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...

279K 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.
 
#1,829 ·
I understand from earlier reading that Bounty did not have a Certificate of Inspection from the Coast Guard.

Wasn't aware whether or not the was "in class" with ABS, LR, DNV or whomever? I take it, not?

Anyone know if the other tall ships are 'classed'? To me, having ABS involved, especially with a unique (wood) vessel with lots of cladding covering the ribs and frames, would give me a much better feeling than a vessel inspected by, uh, no one?
 
#1,835 · (Edited)
I understand from earlier reading that Bounty did not have a Certificate of Inspection from the Coast Guard.

Wasn't aware whether or not the was "in class" with ABS, LR, DNV or whomever? I take it, not?

Anyone know if the other tall ships are 'classed'? To me, having ABS involved, especially with a unique (wood) vessel with lots of cladding covering the ribs and frames, would give me a much better feeling than a vessel inspected by, uh, no one?
No it was not inspected and registered as a private yacht.
They even subverted the tonnage rules to get (less) 250GT certification to avoid some of the rules.

CG also assumed the crew was "professional", and classified the initial contact as mid risk - they were asked by the panel why they assumed so - they pretty much couldn't believe that the ship will be sailed by amateurs.

Other vessel captains testified it took them 7 years to get certifications..

From what I understand the Bounty should have notified the CG that they had lost generators, pumps and engines.

Are we (as pleasure boaters) required to notify CG if our engine fails on our sailboat? Should we notify if our bilge pump fails while at sea? I could see if conditions are rough (high winds and seas) where the loss could endager boat and crew it would be wise to issue a Pan Pan to CG and keep them informed, but is this required during benign conditions?
They subverted the system to register as a private yacht.

Technically private yacht is NOT required to report it.

But Coast Guard highly recommends you issue a PAN PAN call, it helps them advise you and prepare for possible rescue.

Maybe I stated it badly. I was referring what they had said themselves and was published previously in the press. I did not meant to say that when they sailed that they had not been informed about the Hurricane. What I meant to say is that they had not been aware of its importance till some hours before and some not even after that reunion. Barksdale says "Nobody knew that it was going to have the intensity and size it ended up having" .
His testimony is highly suspect.. others testified that the Captain didn't have a plan, he just said I know you were getting texts, there is a weather system, we will go east offshore - and then decide what to do. I and Bounty always made it.

That's it. "Don't worry" talk.

At this point everyone was getting texts from their friends about Sandy.

It was predicted to be 1000 mi Superstorm.
 
#1,830 ·
Its funny I am incredulous that people say the crew didnt know the hurricane was coming. They were getting texts from all their friends and loved ones and everyone on the east coast starting the previous Sunday started watching the storm Oct 24 when it ewas classified as a hurricane and started its trip north. The European model had it pegged from the beginning to come up the coast and them turn west into the land. It took a couple days but the American model agreed. I knew I might be in trouble in Maryland long before the Bounty slipped its lines and started preparing as did olthers in my area in Maryland.

What I agree is that they really didnt understand what that meant, how bad the ship was and placed trust in each other and the Captain. To say they didnt know doesnt seem plausable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capt.Mhack
#1,831 · (Edited)
Its funny I am incredulous that people say the crew didnt know the hurricane was coming. They were getting texts from all their friends and loved ones and everyone on the east coast starting the previous Sunday started watching the storm Oct 24 when it ewas classified as a hurricane and started its trip north. ...
Maybe I stated it badly. I was referring what they had said themselves and was published previously in the press. I did not meant to say that when they sailed that they had not been informed about the Hurricane. What I meant to say is that they had not been aware of its importance till some hours before and some not even after that reunion. Barksdale says "Nobody knew that it was going to have the intensity and size it ended up having" .

I remember that because at the time it really looked odd to me that they didn't know that an Hurricane is as intense as you can get. It only shows how unprepared they were as sailors and the trust they deposited on their Captain.

Edit:

I have checked out. Braksdale the "engineer" was the one that was not aware of the Hurricane before that reunion with the the Captain:

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

http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=17849018&singlePage=true#.UL3xE-RIl8F

regarding that talk reunion with the captain he says:

quote:

Walbridge had called everyone on deck to tell them about the approaching hurricane before they left Connecticut, saying he would understand if people decided to get off the ship, Barksdale said.

Everyone stayed.

'Naturally I was a little hesitant about that, but [the captain] explained the situation and it seemed like he had a pretty good strategy,' Barksdale said. 'We were going to try and get around the hurricane. Nobody knew that it was going to have the intensity and size it ended up having.'

http://www.sail-world.com/CruisingA...103934&SRCID=0&ntid=0&tickeruid=0&tickerCID=0

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,832 ·
From what I understand the Bounty should have notified the CG that they had lost generators, pumps and engines.

Are we (as pleasure boaters) required to notify CG if our engine fails on our sailboat? Should we notify if our bilge pump fails while at sea? I could see if conditions are rough (high winds and seas) where the loss could endager boat and crew it would be wise to issue a Pan Pan to CG and keep them informed, but is this required during benign conditions?
 
#1,836 ·
I heard this from Commander Mitchell yesterday.
"Because of the size of the storm, because of how large Sandy was, everybody got out of the way,"

It isn't uncommon for the Navy to send some of its ships that are in port out to sea before a storm strikes. It does so in order to reduce the risk of major damage to ships and piers during high winds and seas. But unlike the HMS Bounty, the Navy sent its high-tech warships built of steel out of Sandy's path. The wooden Bounty, which had parts of its frame rotting, sailed directly into it.
Coast Guard testifies during Bounty hearing - News-Times: News

Sins of Omission - Bounty Hearings - Day 5
Sins of Omission - Bounty Hearings - Day 5 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News
 
#1,837 ·
#1,844 · (Edited)
Perfect, now everyone can see for themselves what exactly was said!

I guess you did not understood what I have posted and said. The plan that seemed acceptable for the crew was presented by the Captain before the boat sailed away. This plan that was reported months ago by Barksdale was heard and confirmed by sources that did not belong to the Bounty's crew.

I don't think that the crew would be sailing out of of port with an Hurricane coming if the captain did not give them a pretty good idea that he knew what he was doing.

That was what Barksdale reported to the press months ago. This report and what the Captain said it was is intention to do and sailing plan was also reported independently by another credible witness, confirming what Barksdale said.

That has not to do with what he have done after while sailing. In fact he started doing what he had said he was going to do and then changed course. He did not explain to anybody why he was doing so.

Regards

Paulo
I don't think we are far apart on this. My point that hr made it seem like he had a plan in reality for some reason he just wanted to go and had no plan. Look at day 6 testimony from CM..

I have only watched a little of the CG investigation, and read most of the recaps here on SN.

Most have commented the crew was inexperienced.

I watched the testimony by the young lady (deck hand with 100 Ton license) and I was pretty impressed by her experience and how she delt calmly with the abandoning of the ship. I would not call her inexperienced. She also seems to be able to deal with mechanical issues quite well.

Did anyone see what her thoughts were on leaving port and trying to skirt Sandy?
She was better than others but couldn't answer or didn't know some basic questions.
 
#1,843 ·
I have only watched a little of the CG investigation, and read most of the recaps here on SN.

Most have commented the crew was inexperienced.

I watched the testimony by the young lady (deck hand with 100 Ton license) and I was pretty impressed by her experience and how she delt calmly with the abandoning of the ship. I would not call her inexperienced. She also seems to be able to deal with mechanical issues quite well.

Did anyone see what her thoughts were on leaving port and trying to skirt Sandy?
 
#1,847 ·
Day 7 hearing from gCaptain just released.

Here is the short quote from gCaptain. He summarized well.

==================
Svendsen and Walbridge appeared to do all of the hiring of crew for the HMS Bounty Organization. Walbridge had decades at sea. Svendsen had worked tall ships prior to Bounty. The rest of the crew- so far it seems - had an experience base of one:

The third mate, Dan Cleveland (25), came aboard from a career in landscaping. Bounty was his first wooden tall ship.

The Bosun, Laura Groves (28), had experience on smaller boats in the Keys. Bounty was her first wooden tall ship.

Joshua Scornavacchi (25), was on his first wooden tall ship.

Second mate Matt Sanders (37) had worked on a series of ships, including the schooner Margaret Todd, but Bounty was (wait for it) his first wooden tall ship.

Testifying Wednesday morning was Anna Sprague (20); of course it was her first wooden tall ship.

Claudene Christian (42) , was on her first wooden tall ship.

When the new cook, Jessica Black (34), put on her immersion suit to abandon ship on the 29th of October, she had been aboard Bounty - her first wooden tall ship - for a grand total of 45 hours.

Walbridge and Svendsen had hired a crew - including several ships officers - who wouldn't know any better. When they were told that "a ship is safer at sea," and that "all wood boats leak*," they had to believe it. They had learned everything they knew about their jobs from their captain and from each other. They were "professionally deficient" and didn't even know it.

(* - All wood boats may leak a little, but all wood boats do not require constant bilge pumping.)


Walbridge often addressed his crew as "Future captains of America." They all speak of Bounty as a great place to learn and as a school where they would learn from the master, Robin Walbridge.

They were "honored to work for him." But there has been a theme in the testimony that "getting better" on Bounty was a substitute for good enough to begin with. The organization didn't seem to care how little you knew about your job - so long as you were willing to get better, everything was just fine. The sea doesn't see it that way.

Svendsen questioned Anna Sprague, the youngest Bounty survivor:

Svendsen: "Were you trained well on Bounty?"

Sprague: "Oh yes."

She was twenty years old and on the first boat she had ever known working for the only mariners she had ever worked for. Honestly, how on earth would she know how well she was trained?
====================

I hope these young men and women have learned their lesson how foolish and naive they were, and almost paid with their life.

Like I said that before. When you are in love (with Bounty and the Captain), You don't see the obvious. You tend to shunt away all the warning signs including those given by your parents and friends who love you dearly.

I spent most of the days listening to the hearing. Although I still have many questions, I am satisfied and able to find closure in this tragedy.

If I were the Captain and knowing that I had caused the sinking the Bounty, will I be man enough to face the court from the lawsuit and hell the I would have brought into my family? It would be an easy way out if I perish with Bounty. The family will move to a new chapter with the life insurance pay out.

I would imagine that the Captain had plenty time to think about his options.

RIP.
 
#1,848 · (Edited)
...I hope these young men and women have learned their lesson how foolish and naive they were, and almost paid with their life...
I also hope they learned from this close call. But I don't blame them. You can't expect novices (including myself) to "know what they don't know." They're at the mercy of their mentors. It's the responsibility of the captain and other certified crew to guide them appropriately, and in this case they were failed by their ship's leaders. It seems like many of them were merely apprentices, but the boat was staffed in a way that expected them to perform as if they were fully qualified. The responsibility for that deficiency rests with the captain, for he is the one with experience and training to recognize the appropriate balance of experienced crew and apprentices. It was also the responsibility of the Foundation to provide him with adequate funding to hire people with the right level of qualifications, so IMO the Foundation shares blame with him. And if they lacked that funding, they should should have stayed in one place as the "dockside attraction" stated in their certification.

That being said, I am concerned about how some are using their 20-20 hindsight to point blame. Case in point: All those who point fingers because the hurricane was so "very accurately forecast" (to quote Jan Miles' letter). That's a sure sign of hindsight, since you don't know the forecast was accurate until after the fact. I'm not saying that Walbridge should have ignored the forecast. It was clearly arrogant of him to think he knew better than the forecasters with his apparent belief (based on the track that he steered) that the hurricane would continue out to sea on a northwest path.

I am appalled at Jan Miles' self-serving letter. Aside from feeding our never-ending curiosity and letting off some of his own inner rage, what good comes from an open letter to a dead man?

What I want to know is where were all these experts as Bounty was preparing to head out to sea? A place like New London must have had dozens of knowledgeable captains and crew roaming the docks to prepare their craft for the approaching hurricane. They should have been telling Walbridge that he's out of his mind to go out. They should have been doing everything they could to convince Bounty's novice crew to mutiny. A ship that large can't just sneak out of the harbor unseen. They should have hopped into dinghys and followed Bounty though the harbor, yelling through megaphones what a big mistake they were making.

Tall ship captains are a small community that apparently "talks" (voice, text, and digital) among themselves a lot. If any one of them heard about Walbridge's plan ahead of time and didn't forcefully try to convince him otherwise, then they have blood on their hands too.

What also bugs me is the apparent disconnect between Walbridge's arrogance that we hear about now, vs. the reports that he had a "great reputation" before this accident. Which is it? If this tragedy was foretold by his prior history of chasing hurricanes and getting away with it (including a prior USCG rescue when his bilge pumps failed previously), why weren't his "friends" in the tall ship community expressing their concerns to him about his reckless past history? If everyone knew the new planks were nailed onto a rotted frame, why weren't his "friends" ratting out this dangerous vessel? If the tall ship community knew that this "shoreside attraction" was skirting the rules by disguising unqualified passengers as qualified crew, why weren't they protecting their colleagues by reporting them to the authorities?

It seems now like everyone in that community is piling on with their hindsight about how reckless the captain was. Too bad they didn't do a little more piling on before two people lost their lives.
 
#1,850 ·
It's a sensitive topic, so I don't want to debate my views on the Captain with this reply. They are well documented above.

I do understand the TS community's reaction after the fact. Before, it was not their responsibility. Although, it sure may have saved lives if they had taken it on. Now, however, I'm sure they feel they will be held accountable for these reckless actions they would have never undertaken themselves. I think that is exactly what will happen. I understand their indignation.

What also bugs me is the apparent disconnect between Walbridge's arrogance that we hear about now, vs. the reports that he had a "great reputation" before this accident. Which is it?
These don't seem mutually exclusive at all. The culture he presided over seemed to be very nurturing, but he also seemed to exaggerate his own abilities, which is the definition of arrogant.
 
#1,859 ·
Interesting stuff at GCaptain by Mario Vittone

"At the start of each day of the hearings, Commander Kevin Carroll does the same thing: he reads a statement. He tells all in attendance, "The purpose of the investigation is to determine the cause of the casualty and the responsibility therefore to the fullest extent possible; and to obtain information for the purpose of preventing or reducing the effects of similar casualties in the future." A worthy purpose, to be sure. ... But then he says something that some may have missed:

"This investigation is also intended to determine whether there is any evidence of any incompetence, misconduct, or willful violation of the law on the part of any licensed officer, pilot, seaman, employee, owner, or agent of the owner of any vessel involved…"

The hearings are also intended to look for evidence of negligence or incompetence.

"Evidence of any incompetence" of a licensed captain would not come by asking questions of the crew that worked beneath him. They had never been in his position, they didn't know what he knew or what he should have known. They simply believed and admired the man and trusted his decisions. To determine whether or not the trip itself was evidence of incompetence or negligence, Carroll had to find similarly credentialed and experienced captains to testify. He needed to ask them to put themselves in Walbridge's place, and say what they would have done. He needed to speak with the best....

On the phone was Captain Daniel Moreland, arguably the most respected captain in the traditional sailing ship community. Moreland was calling in to testify from Tahiti. His ship, the Picton Castle, is on a six month voyage in the South Pacific. Moreland has taken the barque around the world five times since he's been captain. His personal sailing experience started in the 1970′s. He is without question one of the most competent sailing ship masters in the world. When Carroll asked what his thoughts were when he found out Bounty was at sea from New London, Moreland's response was no surprise:

Moreland: "I couldn't believe it. I still don't."

At the time Sandy was tracking up the Atlantic, the Picton Castle was scheduled to leave home port for the world cruise she was now on. Moreland had cancelled because of the storm days before Bounty had left New London. He went on to discuss the much safer options available to Walbridge if he thought New London was unsafe due to storm surge. "New Bedford - up above the bridge," Moreland offered. New Bedford, 100 miles to the north of New London, has a "hurricane barrier" specifically designed as a hiding place for ships that need to avoid storm surge.

When asked by Carroll if he believed that a ship is "safer at sea," Moreland discussed the difference between a Navy vessel that had the ability to move at 22 knots and be 400 miles from the storm, and a slow-moving historic sailing vessel. "…and the Navy is paid to take that risk so that they can respond if needed for war…but between the ship and crew, you always have to go with what is safer for the crew."

Moreland made it clear to investigators that he would not have made the same choice as Walbridge if put in that situation. In fact, he was in the same situation and hadn't. The primary difference between Walbridge's choice to leave and Moreland's to stay, was that Picton Castle was larger, made of steel, rigorously inspected, and prepared for a global voyage. If Moreland wasn't thinking about leaving port in late October - what was Walbridge thinking? Only the HMS Bounty Organization's attorney had the nerve to ask:

Moreland: "I can't imagine what he was thinking."

There were no further questions from the Bounty Organization.

Ralph Mellusi, the attorney for the estate of Claudene Christian, wanted more specific testimony:

Mellusi: "What if the bilge system of your ship wasn't in perfect working order and in fact your crew had told you they were concerned that it wasn't working properly; would you have taken the ship to sea in those conditions?"

Moreland: "That would be unconscionable on a good day."

Investigators interviewed two more captains of tall ships, including the captain of the Pride of Baltimore II , Jan Miles. Captain Miles, also a well-respected captain and a friend of Robin Walbridge, was so dismayed by his decision to sail into Sandy's path that he wrote an open letter to Walbridge calling his decision to sail "reckless in the extreme." He too told Carroll he wouldn't have sailed, and that a ship wasn't safer at sea, adding "I don't know what would have caused her [Bounty] to go." His responses to Mellusi's questions were chilling. Mellusi simply read the most damning passages from Miles' letter and asked the wooden tall ship captain, "Do you still stand by that statement." Without hesitation, Captain Miles answered with only one firm word, "Yes."

The masters had given no quarter to the deceased Walbridge. Leaving New London on October 25th and sailing toward hurricane Sandy was - in itself - negligent. No competent sailing captain would have done it.

But Robin Walbridge had competently sailed Bounty for seventeen years. Why, indeed, would he do something that no other captain would have done? The investigation continues; Commander Carroll has a massive job still ahead of him.

But perhaps Robin Walbridge was suffering from the same thing his crew was - a lack of the right kind of experience. He had faced down storms before and won, he had tangled with hurricanes and made it home, his experience was that if he headed into harm's way, he would get away with it.

He had clearly confused the lack of failure with success, and may have begun to truly believe his own advice. Maybe it was something else, I don't know. Robin Walbridge, the last captain of Bounty, isn't here to ask".



Well, nothing that it was not said in this thread long ago, but interesting stuff even so.

....
 
#1,872 ·
While some input from the TS community was in poor taste, I do not assign responsibility to them. I'm not even sure they falsely advertised Bounty, as it was inspected, just not to commercial standards for carrying paying passengers.

Wasn't the Coast Guard actually aboard Bounty many times for inspections? There is a link above to dozens of them. They may have been limited in nature, but obviously the hulk passed the rules as they were (and are unlikely to remain). Who was the TSC going to tip off? I'm also not buying that peer pressure would have made a bit of difference either. This was an independently owned vessel, registered as a private yacht. It had to be pretty clear to the professional community that this operation was always trying to skirt the rules and there seemed to be no official violation after years of USCG involvement. It may have been a perfectly safe dockside attraction or fair weather Bay cruiser, how could they know that level of detail. This was simply a dereliction of duty to take this hulk on a passage beyond its capability and the TS community, along with everyone else, was unaware of that decision until it was too late.

I'm not defending the poor taste of the open letter, but none of this disaster should be at the TSC doorstep either. What I find most interesting is that I'm not aware that all the actions of the TS community are even in evidence, or ever will be, and those most insistent on official investigation evidence have been willing to overlook that requirement in this case. Do we know that no member of the TSC ever confronted the skipper or the owner?
 
#1,873 ·
Not assigning blame to the TR community for the captain leaving at all.

Just pointing out that they sanctimoniously condemened the ship while they looked the other way at other times. They are the ones themselves who kdsy they new the crew were virtual amateurs. the ship was not maintained well and would not let friends sail; on that ship. And they didnt even tell their "friend" he might me making a mistake when under way.

I am quite sure if they had confronted the skipper or owner they would be trumpeting that all over given their nature for the overly dramatic.

Maybe they do need more regulations.
 
#1,876 · (Edited)
Unfortunately, whenever a bad event happens, or even things not necessarily bad happen but different from what was expected, the response is always new laws and regulations. There were some fatal automobile accidents over the week end, therefore, with the same reasoning, we need new laws, maybe a 1 year detailed course in driving before people are allowed on the road. A couple of wackos (out of 300,000,000+) kill a bunch of people, and we rush to band/regulate extensively the type of gun they used, never mind that more people were killed annually by hammers than this type of weapon. Last week, a doctor and his staff were killed when their private business jet crashed, so let's make rules that forbid medical personnel from flying....it's too risky and we can't afford to lose their skills, especially with Obamacare coming. Soon, we'll have enough laws that everyone becomes a criminal, even if they have no intent. Nobody knows, or can comply with, all the regulations that already exist.

As for other TS captains interferring with the Bounty's captain, would Chef and others like their neighbors and contemporaries interferring in how they live their lives? How about a neighbor reporting you to the IRS, or Child Services, or to police when they think you may have been drinking excessively simply because you had a party, to which they were not present, that went on for hours? Not because the neighbor knew of some infraction, he just thought there might be, or things were being done different from how he would do them. I've read where people had these exact things happen already. Now, we are going to report boats that we think are unsafe, or report captains that we think are making the wrong call?

In the grand scheme of things, not many people get killed on tall ships. New laws and regulations each time two people die in an accident that really was a result of a single person in charge making a bad decision?
 
#1,886 ·
What the heck does this have to do with Obamacare...you need to interject your own personal political agenda into this.

How about a neighbor reporting you to the IRS, or Child Services, or to police when they think you may have been drinking excessively simply because you had a party, to which they were not present, that went on for hours? Not because the neighbor knew of some infraction, he just thought there might be, or things were being done different from how he would do them
.

So if you saw someone drinking excessively at a party and you knew they got into a car and they were driving you would do nothing right? Please answer this.

I never said they had an obligation to say anything to the Captain, no had to.

It wasnt me, It was Jan Miles who wrote the Dear Robin letter in poor taste a month after he went to his death. If he needed a catharsis why didnt he write it and just send it to his wife. Why did he publish it on Facebook where all the world can see. What was that purpose? What did he stand to gain from that? If I screwed up caused someone to die would I expect any friend of mine to publically do what he did? Why did he do it that way?

What I am saying here is that their protestations lack sincerity when it came down to it as they stood idly by all along. And some of the statements showed 20/20 hinsight as Take Five said as they were not beforehand yet they had knowledge of the Bounty comnditions forehand. Maine sail aptly pointed out he could see this at the dock and that the boat should never have really ever left the dock let alone go into a hurricane.

By thier own admissions they knew the boat was suspect maintainence wise and their crew was incredibly ameteurish in experience. They were all part of the same TSC which supoosedly by their website inspected their ships carefully before promoting them in their voyages ( did you read what they said in their website). So had can they now say they now the Bounty was always in bad repair and had ameteurs when they said the opposite in their literature.

So i ask the same question again that I asked Paulo to you.

You have kept you boat in marina/ city for 8 years. You race every Wednesday night, go out and eat with the Salboat captains and get to know them fairly well. You go to marinia, club meetings regularly together and get to see each other quite a bit over the 8 years. Your crews intermingle and know each other too. You spend a lot of time together and one or two become even closer friends who you socialize with a lot. He owns the oldest boat in ther marina, has a rookie crew every year, fixes things with bailing wire and rope because he doesnt have the money to keep his boat up like you do. Everytimne you race he breaks down or breaks something, but he patches it up and makes every race. You have his e mail address and cell phone.

You know he is planning a trip from NC where you are to Maine. In your mind you are suspect he will not break down along the way even in the best of weather as that has been his MO, and you arent sure when hes leaving. A huge storm developes over 1000 miles away in middle of the Atlantic and looks but looks like it might travel to either the coastal US or the Gulf and could brush your marina, so you decide to make sure you boat is tied up well,

While doing this you find out he has left for Maine the night before. You are afraid for his life , his crew, and his ship surviving this storm

Will you do anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capt.Mhack
#1,877 ·
^ Fantastic post. I agree completely.

What happened on the Bounty didn't happen because they weren't regulated. It happened because nobody in the Bounty organization was willing to use basic logic because they didn't like the logical conclusion they would have come to: The ship was not seaworthy.

The ship could not afford repairs- Bounty's decision: Don't do them!

The ship was not in good material condition to sail- Bounty's decision: Go anyway!

There is a super storm heading our way- Bounty's decision: Let's go for it!

The chief engineer is totally unqualified- Bounty's decision: He works cheap. You're hired!

The ship inevitably gets in trouble in a hurricane- Bounty's decision: Don't call anyone! We can make it!


You simply cannot regulate madness out of existance. Regulations (laws) do not prevent mishaps. They allow for punishment after the fact.

Will more regulation come? That's up to someone besides me. We will see in time. But what regulation would have prevented the sheer stupidity that led to the Bounty tragedy? They ignored basic logic in every instance and the outcome was inevitable. The Bounty was going to sink, sooner or later.
 
#1,878 ·
..
What happened on the Bounty didn't happen because they weren't regulated. It happened because nobody in the Bounty organization was willing to use basic logic because they didn't like the logical conclusion they would have come to: The ship was not seaworthy. ...

...
I don't get your logic. If the lack of proper laws did not allow a ship to be considered as a yacht and that way escape proper mandatory inspections, that boat would be limited to be a dock attraction and that accident would never happen.

Regulations exist for not letting to the discrimination of individuals what is safe or not. Obviously the Bounty organization considered the boat seaworthy to sail near an hurricane, otherwise they would not set sail.

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,882 ·
Actually NCC320, I agree with you for the most part about over regulations. Throughout my professional life I've been involved with regulation and safety in the nuclear industry and for the most part it was very much needed. And even in the auto industry there were many improvement in safety at the bequest of Nader in the 60's. Even here recently the battery problems with the Boeing airliner was a good thing to ground that plane until a fix is found. Actually identifying the problem and fixing it is harder than it appears due to many factors. Some of which are political in nature, financial, egos and bureacrats. The louder voice gets heard over the more reasoned technical one. A couple of years ago we had our dock on the Cheaspeake replaced and after undergoing much red tape and having to make a modification to the stairway from the dock down to the small beach area, we were finally in compliance. However a couple of months later a storm wiped out that entire staircase and my neighbor and I had to retreive it and this time we repaired it ourselves by through bolting it to the pilings which should have been done from day one. My point being that the regulations did not cover the more important aspect of keeping that staircase intact, but rather looked at the cosmetics.

It is difficult getting a truely objective look at accidents and their causes, but it can be done. I was taken aback when the yard manager testified that the Captain told him that the Bounty was leaking water at the rate of 30000 gallons/hr. He couldn't believe it, but when he brought the Bounty out of the water back in 2006, he believed him. I still think that must be a wrong quote and maybe I heard it wrong.(Decimal in the wrong place?) However, no additional testimony that I'm aware of was received of how the repairs made back then actually lessened the water intake and by how much!!!

Yes we are over regulated and that makes us feel good, but safety should be the goal over a feel good approach.
 
#1,893 ·
I think we may discover upon closer inspection that Bounty ran afoul of countless laws and regulations already. Which additional regulation would have prevented the Captain from sailing a rotten dockside attraction into a hurricane?

Perhaps we should wait for the results of the hearing to determine what else may be necessary? I believe there are many people involved for whom that is their goal at present. Of course, those people may at any time request the results from the SailNet Board Of Inquiry, but probably not.
 
#1,896 · (Edited)
I think we may discover upon closer inspection that Bounty ran afoul of countless laws and regulations already. Which additional regulation would have prevented the Captain from sailing a rotten dockside attraction into a hurricane?

...
Of course, yes. If the boat had not a possibility to be considered as a yacht (according to the existent law) the Ship would not pass more serious inspections by the CG and and would be grounded or limited to be docked to the same quay as a dock attraction.

Evidently that if the boat had not a licence to sail, the Captain would not be able to sail a dockside attraction into a hurricane:).

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,897 ·
How many ships carry the designation of Tall Ship in the United States? We can leave the rest of the world out of it for now, as the USCG would have no jurisidiction. How many of those skippers/owners have weighed in at all on the Bounty?

I have a feeling that some are damning the entire TSC for the actions of about three, really one. Not fair. Further, it is in testimony that the crew had 30 minutes notice to depart. Who in the TCS was supposed to make the call to Bounty to talk them out of it? No one knew.

The updated rules are not as likely to change those that apply to the professional Tall Ships now. They are more likely to close the loophole that allowed Bounty to do the Private Yacht, fake paid crew nonsense.
 
#1,899 ·
Right the crew woke up out of a fourth year slumber like Rip van Winkle knew nothing about the hurricane forming and were suddenly forced to make a decision. Even the e mail from Christianson shows she was thinking about it.

The TSC seemed to know and feel the Bounty was less than. Less than in terms of maintainence, training and experience. Testimony by the thread where when posted a member If one of the other tall hips say they would NEVER recommend they sail as part of the crew of te Bounty. No one is to blame inevitably but the Captain. But when the two TS Captains start sitting in judgement and one writes a public open letter on Facebook one moth later slamming the dead captain, one has to wonder why thy didn't try and slow down the Bounty ever leaving the dock again. He is the one I have the biggest lack of respect for, Jan Miles. I do hope I get to see him in person this year in Baltimore. I don't at all feel sorry for any closer inspections of the TS from this point forward, or if they an find a way from preventing a dockside attraction from escaping and ducking the rules.
 
#1,901 ·
Sorry guys, I am still trying to figure out how it is acceptable for Tall Ships America to be OPENLY RECRUITING "students and groups of all ages" for the following:

Program Type...
For Paying Trainees: Overnight Passages,
For Paying Trainees: Day Sails,
Passenger Trade: Overnight Passages,
Passenger Trade: Day Sails

It sure seems to me like they may have been openly assisting the Bounty Foundation in operating in violation of their dockside attraction limitations:

The ship carries 18 full-time paid crewmembers working side by side with our sail trainees and passengers. When docked in port, the Bounty is open for dockside tours, private functions and educational programs. She offers day sails for individuals and groups, sail passages, and corporate sail training and is available for private functions, film production, commercials and documentaries. Strongly dedicated to the educational development of today's youth, Bounty works closely with universities and other non-profit organizations to provide leadership learning and youth education-at-sea programs.
 
#1,903 ·
Seems pretty slippery to me and these rules should be changed. What I'm trying to understand is whether they were clearly in violation of the rules at the time. Loophole? Gray area? If so, these need to change.

The USCG had been aboard dozens of time for documented, albeit limited, inspections. They had to be fully aware of what was going on. I'm not trying to throw them under the bus, but it seems more like a loophole was being used or the USCG would have had a problem before the TSC.
 
#1,908 · (Edited)
If you think about it, the real problem with Bounty was

1. It leaked a lot of water (much more than normal even for a large wooded ship). and

2. The ship did not have adequate pump systems to deal with the water, and the pump systems they had were not maintained.

If the above two problems did not exist, I am 99% sure the ship and all crew would be with us today- no matter what there experience or inexperience or mistakes the Captain made. There are many ships that sail and survive storms equal to what Bounty hit and they are sailing with crews even less experienced than Bounty had. You must have the right tool for the job or no matter how good you are you will fail.

Now if I remember, the CG had assisted Bounty many years prior duing a storm off Florida (tried to pull the story from internet but could not find). The CG assisted by giving Bounty gas powered dewatering pumps.

Also, it was well know the Bounty was always leaking somthing like 30,000 gallons of water a day. 30,000 gallons of water is enough to fill a residental swimming pool- better have some serious pumps ( and back up upon back ups) to deal with that. So now you have a ship that will sink if any of your dewatering pumps fail- something is wrong with this picture. The floatation of your boat should not be dependent solely on a mechanical/electrical system.
 
#1,909 · (Edited)
If you think about it, the real problem with Bounty was

1. It leaked a lot of water (much more than normal even for a large wooded ship). and

2. The ship did not have adequate pump systems to deal with the water, and the pump systems they had were not maintained.

If the above two problems did not exist, I am 99% sure the ship and all crew would be with us today- no matter what there experience or inexperience or mistakes the Captain made. There are many ships that sail and survive storms equal to what Bounty hit and they are sailing with crews even less experienced than Bounty had. You must have the right tool for the job or no matter how good you are you will fail.

Now if I remember, the CG had assisted Bounty many years prior duing a storm off Florida (tried to pull the story from internet but could not find). The CG assisted by giving Bounty gas powered dewatering pumps.

Also, it was well know the Bounty was always leaking somthing like 30,000 gallons of water a day. 30,000 gallons of water is enough to fill a residental swimming poor- better have some serious pumps ( and back up upon back ups) to deal with that. So now you have a ship that will sink if any of your dewatering pumps fail- something is wrong with this picture. The floatation of your boat should not be dependent solely on a mechanical/electrical system.
Good point

Imagine running your boat this way.
 
#1,913 ·
I am not saying the captain was correct in his actions to sail the ship into hurricane sandy.

What I am saying is the ship was a disaster waiting to happen for many many years. It seemed many people and organizations seemed to be in love with the Bounty and as we know, love is blind.
 
#1,915 ·
That's really stretching it.

People drowned because the ship sank. The ship sank because the hull leaked. It was a significant cause and/or contributing factor. To say otherwise is to deny reality.

As I suggested four months ago, with the condition that boat was in, a similar result might have happened in an ordinary Noreaster. Sandy was huge, but not particularly violent as hurricanes go.

It will be interesting to see what the USCG says about this in their final report. I think we all can agree that they have not attempted to sweep anything under the rug, as was speculated several months ago.
 
#1,923 ·
I don't think the analogy was a stretch at all. The problem was how the boat was used. The fact that it left the dock for any passage should have been questionable, but it didn't leave on its own and the knife didn't stab anyone on its own.

Yes, the fact that it leaked was a contributing factor for sure. Just like the fact that the knife was sharp or maybe left on the counter. Neither would have done any harm if left where they were.

The boat was in disrepair..... This was well known by her decision makers.

The TSC knew the operation was sketchy.... They are not responsible, IMO, any more than anyone is for their neighbor's actions. One open letter in poor taste, doesn't convict the entire TSC.

I'm very interested to hear more about the owner. There could be another culpable party there. Seems we know little about them and what they knew or were doing at this point, which I find odd.
 
#1,924 ·
I don't think the analogy was a stretch at all. The problem was how the boat was used. The fact that it left the dock for any passage should have been questionable, but it didn't leave on its own and the knife didn't stab anyone on its own.

Yes, the fact that it leaked was a contributing factor for sure. Just like the fact that the knife was sharp or maybe left on the counter. Neither would have done any harm if left where they were.

The boat was in disrepair..... This was well known by her decision makers.

The TSC knew the operation was sketchy.... They are not responsible, IMO, any more than anyone is for their neighbor's actions. One open letter in poor taste, doesn't convict the entire TSC.

I'm very interested to hear more about the owner. There could be another culpable party there. Seems we know little about them and what they knew or were doing at this point, which I find odd.
I have said for a while the owner is hiding and there may have been major pressure from there. Every one has absolved the crew first mate because they felt "pressure" from the Captain. Most here said Svenson could speak out against the captain for fear of never sailing again. Wonder how that will play if it comes out Walbridge was told that by Hansen if he didn't meet the deadline for funding from the group in St Petersburg. Right Now he as plead the fifth as opposed to saying he was never in contact with Walbridge. Who is the only other person who could accuse the owner of ordering Walbridge to leave? Probably the dead Captain. Would Walbridge receive a pass like Svenson has if tat was ever found out ( probably never will) . It sure would be the only other explanation for why Walbridge left incredulously in face of all weather and maintainence issues.

No one blames the TSC for the sinking. However they may have contributed to the continued facade the ship was safe by their Own promotional literature where they said it was inspected by them and tey had a great safety program.

And again I call into question the Boothbay Shipyard. Conflicting testimony as Casey points out. Conflict testimony on weather Bounty was even able to head to sea at all. Incredible destruction in work done by them only 6 years before which should ever have been that bad. At the same times major lawsuit lost by the Boothbay Shipyard for the tall ship Shenendoah for similar work same time period . Something is wrong here. No records says one, boxes of records was another. Pictures taken to cover one employees ass never shown to his boss, only the CG when Bounty sunk. Employee looked like he didn't want to be blamed should something happen to Bounty when he said he warned they shouldn't leave the dock and his boss and company said she was ok til next years refit and maintainence and took the 3 million dollar refit check. Further investigation a the dock may have turned up issues similar to Shenendoah had it stayed around . Very very suspicious.

Yes it wasn't the knife that killed but maybe a few people had their hand on the knife other than the only one who can't speak....the dead captain. This doesn't exonerate him. He should never have left. However in the knife analogy , there may be coconspirators and enablers.

Stay tuned. Lawsuits will be filed. Can't claim the fifth there. Shipyard records will all come out as it becomes every man for himself, except Robin Walbridge he is dead. Maybe Claudia will file suit against Boothbay and Bounty LLC and Hansen.
 
#1,919 ·
I can only report to ancient wooden boats. I would say that even in a storm only an old boat required constant pumping and at that time they had only hand pumps with a much smaller output. when the pups have to be continuously running the boat needed urgent repair and they went for it on a beach on the first opportunity. They carried tools, materials, carpenters and hand help to do the job.

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,922 ·
From:
Decision to sail in storm in question | The Chronicle Herald

Decision to sail in storm in questionFebruary 14, 2013 - 2:30pm By BEVERLEY WARE South Shore Bureau UPDATED 9:15 p.m. Thursday

PORTSMOUTH, Va. - The manager of the Maine shipyard that worked on the Bounty just weeks before it sank last October said he never would have set sail in it with a hurricane on the way.

"I wouldn't intentionally take a vessel into a storm if I could avoid it," Joe Jackomovicz, who is now retired, said in an interview Thursday afternoon.

"It's one thing if you're out at sea and get caught. It's another thing when you're in a perfectly safe harbour. I couldn't imagine that.

"If that boat had sailed in reasonable seas, if I could use that word, the boat would be in St. Petersburg (Fla.) now."

Jackomovicz, who was manager of the Boothbay Harbor Shipyard, testified Thursday at the U.S. Coast Guard hearing into the sinking of the tall ship off Cape Hatteras, N.C., last Oct. 29.

He said the Bounty underwent about $3 million worth of work at the Maine shipyard since 2001, and though it was in good shape when it left Boothbay after a month-long refit last fall, it was still, in essence, a 50-year-old boat.

"If you still have a lot of the original structure in there, you still have an old boat."

For example, the keel was hogging, or sagging, about 20 centimetres but he said that did not pose a safety risk.

Jackomovicz told the hearing he first worked on the ship in 2001 and was "flabbergasted" then by how much water the vessel was taking on.
"That boat was leaking water like a sieve," he said in the separate interview.
When the ship's new owner, Robert Hansen of New York, saw it, "his mouth just dropped," Jackomovicz said.

Jackomovicz testified at the hearing that Capt. Robin Walbridge had told him the Bounty was taking on 114,000 litres of water an hour.
"I thought he must be nuts or something," but Jackomovicz said it proved to be the case.
When the shipyard hauled the Bounty out of the harbour, "the amount of water coming out of the boat was unbelievable. The bottom was totally wormy" from spending a couple of winters in Florida.

But he said Hansen agreed to spend the money to do the work that needed to be done, and the shipyard replaced all of the planking below the waterline with white oak. Jackomovicz said the framing was in good shape, so at least 90 per cent of it was left untouched.

The next refit began in May 2006 and lasted about a year. The yard added 25 to 30 tonnes of lead in the keel for ballast and replaced the hull planking above the waterline with Douglas fir.

Jackomovicz said he presented Hansen with two options for different grades of fir and the owner selected the wood that was $30,000 cheaper.

"There were no defects in the wood we used," Jackomovicz said.

When the Bounty came in again for work last September, Jackomovicz said he was shocked by the state of the wood above the waterline they had replaced just five years earlier.
He said one of his employees told him: "We found something that surprised the dickens out of us. That wood's decaying."
Walbridge was also surprised, he said.

"He was concerned about the decay, as I was. That's something you never expected."
While the shipyard's project manager has told the hearing he was so worried about the rotting wood that he warned Walbridge to avoid bad weather, Jackomovicz said the wood wasn't that bad and it was OK to leave further work on it until the next scheduled work period in a year.

"I'm basing my judgment on 40 years' experience, he's basing his judgment on probably five or six years' experience," Jackomovicz said of the project manager.

Jackomovicz said in the interview with The Chronicle Herald that the "decay up there (above the waterline) had no relation to the water coming in the boat."

He said it was getting into the Bounty from below, and he suspects it was through the seams.

He told the hearing that the Bounty has "a lot of structural strength. ... The vessel was built so massive that it could take quite a bit of decay, degradation of the structure," before it posed a problem.

Using the more expensive wood for planking wouldn't have made a difference, he said.

Jackomovicz said he spoke with Walbridge about two days before the Bounty left the shipyard last October and asked him how he thought the vessel was doing.
"He said great, it's tight, the vessel's tight," Jackomovicz said, but he took that with "a grain of salt."
"In my mind it was probably still leaking, but in (Walbridge's) experience with how the vessel was leaking in the past, a little bit of leaking in the boat was nothing to him."Jackomovicz said when he looked at photographs of the sinking Bounty, he was shocked it was still in one piece, which speaks to its structural integrity.

"I thought, my God, that boat's still floating and intact. That was surprising to me," he said in the interview.

"That tells me the fasteners were holding the boat together."

He conceded, though, that the fasteners in the bottom of the ship could have given way, which could account for why there was so much water in the hull.

Jackomovicz said the galvanized fasteners were 50 years old and at that age can develop a halo of rust around the core, weakening them.

The hearing continues Friday.
 
#1,933 · (Edited)
.

....Jackomovicz said he spoke with Walbridge about two days before the Bounty left the shipyard last October and asked him how he thought the vessel was doing.[/B]
"He said great, it's tight, the vessel's tight," Jackomovicz said, but he took that with "a grain of salt."
"In my mind it was probably still leaking, but in (Walbridge's) experience with how the vessel was leaking in the past, a little bit of leaking in the boat was nothing to him."...


So, it seams to me that the boat leaked a bit....probably... Jackomovicz is not sure and you say the boat leaked 21 gallons per minute? Where do you have got that information?

Regards

Paulo
 
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