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.
 
#1,602 ·
Also:

They (crews) also painted over rotted frame before installing the planking, while he (I need to find his name) of Boothbay Shipyard was out for 2 days.
The shipwright is saying he told Waldbridge of his concernes and said Walbridge was terrified about what he found also. The shipwright said he felt concerned for the safety of the vessel. he says he told Walbridge but not the CG. he told his boss, and he basically said his boss pushed the question away down the road to the next inspction.

Shipwright says he had converstaion with Walbridge that he had to pick and chose his weather.
 
#1,603 ·
His tesimony may be quite damning, but must be taken with a grain of salt, he is basically claiming he told the captain the vessel was unseaworthy and felt that was the end of his responsibility. I dont know that I beleive him. Hopefully there were others present when he did to corroborate his testimomny. I am suprise that walberg is the only one he is telling this to.

The only caveat is that is would be in his and his bosses best interest to cover their asses and throw the blame on Walberg so that no one says what the repair was wasnt adequate and thats why the ship took on water.

It is easy to jump at each piece as it occurs in real time. Prudence says let it all unfold first, although this is damning.
 
#1,604 · (Edited)
This is expected that he will speak for the best interest of the shipyard. But I hope he would not lied under oath. His testimony is still very valuable and the condition of the boat was bad shape when she leave the Boothbay shipyard.

He answered the question if the crews used DAP as chaulking below water line. And the shipyard does not use DAP for seams.

Edited:
Captain told the owner to get rid of the boat asap, Captain fears of lawsuit.
 
#1,606 ·
Yes he saw the Bounty crew used DAP and approved it though. Yeah but he said he talked to the Captain 30 times about it. First hes said no one was there...hard to beleive. When pressed he said a couple of times 5 people were present. Never did a post work walk though other than to look for leftbehind equipment and see if there were leaks. He never documented anything....but mysteriously he had 30 pictures. he said he never even showed them to his boss. If he was so worried about the condition he showed amazing restraint in telling anyone till after she sank.
 
#1,605 ·
Keep an eye peeled at the 6-month anniversary or a few days before, for the possibility (likelihood?) that Bounty's owner will file a Petition for Limitation of Liability in federal court somewhere.

If so it would be tactically advantageous for owners and underwriters to keep all fault "on board" and none on shore, because any of the latter can create "privity" by owners to the faults or unseaworthiness of the vessel or crew--and destroy their chances to limit their liability to the value of Bounty post-sinking, that is, zero.

Doubtful that none of the fault, at least in the condition of the ship, generators, pumps, etc wasn't known or caused by owners/managers, but to keep that chance of limitation alive, they would tend tactically to push all fault onto the errors of an otherwise trained, experienced, and qualified captain and crew, on a properly-maintained and seaworthy ship, and not known by or created by managers on shore.

Along with the limitation action will probably come a plea for "exoneration" from fault based on Act of God. So, no fault, or if there was fault, it was not fault of the shore people.

I am not giving a legal opinion on this case here, just advising what the law is and how it might be used, and how it might affect the motives of the parties in interest and witnesses in the hearing.
 
#1,607 ·
Yes, I heard that too. I am sure he will be cross examined when the lawyers have a chance to review all the testimony.

Regarding the pictures, He used an iPhone to take those picture, it should have a date and GPS coordinates stamped on the file. I was surprised the lawyer who asked the question did not know it.
 
#1,608 · (Edited)
These certainly muddy the waters although I'm not sure how relevant they might be to the question of taking an old ship out with that weather forecast. If she had been a brand new steel sailing vessel, I would feel almost exactly the same way about the decision to sail.

Schooner High and Dry for Repairs

HMS BOUNTY: How Sound Was She?

You should also read this from someone I know personally and consider one of the most knowledgeable people about boat systems I have ever met.

http://forums.sbo.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?t=149549&#post999880
 
#1,609 ·
Ah Ha!!!!!!!!!! Tonnage certificates did have something weird going on!!!!!!!!!

In July of 2011, at the urging of USCG Activities Europe and MCA, Simonin walked through a new Tonnage Certificate issued by ABS that set Bounty's gross tonnage at 409. During a visit, MCA inspectors noticed a change to the ship's construction - specifically the removal of a tonnage opening - that was not reported to ABS. The new assessment made the Bounty subject to SOLAS, and the HMS Bounty Organization appealed. A year later they changed the vessel back to its previous configuration and received a new tonnage certificate that brought them back down to 266 regulatory tons, but it would seem that for a year Bounty operated in violation of IMO regulations.
Rotted Frames on Bounty | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

This GCaptain reporter is excellent! Really doning well.
 
#1,610 ·
Rotted Frames on Bounty | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

Rotted Frames on Bounty
BY MARIO VITTONE ON FEBRUARY 13, 2013

The witness, Todd Kosakowski, looked at Coast Guard's evidence # CG-41: a series of 29 photographs he had taken of Bounty during its most recent yard period. Mr. Kosakowski - the lead shipwright and project manager for Boothbay Harbor Shipyards - was in charge of the last maintenance project ever to be done on Bounty.

The pictures were of rotted frames and fasteners (trunnels) he found under the planking during repairs. Kosakowski told NTSB investigator Captain Rob Jones that he believes 75% of the framing above the waterline on Bounty may have been rotten, but that the ship's representative in the yard, Captain Robin Walbridge, declined any further search for rotted wood. He convinced Kosakowski that they would make the repairs before their next Coast Guard hull inspection. The final witness of the day and the discussions of the evidence was stunning to those of us in the crowd.

He had given the photos to the USCG Investigator back in December. That same Coast Guard investigator - Commander Kevin Carroll - was on the other side of the table today, asking questions.

Carroll: "And you had a conversation…did you tell Captain Walbridge?"

Kosakowski: "Yes."

Carrol: "What did he say?"

Kosakowski: "He was also concerned. I told him I thought that he had to pick and choose his weather… he said that he was terrified of what we had found."

Kosakowski said that he didn't voice his concerns to anyone other than Captain Walbridge of Bounty and his own boss, Eric Graves, telling Carroll, "I believe that the owner's rep is the extent of my debt to notify."

Looking around to see if anyone else looked as dismayed as I felt, I didn't have to look hard. What we were hearing from Kosakowski came at the end of a long day of testimony that painted a picture of maintenance and management of Bounty that was suspect at best.

Todd Kosakowski with Chief Mate John Svendsen after the second day of testimony into the sinking of Bounty. (Photo M. Vittone)

Morning testimony by Miss Tracey Simonin - the HMS Bounty Organization's "Director of Shoreside Operations" revealed confusion about the ship's status as it related to tonnage certificates and maintenance management, ABS and USCG notification of repairs, and who may or may not be in charge of repair work aboard Bounty.

In July of 2011, at the urging of USCG Activities Europe and MCA, Simonin walked through a new Tonnage Certificate issued by ABS that set Bounty's gross tonnage at 409. During a visit, MCA inspectors noticed a change to the ship's construction - specifically the removal of a tonnage opening - that was not reported to ABS. The new assessment made the Bounty subject to SOLAS, and the HMS Bounty Organization appealed. A year later they changed the vessel back to its previous configuration and received a new tonnage certificate that brought them back down to 266 regulatory tons, but it would seem that for a year Bounty operated in violation of IMO regulations. Like so much of what I've seen so far in these hearings, there are more questions than answers; Simonin answered "I don't know," and "I don't remember," frequently.

In Simonin's defense, there was someone in the room better suited to answer the Commander's questions today, but Mr. Robert Hansen (seated in the front row) is asserting his fifth amendment rights and will not be testifying. Simonin did clear up a couple of things. We learned that the person who posted on Bounty's Facebook page was Jim Salapatek. He - not the captain - was the one who posted that the voyage into the hurricane was a safe decision, that the Coast Guard had issued a UMIB (Urgent Marine Information Broadcast) for Bounty on October 28th but had rescinded it (they hadn't), and he did all of that from his home in Illinois. His connection to Bounty? His son, Drew (29) was crew aboard Bounty. How did he get his information? "I don't know," said Simonin.

There was a break from strained testimony and nervous answers when Mr. Bert Rogers, the executive director of Tall Ships America, was called as a witness. "Bounty was the star of the show at our events because of her star appeal and we featured her as a headliner vessel at our events," Rogers said. When asked about Walbridge's competence, Rogers spoke well of the captain and his efforts over the past 17 years to "turn Bounty around." He said complimentary things about Bounty's crew and the ship's relationship and value to his organization.

It was 20 minutes of good news about the ship and her performance from a respected and experienced leader in the tall ship community. And then Rogers - the first experienced tall-ship captain to take the stand - was asked by Carroll, "Would you have taken her out into that storm?" "No, I would have sought safer harbor upriver." No one was surprised.

Carroll: "Do you think the ship was safer at sea?"

Rogers: "I don't believe that a ship is safer at sea. It is circumstantial. There are cases where that is the example and cases where it is not."

Carroll: "Is the crew safer at sea?"

Rogers: "That is absurd; they are of course safer in bed than at sea. But if you have to decide between crew safety and ship safety you would have to go to the crew."

Rogers left before he could hear Kosakowski recount the condition of Bounty and the rotted frames. He didn't hear about the Walbridge's decision to wait until the next yard period to get into extensive repairs. He didn't hear about the shipwright's warning to keep the boat out of heavy weather. If he had, I wonder what he would have thought about those "circumstances?"

The last to question Rogers was the attorney for the Christian family, Mr. Jacob Shisha. The body of the Christian's daughter, Claudine (42), was recovered by the Coast Guard on October 29th.

Shisha: "In late October - how many member vessels did you have on the Atlantic Coast?"

Rogers: "About fifty."

Shisha: "How many made a decision to leave port in anticipation of Hurricane Sandy?"

Rogers: "None that I know of…besides Bounty."
 
#1,611 ·
Take the article posted above with a grain of salt. Thats not to say the the testimony wasnt riviting and that it wasnt an example of the Bounty maintainence. The problem with the news media is just that the news media. The post for sensationalism

An example: Posted by Jon Eisenberg
The first time I weighed in about the Bounty sinking I said that if "I've learned anything in my career, it's that speculation rarely lines up with facts." It turns out that facts rarely line up with facts, either. My own local paper - The Virginian Pilot - reported that Svendsen stated that he "twice urged Walbridge to abandon ship before Walbridge agreed," and later in the same article report that "Svendsen twice told Walbridge they should abandon ship before Walbridge agreed. The boat rolled before an orderly evacuation could happen, spilling crew members into the ocean." The Pilot left out that the time between his first urging and Walbridge's agreement was two minutes. Sincerely - there was a time for an "orderly evacuation," and it was long before Svendsen first urged his captain.
I watched the live video feed for almost all of Kosakowskis testimony. Watched his face, voice inflections, etc, Curiously the reporter left out a few other questions of this man which went to his motives and potential covering of his ass thus challanging his testimony. Heres what the reporter left out. The shipwright Kosakowski was the project leader for the shipyard affecting the repairs. He stated he had 30 conversations with the Captain about the repairs and what he found. He continued to affect repairs of the areas he was repairing and mentioned 2 times to Walbridge that the vessel MAY have damage in other areas that he wanted to explore further.. He testified also he took a moisture metter in these areas and the results we negative for moisture. He also stated that he needed to remove the planking to be sure. he stated that he reported his finding only to his boss. The first time he was asked by the CG was anyone there to verify he told the Captain that he should take it out in heavy weather until this was checked. He said no. When he admitted he had talked 30 times to Waldbridge he was asked again incredulously by the CG Commander that not one of the times was anyone there. He back tracked and said there were and there were two occasions. He further remembered there were 5 people present both times. To me ( Rockdawg is also watching the video feed too that I know of) this mans testimony was a bit self serving and ass covering for further legal actions by the Bounty Company.

It is apparent to me so far and I want to reserve judgement until I hear everything, that one of the main problems with this vessels was the funds to repair her completely in one shot. The repair work which was done by the shipwrights appeared to be first class where they worked on her. Funding for these vessels to continue their upkeep are a continual problem.

Caveat- I am not speaking to the ssue of his leaving in a hurricane, but just to what we have heard so far.

If you have a moment try and spend some time on the live feed.

HMS Bounty hearings
 
#1,614 ·
This is all very interesting stuff so far. Shame I could not make it down for the testimony.

My biggest question about the bounty remains: As a ship that was built as a movie prop, was she ever really "Sea worthy"?
 
#1,621 ·
This is unrelated to the hearing. But I wonder if anyone noticed that.

All survivors wore the Gumby dry suit when the CG picked them up. The suits are not cheap, and considered the financial problem that Bounty organization has. I wonder when those suits were purchased.

If those suit were purchased just before Sandy, I would be worried.
 
#1,623 ·
This is unrelated to the hearing. But I wonder if anyone noticed that.

All survivors wore the Gumby dry suit when the CG picked them up. The suits are not cheap, and considered the financial problem that Bounty organization has. I wonder when those suits were purchased.

If those suit were purchased just before Sandy, I would be worried.
Yes They also had regular drills too., If you read the reporters writing they got thrown off the boat when the ship rolled and they were shocked, yet all of them already had on survival suits.

I think when the crew memebers testify about the days events there will come a clearer picture of the last moments as some of them have already reported they were trained in surviva or abandoning the ship
 
#1,637 ·
That was posted before, I think in another thread about the Bounty. Also it is the first time that someone talks about a plausible reason fore the owner and the captain to risk that passage other than by that odd reason about a ship being more safe facing an Hurricane at sea. Speculation for the moment but at least an informed one:

"But the full answer to why the Bounty sank was much more complex than a captain's rash decision. It was a story decades in the making, a veritable opera of near misses and fantastic schemes involving a dogged captain, a fiercely loyal crew, and an owner who was looking to sell. And in the ship's last act, an unlikely new character had emerged: a young woman with Down syndrome who, perhaps inconceivably, held the key to the Bounty's future...

..., Walbridge and his crew made do with what little income the ship fetched through $10-a-head tours,... Sometimes, one of the crew told me, they had to use cash from the day's till to buy groceries. Another crew member, Doug Faunt, said that it was not uncommon for the Bounty to have to wait to dock until more money had been freed up on the ship's credit card....

but as the 2012 tour season wrapped up, Walbridge believed he had secured a fresh infusion of cash and purpose for the Bounty. Both, he believed, could come from the Ashley DeRamus Foundation, a private organization dedicated to raising awareness about Down syndrome. Walbridge looked forward to using the Bounty as an educational platform for people with special needs, and it may have been that new mission, in part, that led him into the storm...."


But he fails to explain why it was so urgent to get the boat to the next port and what was the relation with that new possible Bounty contributor.

Regarding the fuel filters, the mechanic and surely the captain new from the start that they had the wrong pieces and even so choose to set sail.

"Barksdale was responsible for maintaining the Bounty's engine room, two diesel engines on either side of the hull topped by complementary generators that spun electrical power for the vessel. A large fuel bay supplied each. Walbridge had just rebuilt the starboard generator, and he told Barksdale to use the port one as much as possible-so they'd have a fresh generator if anything went wrong. Meanwhile, a supplier's snafu meant that Barksdale had the wrong fuel filters for the generators-two-micron instead of 20-micron ones, which captured more sediment. But he wasn't too concerned. "We just decided to be really vigilant, since we knew they'd clog up a whole lot faster," Barksdale told me. "Everything was running smoothly. It seemed like it was going to be fine.""

Sunk: The Incredible Truth About the 'Bounty,' a Ship That Never Should Have Sailed | Outdoor Adventure | OutsideOnline.com

Cheers

Paulo
 
#1,640 ·
When discussing the hogging in Bounty's keel (the droop for and aft after years in the water), Jakomovicz said, "The key thing here is that it's a 50 year old boat. You have to realize that that's tired."

Carroll: "Tired?"

Jakomovicz: "When you have a hog in the keel, that boat's tired. When the backbone is tired and you take that boat in the seaway, that boat's gonna work, and when it works, it's gonna leak." ("Work" refers to the movement of the timbers under strain.)

Carrol: "And you felt comfortable that Bounty was going to make the trip?"

Jakomovicz: "Oh, I had no idea it was going to go into a hurricane!"
The whole thing goes frm bad to worse!
Day Three Testimony Highlights Complexity in Bounty Case | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

We were much closer to the truth in our thread than some thought!
See the next days stuff on tonnage etc.
 
#1,642 ·
I'm pretty stunned from everything said yesterday. Well, not stunned that there was damage, but the extent.. even more than I knew of as a sailor but one that hadn't crewed with Bounty. What did make me think.. the USS Constellation in Baltimore was condemned in the 90s due to a 36 inch hog (she is a much larger ship than Bounty as well, and built in 1851), and when it was decided she would be restored, there were cables from one end of the ship to the other literally holding her together.
Of course, she hadn't actively been sailing in a century, and hadn't been in open waters in 50 or so years, either..

No live streamed video since the lunch break at noon. Now is 2:24 pm, is me or affect others too??
Nope, friends already contacted WAVY and they're working on it. I am following the Twitter pages of two reporters there than seem to be only adding a little sensationalism, but helps to keep up with the proceedings.

https://twitter.com/Kathryn_Miles (author of the Outside Mag article)

https://twitter.com/mikemather
 
#1,644 ·
"Third Mate on sailing in two hurricanes before Sandy: The main difference is that, in those storms, our bilge pumps kept up.

Crew couldn't get the emergency pump to work. That's the pump no one had been trained to operate...."


https://twitter.com/mikemather

After all it seems that the ship had sailed previously in Hurricanes. Does anybody find normal that with today's way of predicting weather a wooden XVIII century designed ship, mostly of the time in bad sailing condition, had sailed in 3 hurricanes?

It seems he thinks normal that a ship could be maintained afloat because pumps are getting out more water than the one that is coming in. It seems pumps were not used in emergencies but as a normally used component on sailing that ship.

I heard old stories about wooden ships that had to be continually pumped...they were ships in bad shape trying to make their last voyage home...and not always succeeding.
 
#1,649 ·
After listening to the Bosun today it was apparent that the Bounty didnt really sail into hrricanes except the last one. This may be an exagreation of the press as well as his statements.

He described their procedure was to stay behind the foreward motion of the hurricane and utilize the winds wrapping around it from behind. If they accelerated or started catching up to the hrricane they deployed a sea anchor, anchor, or even hove too for a few days in one instance.

This is where the Captain said and meant he was
chasing hurricanes
. I understand his tactic now and it is not unlike what Vendee Globe or Whitbread sailors did in some of their tactics with low pressure systems. Of course the conditions will be heavy duty as it still is a big storm with winds and seas, but with the hurricane pulling away from you it allows you max winds with the every present danger pulling away and conditions improving. To me he put to rest today the newsmedias frenzy about teh phrase chasing hurricanes. He also commented the Bounty was such a pig, normal SOG was 4-5. In 30 knots they could actually get up to 7-9.

This in no way is an excuse for sailing towrad Hurricane Sandy which he did, Also apparent by Maines comments and first hand eyes she maybe should never have been allowed to sail,,,,ever....Just be a dock attraction.
 
#1,646 · (Edited)
I saw her on the rails at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard no less that three times. The most extensive re-fit I saw was the below waterline re-planking back in the early 2000's. Problem was there was nothing much to fasten the planks to....

One would have to ask, if she was completely re-planked in the early 2000's what structural issues could POSSIBLY cause her to need to be re-planked, even if just partially, again only a few years later.....????? The rot was so extensive back than I was shocked to see them slapping on new planks over the sad structure. A real "lipstick on a pig" event. The later re-planking also replaced SOME ribs but only the worst of the worst... The stem was cut out in one of the re-fits but I can't recall which one..

When we anchor in Boothbay I would land and walk the dogs at BHS. I liked to walk around the ship as I always love to watch wooden boat construction, having grown up with them..

In October & November I posted/hot linked to NUMEROUS photos from her re-fits at Boothbay. EVERY SINGLE PHOTO/EVIDENCE HAS BEEN WIPED CLEAN FROM THE NET INCLUDING INTERNET ARCHIVE SEARCHES???

Why? Where did they go? How do you wipe "internet archives"... That costs some $$$$$$ one would assume..... ?

What are they trying to hide? I said it back in October and I will say it again IMHO this vessel was not fit for open ocean sailing let alone sailing directly into a hurricane. I grew up around wooden boats and this is not one I would have gone to sea in even after the re-fits after having seen what I saw and what was actually under the pretty prom dress......

I don't need to read stories in Outside Magazine or anywhere else as I saw the derelict condition of this vessel with my own eyes, on multiple occasions, right down to her structural level. The work BHS did was good from what I saw. The wood used was good from what I saw especially the oak in the early 2000's, what they had to work with, structurally, SUCKED IMHO as seen with my own eyes...

Even more telling of her level of care, or lack there of, is a photo posted by Roger Long of her fuel filers. The fuel in them was as black as coffee. We now know they stuffed 2 micron filters in there, perhaps in an attempt to remedy an "issue"? Perahaps out of ignorance? Who knows, all I know is that fuel on a boat or ship should NEVER look like that, especially if heading into rough weather..

Why would anyone or any organization go to such great lengths to erase such images from history? Who did it? I certainly don't know who but do they are GONE. I know because I linked to them in numerous posts and now the images are GONE.... I should have saved them to my hard drive but that would have been copyright infringement. I tried to do the right thing and then some people SQUASHED the TRUTH and ERASED the images.

It seems quite interesting & telling to me that the only images of her that remain from her time in Boothbay are with fresh coats of paint, a highly varnished wheel & spit shined ready for launch. You can put a prom dress on a pig but she's still a pig... The real meat and potatoes images have been ripped from internet history...

BTW the fuel in the transparent Racor bowls should be red NOT black like coffee...

Here are two image addresses that were of some HORRIFYING photos that have been erased from history.. They were from 2007 well after the major re-fit in the early 2000's..

From 2007now mysteriously missing....:mad:

http://www.tallshipbounty.org/photos...U3MzU2ZDA2MmU4

http://www.tallshipbounty.org/photos...M0N2E5NzE2N2Qx

If I had known then that she actually sailed the ocean blue I would have taken extensive photos myself.. I mistakenly assumed she was a dockside attraction like Old Ironsides and the repairs were "good enough"... ..
 
#1,648 · (Edited)
I saw her on the rails at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard no less that three times. The most extensive re-fit I saw was the below waterline re-planking back in the early 2000's. Problem was there was nothing much to fasten the planks to....

One would have to ask, if she was completely re-planked in the early 2000's what structural issues could POSSIBLY cause her to need to be re-planed again only a few years later.....????? The rot was so extensive back than I was shocked to see them slapping on new planks over the sad structure. A real "lipstick on a pig" event. The later re-planking also replaced SOME ribs but only the worst of the worst... The stem was cut out in one of the re-fits but I can't recall which one.. When we anchor in Boothbay I would land and walk the dogs at BHS. I liked to walk around the ship as I always love to watch wooden boat construction, having grown up with them..

In October & November I posted/hot linked to NUMEROUS photos from her re-fits at Boothbay. EVERY SINGLE PHOTO/EVIDENCE HAS BEEN WIPED CLEAN FROM THE NET INCLUDING INTERNET ARCHIVE SEARCHES....

Why? How? How do you wipe "internet archives"... That costs some $$$$$$ one would assume..... ?

What are they trying to hide? I said it back in October and I will say it again IMHO this vessel was not fit for open ocean sailing let alone sailing directly into a hurricane.

I don't need to read stories in Outside Magazine or anywhere else as I saw the derelict condition of this vessel with my own eyes on multiple occasions right down to her structural level. The work BHS did was good, the wood used was good, what they had to work with SUCKED IMHO as seen with my own eyes...

Even more telling of her level of care, or lack there of, is a photo posted by Roger Long of her fuel filers. The fuel in them was as black as coffee. We now know they stuffed 2 micron filters in there, perhaps in an attempt to remedy an "issue".... Who knows all I know is that fuel on a boat or ship should NEVER look like that......

Why would anyone or any organization go to such great lengths to erase such images from history? Who did it? I certainly don't know but they are GONE....

It seems quite interesting & telling to me that the only images of her that remain from her time in Boothbay are with fresh coats of paint, a highly varnished wheel & spit shined ready for launch. You can put a prom dress on a pig but she's still a pig... The real meat and potatoes images have been ripped from internet history...

BTW the fuel in the tranparent Racor bowls should be red NOT black like coffee...

Here are two image addresses that were of some HORRIFYING photos that have been erased from history.. They were from 2007 well after the major re-fit in the early 2000's..

From 2007now mysteriously missing....:mad:

http://www.tallshipbounty.org/photos...U3MzU2ZDA2MmU4

http://www.tallshipbounty.org/photos...M0N2E5NzE2N2Qx

If I had known then that she actually sailed the ocean blue I would have taken extensive photos myself.. I mistakenly assumed she was a dockside attraction like Old Ironsides and the repairs were "good enough"... ..
Links are broken. Do you publish this here on Sailnet? Someone censored them from here? That would be big time wrong to do that IMHO.

They said that there was huge destruction of the newer work they had done in warly 2000 that I guess you saw because of the lack of ventilation and fresh water intrusions and thats why it didnt last long,

I agree more and more with you accessment about her being let out to sail and not just in a hurricane but at all. I guess if she had to be moved to Flordida it would have been only in optimal conditions and with and escort of some kind. The leaking alone would mean that. None of us would risk taking our boats out for even a day sail in a protected bay if the only way we knew wed saty afloat is if out pumps worked.

She should have stayed a dockside attraction somewhere and not only would her legacy remained intact, peoples lives wouldnt have been lost.

I cant help but think why these people who sailed aboard her thought the amount of water and the deteriorated wood as well as the cobbled solutions were good enough. And then to go blue water with her. And then to sail in hurricane like conditions. She appeared doomed everytime she cast off her lines. That it was only a matter of time.

Another thing bothers me though about Boothbay Shipwright and I know its a very reputable yard. Since they were putting all this good repair on bad structure why did they not cover their own asses by stating that in writing. In todays litigenous society where people know and are quick to cover their asses you would think that that was SOP. If they truly worried that the ship couldnt handle sailing conditions, and I beleive you assessment, why are they saying it could get to the next refit. Why arent they saying we will not certify any fix since it is being put on material as a base which will fail? Any reputable construction builder if he was rehabbing a building wouldnt put the skin on the building of the frame and I beams supporting the building were not sound. Why did they do that? It calls into questions Boothbays ethics?
 
#1,654 ·
Links are broken. Do you publish this here on Sailnet? Someone censored them from here? That would be big time wrong to do that IMHO.
No they were "hot linked" meaning referenced in my posts both here and on Sailboatowners.com but they were still hosted on a Bounty web site.

The images have been DELETED. Beyond that they have also been removed from deep scan internet archive searches which is very abnormal. My neighbor is a forensic computer consultant. Yesterday I emailed him to see if he could find them. His response was "this is weird I can always find something in cached archive searches but these addresses are simply gone."...

They said that there was huge destruction of the newer work they had done in warly 2000 that I guess you saw because of the lack of ventilation and fresh water intrusions and thats why it didnt last long,
This would not surpise me. The frame was so rotted that it must have allowed enough movement/flex of planking etc. and allowed water in.

I agree more and more with you accessment about her being let out to sail and not just in a hurricane but at all. I guess if she had to be moved to Flordida it would have been only in optimal conditions and with and escort of some kind. The leaking alone would mean that. None of us would risk taking our boats out for even a day sail in a protected bay if the only way we knew wed saty afloat is if out pumps worked.
I have been saying this since the day I learned the boat sank in October and realized it was the boat I had seen on the rails at BHS so many times.

No one wanted to listen or cared back then and the only focus was on the captain. He still made a bad decision and still should have KNOWN the condition of this "pig in a prom dress" but still chose to set sail. Still, the boat should have been deemed a dockside attraction only IMHO....

She should have stayed a dockside attraction somewhere and not only would her legacy remained intact, peoples lives wouldnt have been lost.
Until the sinking that is what I had assumed she was. I never really paid much attention to the HMS Bounty other than knowing she was a Hollywood set in a Brando movie. If I had known she actually sailed with novice crew and ventured purposely into hurricanes I would have taken HUNDREDS of photos myself as it would have made a good thread........;)

I cant help but think why these people who sailed aboard her thought the amount of water and the deteriorated wood as well as the cobbled solutions were good enough.
IMHO because they were novices and die hard TS hobbyists so focused on their passion that they cared less about the safety reality than someone who is a professional.. I do recall reading that many folks who actually knew anything about wood ships bailed quickly on this venture, including some ships engineers. The final engineer was not, in any sense of the word, as related to boats...

And then to go blue water with her. And then to sail in hurricane like conditions. She appeared doomed everytime she cast off her lines. That it was only a matter of time.
Quite frankly I am amazed she held up as long as she did and it is a really testament to BHS IMHO. She was literally held together by the "prom dress" and paint...

Another thing bothers me though about Boothbay Shipwright and I know its a very reputable yard. Since they were putting all this good repair on bad structure why did they not cover their own asses by stating that in writing.
IMHO likely because this is Maine where we still do things on a hand shake and a nod..

In todays litigenous society where people know and are quick to cover their asses you would think that that was SOP.
In most places it is an I can assure you more yards in Maine will be covering their collective arses after this...

If they truly worried that the ship couldnt handle sailing conditions, and I beleive you assessment, why are they saying it could get to the next refit.
Sailed gently it likely could have made it to the next repairs. I don't think anyone at BHS expected him to sail her directly into one of the largest storms in the North Atlantic in 30+ years..

Why arent they saying we will not certify any fix since it is being put on material as a base which will fail? Any reputable construction builder if he was rehabbing a building wouldnt put the skin on the building of the frame and I beams supporting the building were not sound. Why did they do that? It calls into questions Boothbays ethics?
Quite likely because this was the umpteenth time, over a 20 year period, this boat had been there and there was a "comfortable" relationship which was largely hand shake and verbal..

Jakomovicz and Walbridge were also "friends". I found Jakomovicz testimony to be some of the most offensive I have seen. Here is a guy with a claimed 40 years of experience who can only say under oath "Well because I have 40 years of experience and he only has 5"...How about citing some FACTS other than "I'm better than he is because I've been doing it longer"??? How about stating WHY the ship was safe? How about some details that show what Kosakowski said was not true? Surely Jakomovicz owns an awl? A camera? I mean the BHS has plenty of photos of projects on its site? At least Kozakowski came armed with photographic evidence. What did Jakomovicz present other than "I have 40 years experience he has 5".... LAME!!!!! Give us some SPECIFICS based on your 40 years experience......:mad:

I think teh conversation below was very, very telling and despite Jakomovitch arguing against Kozakowski I think it sealed the deal on "condition"..

Jakomovicz: "The key thing here is that it's a 50 year old boat. You have to realize that that's tired."

Carroll: "Tired?"

Jakomovicz: "When you have a hog in the keel, that boat's tired. When the backbone is tired and you take that boat in the seaway, that boat's gonna work, and when it works, it's gonna leak." ("Work" refers to the movement of the timbers under strain.)

Carrol: "And you felt comfortable that Bounty was going to make the trip?"

Jakomovicz: "Oh, I had no idea it was going to go into a hurricane!"

There were sooooooo many mistakes in this debacle it is hard to pinpoint any one main contributing factor other than to say.....

THE BOAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
 
#1,655 ·
No they were "hot linked" meaning referenced in my posts both here and on Sailboatowners.com but they were still hosted on a Bounty web site.

The images have been DELETED. Beyond that they have also been removed from deep scan internet archive searches which is very abnormal. My neighbor is a forensic computer consultant. Yesterday I emailed him to see if he could find them. His response was "this is weird I can always find something in cached archive searches but these addresses are simply gone."...

This would not surpise me. The frame was so rotted that it must have allowed enough movement/flex of planking etc. and allowed water in.

I have been saying this since the day I learned the boat sank in October and realized it was the boat I had seen on the rails at BHS so many times.

No one wanted to listen or cared back then and the only focus was on the captain. He still made a bad decision and still should have KNOWN the condition of this "pig in a prom dress" but still chose to set sail. Still, the boat should have been deemed a dockside attraction only IMHO....

Until the sinking that is what I had assumed she was. I never really paid much attention to the HMS Bounty other than knowing she was a Hollywood set in a Brando movie. If I had known she actually sailed with novice crew and ventured purposely into hurricanes I would have taken HUNDREDS of photos myself as it would have made a good thread........;)

IMHO because they were novices and die hard TS hobbyists so focused on their passion that they cared less about the safety reality than someone who is a professional.. I do recall reading that many folks who actually knew anything about wood ships bailed quickly on this venture, including some ships engineers. The final engineer was not, in any sense of the word, as related to boats...

Quite frankly I am amazed she held up as long as she did and it is a really testament to BHS IMHO. She was literally held together by the "prom dress" and paint...

IMHO likely because this is Maine where we still do things on a hand shake and a nod..

In most places it is an I can assure you more yards in Maine will be covering their collective arses after this...

Sailed gently it likely could have made it to the next repairs. I don't think anyone at BHS expected him to sail her directly into one of the largest storms in the North Atlantic in 30+ years..

Quite likely because this was the umpteenth time, over a 20 year period, this boat had been there and there was a "comfortable" relationship which was largely hand shake and verbal..

Jakomovicz and Walbridge were also "friends". I found Jakomovicz testimony to be some of the most offensive I have seen. Here is a guy with a claimed 40 years of experience who can only say under oath "Well because I have 40 years of experience and he only has 5"...How about citing some FACTS other than "I'm better than he is because I've been doing it longer"??? How about stating WHY the ship was safe? How about some details that show what Kosakowski said was not true? Surely Jakomovicz owns an awl? A camera? I mean the BHS has plenty of photos of projects on its site? At least Kozakowski came armed with photographic evidence. What did Jakomovicz present other than "I have 40 years experience he has 5".... LAME!!!!! Give us some SPECIFICS based on your 40 years experience......:mad:

I think teh conversation below was very, very telling and despite Jakomovitch arguing against Kozakowski I think it sealed the deal on "condition"..

Jakomovicz: "The key thing here is that it's a 50 year old boat. You have to realize that that's tired."

Carroll: "Tired?"

Jakomovicz: "When you have a hog in the keel, that boat's tired. When the backbone is tired and you take that boat in the seaway, that boat's gonna work, and when it works, it's gonna leak." ("Work" refers to the movement of the timbers under strain.)

Carrol: "And you felt comfortable that Bounty was going to make the trip?"

Jakomovicz: "Oh, I had no idea it was going to go into a hurricane!"

There were sooooooo many mistakes in this debacle it is hard to pinpoint any one main contributing factor other than to say.....

THE BOAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said,,,and I have since the beginning:)

I have not been the Captain basher as I actualy met him a few times, although he bears major responsibility in this taking an unift boat into a storm of increasing ferocity

The more the testimony I heard from the Jakomavitz the more I was sickened and didnt beleive him actually.

The people who singed on to sail and learn on this vessel the more you listen were really not experienced enough to see and recognize the warning signs that they were in danger actually from the boat and seemed convincecd that this lack of maintainence and structural integrity was somehow " normal". They truly were innocent vistims in this in many ways.

Even my friend Walbridge appears to have been so involved with his own dream of the wooden sailing boats and teaching others his craft, he seems to have lost the ability to recognize the limits of this vessel. He had invested many years in it, and with his knowledge surely should have toned down the sea time as this vessel aged. Certainly not faced off a storm.

Its all tragic and could/ should have actually been worse. This could have let go at anytime it appears. The only reason the3 survived appears is that they had trained and knew what to do when the boat sank, they had the equipment and survivual suits, and the unbeleiveable efforts of the CG to reescue them.

He had one last chance to save the boat before things really came completely unglued when under way and that was the duck in the Delaware River or even Norfolk and he didnt. He knew by then the serverity of what he was facing and that hed have to run accross the front of the storm and have his vessel pounded. He certainly wasnt chasing a hurricane as he did before by follwoing it, but was headed at it. At least in those locations he would have run with the wind and once there had far less battering of the vessel. Instead he chooses to shoot the Hatteras Canyon, gaveyard of the Atlantic,

The owner is still lurking in the backround....like the wizzard of oz. He has some responsibility I am sure in pushing the boat along and not repairing her or letting her sail in these conditions. He could have somewhere in this said no way. You also dont know the pressure he applied. He sits protected right now by his corporate lawyers.

It was hard to listen to all their testimony first hand

Sorry for the rant Very sad.
 
#1,647 ·
I had not watched it until about an hour ago, because I was too busy at work. I don't know all the characters, but can kind of figure out who they are from their self-serving questions.

I was impressed with the candor of Laura's testimony, and how she did not allow them to lead her. I suspect that she must be under quite a bit of pressure, as certain attorneys are probably trying to build a case for a liability case against everyone, including crew members -- although I suspect that the crew members don't have very "deep pockets." I also don't know whether the maritime limitations apply to crew members also, or just the owner of ship.
 
#1,653 ·
The Bounty was a dock side attraction for a number of years after it was rescued from its scheduled demise from being set ablaze at the end of the filming of the movie. After Ted Turner unknowly purchased the boat with his acquisition of MGM film rights, he ordered the accountants to get rid of it and from that time forward it entered the realm of blue water sailing....Just follow the money...or lack of it

The crew was lucky to have those survival suits considering the shoe string budget.
 
#1,661 · (Edited)
I like his writing style too, even though he sometimes seems to sensationalize and choose issues on the periphery. Not unlike others though

For instance he talked about the obvious lack of true experience about the two Bounty officers who tesitified and ridicules thier answers of thinking that using DAP or their ways of caulking as the marks of an inexperienced crew in " love " with their vessel. And that it was the "new" teaching the "new" improper or less than techniques. He comapared that with Kosojowski ( sp) the project manager who testified earlier about DAP not being used because it was inferior and who put down the on-board maitainence techniques of the crew. This is all well and good, but the gCaptain writer either was asleep or failed to mentiuon that the 3rd officer said in his testimony he would loved to have worked with Kosokowski for a long period of time so he could learn from him as that was his foeld and specialty. Kosokowski self admitted that he had no real training ewither and learned from others,

The gCaptain also failed to mention that many of Koksokowskis statements were rebutted and refutted by Jankovmicz the 40 year exeprience professional shipyard manager, his boss. After personally listening to Kosokowsji I found it incredulous to beleive he took pictures of substandard stuff and never showed them to anyone not even his boss until the CG said they were doing an inquirey. He took no notes on the project, yet Jankovmicz said the shipyard had boxes of notes on the project. Kosokowski said he told Walbriidge ( supposedly) to change his method of sailing because of what he thought MIGHT be present, and when further questioned by the CG Commander he said he met with Walbridge 30 times. and couldnt rememeber whether anyone else was present. Then he miracuously remembered where there were 5 present, but no one else remembered him saying what he claimed to Walbridge. I found Kosokowskis testimony questionable and self serving like he was covering his own ass. The CG Commander must have also as he asked him that directly, "Are you covering your ass" The g Captain writer reported none of this...

Heres what the WAYV repeorted ( they are doing the live stream
Project manager Joe Jakomovicz, who has 40 years of experience, said Kosakowski's analysis is incorrect because Kosawkowski has "five or six years of experience."

Kosakowski worked with the Bounty when it visited Boothbay Harbor Shipyard in 2006 for repairs. He said the decay in the hull of the Bounty was not the worst he has ever seen.

His younger colleague believes the structural integrity of the hull was in question and has second thoughts about the decision of the Bounty's owners to set sail without a certificate of inspection.
I have watched the tesimony every day. I find the gcaptain reporting to be one dimensional and havent yet decided whether it is intentional with an agenda, or that they have selective hearing. Either way it certaianly is not even handed anymore than the sensationalism of other reporting I have seen.
 
#1,663 ·
I'm not sure if anyone posted this already in this massive thread, but in case they didn't here is an interesting national geographic clip with some early footage of when the HMS Bounty was built, as well as some footage from when it was sailed to make the movie "Mutiny on the Bounty". Sorry if its a repost...

 
#1,665 ·
I too like the writing style of the gcaptain.com, but also think that he gives an honest summary of the day's testimony. There are many details that are not covered, but IMHO he is covering the major points and does not appear to have an ax to grind unlike many to the so called journalist of today.
 
#1,666 ·
He is writing to his audience at gCaptain, professionals running cargo and passenger ships.
I think they might be incredulous of the difference between the inspections and surveys, and requirements between them and Tall Ships.

The gCaptain mob are very interested in it... the articles are 4 of the top 5 most read... with the Carnival Triumph problem coming in at #3.

What surprises me most is that everyone is talking! I thought everyone would decline to answer questions. Only the owner has refused. Startling stuff.

I would love to be there, or to be able to watch the feed live.

The tall Ship industry around the world is gunna be given one big shak-up after this. I doubt the old "they look lovely we need to keep them no matter what" will be ditched and unless the ship and crew are worthy they will be immovable meuseum pieces.
 
#1,673 ·
May I ask why. What is the "loophole" you refer to? If you listened to the testimony you heard from the Shipyard manager who had been dealing with wooden boats for 40 years tell stories about the commercial fishing boats and how horrible in repair state they were. Way worse than the Bounty. It seems the norm in the industry.

How would you tighten the "loophole" up specifically. How do you differenciate the Bounty who doesnt take passangers from any other commercial or privately owned boat who has a crew? What regulations would you impose? I am sure these are the questions the CG will struggle with when they make their conclusions as well as regulations.

How do you regulate what essentially is a private vessel? And to what degree?

I also asked whether you had watched any of the testimony personally and you havent replied. I am interested on your personal take.:)
 
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