack his things. The thought of it felt like betraying the crew, which had become like a family to him."
"When Barksdale saw the engine room for the first time, before the trip began, he wanted to clean it up, but there was no time for that."
This is the part that has me so pissed off about the Capt's decision to launch. She seems to have suffered as are her parents:

"Christian was dead -- her body was found drifting in the water on the same day. She had an injury on her face and a black eye, and there were two liters of water in her lungs"
"Claudene shouted, sounding distraught. "I might lose my phone service. We're already out in the water. I got to tell you how much I love you and dad." "Why are you saying it like that?" Gina asked. "I just want you to know," Claudene replied. "We know," answered Gina. "Now hang up," Claudene said. "I'm going to call back, but don't answer it. I'm going to leave you a message."

Gina Christian is holding her iPhone in both hands. She still hasn't listened to it yet."
 
#1,099 · (Edited)
yes, some of this new stuff could only come from Barksdale but it is meaningful that he is not directly quoted or interviewed like if he wanted to talk but not come openly publicly in what regards this. I guess that many would have wanted to interview him if he was available.

quote:

He had also had few conversations with the other crewmembers, which is why he hadn't even heard that a storm was approaching….

"I know that some of you all have been getting e-mails and phone calls regarding the hurricane," Walbridge told his crew as he stood on the deck. Then he said that the ship would be safer out at sea than in port…..

When Barksdale saw the engine room for the first time, before the trip began, he wanted to clean it up, but there was no time for that. New fuel tanks had been installed, and he spent his first three weeks connecting the tanks to the engines, laying the pipes and securing the connections….

Early Sunday morning, Barksdale shut off one of the two generators for maintenance work. ….

As the generator cooled down, Barksdale escaped the hot engine room for an hour. During that time, the gauge on the day tank, which contains a one-day supply of fuel for the engines, was smashed. Barksdale saw the damage when he returned, but he didn't notice that the tank was almost empty. According to the gauge, there was still enough fuel in the tank. Barksdale didn't notice the error until the generator failed……

He was exhausted, the result of being thrown back and forth in the engine room. His body was covered with bruises, his leg hurt, he had injured his index finger and he could hardly breathe. Nevertheless, he managed to keep at least one generator running. But the water was rising underneath the floorboards. Barksdale noticed that the power from the generator was fluctuating, and that the bilge pumps, which are supposed to pump water out of the ship, seemed to be clogged. They weren't pumping quickly enough, and the water level kept rising. Taking on Water….

The water was now almost two meters high inside the Bounty….

At about 4 a.m., Barksdale realized that he had lost his battle against the water in the engine room.

A Legendary Ship's Final Hours Battling Sandy - ABC News

This article seems an informed one (by Barksdale) and "The Spiegel" is one of the most reputed information newspapers in Europe but Braksdale is not quoted directly and some things are a bit contradictory with other information, some of them give also from Barksdale. Before going on what seems to be those contraindication let me talk about what seems new and relevant:

First of all it seems that part of the crew, or at least Barksdale did not have an idea of how big was the storm coming in. they just trusted the Captain.

The other important information is that this statement "Then he said that the ship would be safer out at sea than in port" that I had seen attributed to the bounty organization was after all stated by the Captain to the crew as the reason for leaving port. This is relevant in my opinion. The crew just assumed that they were doing the safest and right thing to do even if some had doubts (that Claudene phone call and email). Some had doubts but in doubt they trusted their Captain assuming he new better what was doing in what regards the Ship and their lives safety.

Regarding the contradictions, it has been reported that the Captain refereed to the organization (they had said that publicly) that one of the Generators? had an electric problem.

No electric problem is referred on this account.

On the other article that quoted Barksdale and used him as information source it is referred the frantic and desperate attempts by himself, the captain and the first made to unclogging the water pumps. Nothing is referred here as if he was all alone dealing with the problem. It refers however that clogging of the pumps was a major problem and that the second generator was not working properly. Ir was also referred that the bilges were not properly cleaned after works being performed on the ship and that the Captain new about that.

He says also that he stooped one generator for maintenance but does not say why he stopped it when he new that he was going to need all the power he could get on the next hours. It is referred "As the generator cooled down" and that eventually indicates that he stopped it because he was malfunctioning and overheating. Nobody does maintenance on a generator in the sea in bad weather if it is not urgently needed.

Two final comments: It is odd that he talks about the generators pumps and clogging but does not talk about the engines. This does mean that he is talking about the last hours of the ship and the two engines were out of service already for a long time? It is said that they had given up when there was already two meters high on the bilges and no engines would work on these conditions.

I guess that more information will be given by Barcksdale now that the American media notice that he is willing to talk. I hope for a more consistent and complete report on what really happened with the engines, generators and pumps since he is the one that knows all about that.

The other comment is about "The Spiegel" that shows here, relating an American story, why he is considered one of the best European news source. I am a regular reader and I recommend it to all that want to follow European problems and European views about the world. They have an English international site on the Internet and even the news on the German pages are easily translated to a comprehensive English by the automatic Google translater.

....
 
#1,171 · (Edited)
yes, some of this new stuff could only come from Barksdale but it is meaningful that he is not directly quoted or interviewed like if he wanted to talk but not come openly publicly in what regards this. I guess that many would have wanted to interview him if he was available.

quote:

He had also had few conversations with the other crewmembers, which is why he hadn't even heard that a storm was approaching….

"I know that some of you all have been getting e-mails and phone calls regarding the hurricane," Walbridge told his crew as he stood on the deck. Then he said that the ship would be safer out at sea than in port…..

When Barksdale saw the engine room for the first time, before the trip began, he wanted to clean it up, but there was no time for that. New fuel tanks had been installed, and he spent his first three weeks connecting the tanks to the engines, laying the pipes and securing the connections….

Early Sunday morning, Barksdale shut off one of the two generators for maintenance work. ….

As the generator cooled down, Barksdale escaped the hot engine room for an hour. During that time, the gauge on the day tank, which contains a one-day supply of fuel for the engines, was smashed. Barksdale saw the damage when he returned, but he didn't notice that the tank was almost empty. According to the gauge, there was still enough fuel in the tank. Barksdale didn't notice the error until the generator failed……

He was exhausted, the result of being thrown back and forth in the engine room. His body was covered with bruises, his leg hurt, he had injured his index finger and he could hardly breathe. Nevertheless, he managed to keep at least one generator running. But the water was rising underneath the floorboards. Barksdale noticed that the power from the generator was fluctuating, and that the bilge pumps, which are supposed to pump water out of the ship, seemed to be clogged. They weren't pumping quickly enough, and the water level kept rising. Taking on Water….

The water was now almost two meters high inside the Bounty….

At about 4 a.m., Barksdale realized that he had lost his battle against the water in the engine room.

A Legendary Ship's Final Hours Battling Sandy - ABC News....
On another interview, or in the same but now published wit more details Barksdale says:

quote:

Barksdale said the ship was being hit by 70 mph winds and 30-foot seas. Over the next several hours, the main engines failed, leaving the boat without propulsion and without the hydraulic pumps. It became impossible to fight the water level inside the boat's hull, which was rising about 2 feet each hour, Barksdale acknowledged.

"It was clear the boat was filling with water but I don't understand entirely why that happened and I'm not going to speculate. We were taking on more water than we were pumping out." The second generator was the last to fail….

Barksdale was being overwhelmed in the engine room and other crew members, including Walbridge and Svendsen, rushed to spell him, trying to keep the pumps free of clogging debris.
"I couldn't take more than an hour at a time in there," Barksdale said, describing how he was becoming increasingly seasick, drained by the 100-degree heat and battered as the ship twisted and turned in the waves and wind.

…"You had to hold on to something solid with one hand and try to clear the pumps with the other, trying not to bang your head or crash against something the whole time. I was just exhausted and so was everyone else," Barksdale said.

Read more: FOCUS: HMS Bounty's burial at sea - Fall River, MA - The Herald News..

He talks about 70mph winds and not 30 or 35k winds and from this it seems that really the boat had a big problem with clogged pumps.

...
 
#1,100 · (Edited)
Good article.
Barksdale was a handyman, not a marine diesel engineer. I think he did a great job under the circumstances. I think that ship needed a chief engineer and a qualified offsider.

Interesting he didn't even know about the hurricane when the captain talked to them. I wonder if some of the other crew hadn't heard of it? The whole world knew, but sometimes people in a close community might not watch TV etc.

His point about if he wanted to leave the ship it had to be immediately... No time to,think, no time to check the weather for themselves.... And where do they go when they leave the ship? No home, no car, no job....

Christians injuries suggest she was hit by the masts or rigging as the masts hit the water when the ship rolled on its side. Barksdale was caught three or four times.... It amazing not more crew were caught and drowned.

Barkesdale is brave and correct to come forward and be interviewed. I thank him for it.
He must have had a terrible time in that hot stinking water filled engine room. Terrible and terrifying.
 
#1,102 ·
Barkesdale is brave and correct to come forward and be interviewed. I thank him for it.
He must have had a terrible time in that hot stinking water filled engine room. Terrible and terrifying.
Yes Barkesdale is a true hero. To be working in the engine space while it is filling with water, wondering if the ship will suddenly sink, yet he kept performing his job as best as conditions would allow.
 
This post has been deleted
#1,101 ·
....There has to be more to the story. We may never know the real reason. If I had to guess, some outside force was acting on Walbridge at that moment. " Get-homei-tis" or orders from his boss, or a wish for glory or hubris or... something worse.......
Could be, but the choice of saving the boat, without proper regard for the crew (complacency) is clearly possible in my opinion. The hurricane could have very easily ended up coming straight over any New England port. Most of us took preventative measures with that in mind. The boat could potentially have taken a hit right in New London. It may have been damaged or sunk if taken up the Hudson or Narragansett too.

Given the documented navigation of hurricanes in his past, it remains plausible that he was simply trying to save his ship. In fact, if the ship were destroyed, he would have been out of work.

Not saying I know this fact pattern to be correct, I'm only saying there doesn't have to be more to it.
 
#1,109 ·
Whenever we have even a mildly significant weather event here in Puget Sound, the Coast Guard periodically broadcasts on 16 telling you to tune to 21 for more information.

Does anyone know if they were doing similar broadcasts in New London at the time of the departure?

And of course the NOAA Weather stations seem pretty good about forecasting a week out. I suspect they must have been broadcasting a pretty severe warning? Anybody got any further detail about what was said and when?
 
This post has been deleted
#1,117 · (Edited)
Another one being rescued:

James Blackford was rescued by the crew of the motor vessel Global Explorer, a vessel registered with the Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue System..

Blackford was reportedly in good condition with no medical concerns. His vessel, the Makalii, was left behind and adrift.

Watchstanders were first notified of Blackford's situation when they received a Personal Locator Beacon alert from the sailing vessel Makalii at 8 p.m. Sunday.

An HC-130 Hercules airplane crew from Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point was launched at 10 p.m. Sunday to locate the vessel after attempts to contact it were unsuccessful.

The aircrew located the dismasted sailboat at 2:30 a.m. Monday. Blackford reported the vessel had been taking on water when his vessel was dismasted and later reported the flooding stopped.

The aircrew dropped a radio and a Self-Locating Datum Marker Buoy. It was reported that Blackford had food and water aboard.


Mariner adrift in Pacific rescued | Coast Guard News

The Makalii was about 85 miles northwest of Palmyra Atoll Sunday when it issued a distress signal. The Coast Guard launched HC-130 Hercules aircraft from Barbers Point and located the sailboat, which had lost its mast, at about 2:30 a.m. Monday. The Coast Guard crew dropped a pump, radio and marker buoy to the sailboat, which had been taking on water. But boat master James Blackford said that problem was under control.

The Global Explorer, was diverted to assist Blackford.

Mariner rescued from disabled sailboat - Hawaii News - Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Some questions:

That boat is this one, a 1968 sailing boat, the only one I can find in the name of JAMES BLACKFORD?

MAKALII - JAMES BLACKFORD - Boat, Yacht, Ship Documented Information

If so how old was that mast and rigging?

They say that the boat was not making water anymore, that Blabkford was well and had food and water and that the boat was left adrift. There was a problem with the engine? How old was that engine?

Nobody says nothing regarding the boat having a problem with the engine and I find it odd. He run out of fuel?

Somebody knows more about this?

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,121 · (Edited)
Yes, Julie. It was designed for one downwind passage and to have deck space for actors to do their thing and for camera crews to put their cameras. Then burnt for the last scene. Who wastes money on that putting in the best? No one. They put in sufficient for that job.

Blighs boat was an ex coal ship, designed to haul the biggest loads in the North Sea, most treacherous waters. That's why so many explorers used them and not other types of ships. Capt Cook used one too, the Endevour.
Remember in the days of Bligh and Cook the Pacific was as far, or further, than the Moon. They took what was considered the best.
Hollywood makes cardboard look like cement... Those sets are an allusion.


This set is from 1960 so comparable with what they were doing at the time of the Bounty shoot.
Do the helicopters really fly in Hollywood?
 

Attachments

#1,125 ·
Can anyone provide details about the "movie ship" Bounty?
1. Would it normally motor or sail?
2. How close to windward could it sail?
3. What tactics would it use in storm conditions (motor or sail)?
4. What wind ranges could it sail the best?
5. Typically how fast would it travel under motor and sail?
Regards
 
#1,126 ·
HMS Bounty
Built 1960
Length: 180 ft (54.9 m) sparred, 120 ft (37 m) on deck
Beam: 31.6 ft (9.6 m)
Height: 111 ft (33.8 m)
Draft: 13 ft (4.0 m)
Sail area; 10,000 sq ft (929 m2)
Engines: 2 × John Deere 375 hp (280 kW) diesel engines
Cruising speed ~ 4-5 knots
Maximum speed ~10 knots
Asking price 2012: US$4.6 million

164' Benetti StaySail Schooner
Built 1986
LOA: 164 ft 0 in
Beam: 30 ft 0 in
LWL: 118 ft 0 in
Maximum Draft: 14 ft 0 in
Bridge Clearance: 132 ft 8 in
Engines:2 x Caterpillar 3412 TAPC
Cruising Speed: 11 mph
Maximum Speed: 16 mph
Asking price 2012: US$3.95 million

So which one would you buy?
 
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