Heavy Weather Sailing

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Omatako

You know what Smack, I'm not criticising anyone and I'm not about to launch into a huge debate about this but there is nothing in those videos to suggest to me that those waves were anywhere near 90 ft.

Just watch it again if you will and notice a few things. First notice that there are no waves that look like they're twice the size of the boat. Notice also that the helo is jinking up and down by considerable margins. Helo goes up, trough comes past at the same time, 5% inaccuracy in the altimeter at that altitude, 90ft is easy to achieve. Also notice that at no time in the video does the helo get anywhere near as close as 10 feet off the wavetops. And know also that it is really difficult to judge wave heights from the air with no relativity to guage them by,

At the end of it all, believe what you will. I just know that I can't concieve of a wind speed that will result in 90 ft waves after having been in 24 hours of 70-80 knots and having only maybe 30, max 35 ft.

What I'm perhaps suggesting is that if one wants to believe that huge seas are out there at every turn and ready to kill us all then that's OK by me. I just don't think it's true, is all.

Well, I'll agree with you on the footage that's in the piece. They look like 40' maybe. But you also have to remember that footage may or may not be of that actual rescue at that particular moment. Who knows**.

Irrespective of that, the pilot (as do all the other SAR personnel) said it's the worst thing they'd ever seen - after seeing a lot of bad stuff for a long time I'll presume. And the helo pilot DOES say 90'. And he was there.

We do know that waves of this size are out there. And we've all heard the evidence that you can expect a wave potentially 3 times the average height every X number in the wave train.

In the end, I'll defer to your experience Oma. You've been in stuff that will make me cry and fetal-up the first time I see it. All I'm saying is that there is seemingly credible evidence out there that is contrary to your statement on this one.

**EDIT - After watching the video again, it appears there's no actual footage of David's rescue. All that is re-enactment. So another reason the be careful about using the footage to judge.

[jerryrlitton]

Having done a few over water rescues in my career I do have to say that with the lack of visual cues we normally use to tell height, drift etc. Over water is extremely difficult on a good day, with or without auto hover. Also I do not like to Monday morning quarterback since I was not there. There are two basic types of altimeters. The barometric and the radar. The baro is not used with this scenario. The radar is what is referenced during this operation. It is easy with a small control movement to make the helicopter rise and fall 100', on purpose or otherwise. All made it home safe so a job well done, regardless of the "90' waves" or not.

Jerry

[smackdaddy]

Hey - this made me wonder about something else... You helo pilots (or other pilots) help us out here.

Was this guy measuring altitude from sea level? In other words - is his "0" fixed? Or does the radar altimeter continually measure the variation in the water?

Wow - Jerry, you're fast!

So, in the end - are you guys trying to tell me that I can't look to television for absolute truth? What the hell????

[jerryrlitton]

The baro is normally set to a local altimeter setting and once that is done it will read height above mean sea level. Normally this is used for enroute operations, approaches etc. The radar altimeter will give you absolute height above and object such as waves, ships structure, anything directly below the antenna of the radio/radar altimeter. it is very difficult to follow the waves, target boat accurately in respect to height so you will see the altimeter fluctuate. Check out the Kostner movie "Guardians". It is a very accurate movie. Check out the scene where a wave takes out the helo.

[smackdaddy]

Are you seriously going to make me watch a Costner movie? That's just cruel, dude. But, hey, I'll take my lumps if it will make me a better sailor.

[Valiente]

My late father was in the Atlantic convoys during WWII and stayed with the British Merchant Marine until '52. He didn't worry about wave height, as bad weather deterred the U-boats. He did worry about the length between wave crests, because a lot of the rapidly built freighters of the time would "hog" if suspended between them: they would essentially break their backs, tear in half and go straight to the bottom. All in a day's work.

He said the Murmansk run was the worst, because the whole crew had to chip off tons of frozen spray off the decks and upper works, or the ship would capsize just from weight aloft. He said the worst gales were on the way to and from Antarctica, but once there, it was generally just very "swelly" and only occasionally would gales interrupt the whaling.

He disliked the whaling.

[St Anna]

Johnasteen,
Why do you decide to run?

I decided early on, based on others experiences that I was going to heave to or lie a hull in order to let the bad stuff pass over. However in my ' worst' experience, I had sea room and the swell was on the quarter, not dead astern. The difference in apparent wind as we ran downwind at an average of better than 10kn meant the force of the wind was effectively halved.

Therefore, I didnt follow my 'game plan'. Our self confidence and in the boat rose to new levels and now I am comfortable in fairly strong breezes. Its the seas that do the damage - but saying that, yachts are incredibly tough.

I have fought off a lee shore and all discussions of boat design aside, I feel that a yacht needs to be able to sail to windward as well as safely downwind. You need to effectively complete a passage as fast as you safely can in order to minimise the chances of being caught out. So without pushing the rig, I work the boat to move fast. I know others dont follow this view.

If someone says to me that they have never been caught in bad weather, dragged an anchor or run aground, [touched the bottom], they probably havent been out of their comfort zone. If you, as skipper are scared, you can never show it.

Anyway guys - all the best. Keep Smacker on the straight and narrow- give him a whipping if he needs it [ I mean a small piece of waxed twine - no I dont!!]

thanks for your advice and support. I am off for a bit more of the learning curve.
David

[smackdaddy]

Don't be gone long St. And fair winds dude! Come back with a BFS!

Ouch! What the hell was that...twine? Freak!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by CrazyRu

And, I guess, any potential buyer needs to read this:

Report of the
Marine Accident Investigation Branch
Investigation into the capsize of the Yacht
OCEAN MADAM
with the loss of one life
in the Bay of Biscay
8 October 1997

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...an%20Madam.pdf

This is really one of the most interesting HWS reports I've come across in a while. It brings up a lot of subtle-but-critical issues that end up being fatal in this case, even under the hand of a Master Yachtsman with tons of experience.

One of the most critical mistakes was that the skipper wasn't aware of the boat's angle of vanishing stability (around 109 degrees). He assumed the boat would right itself if capsized (as most of us typically would), and made decisions and prepped his crew accordingly.

He also stayed "coastal" during the storm, coming onto the continental shelf under the Bay of Biscay - instead of turning out to sea. This also proved to be a critical mistake - but one that is exactly what I would have thought to do; that is seek the "shelter" of the coast.

It's all really counter-intuitive, especially in light of all the discussions we have about coastal versus blue water sailing...and the assumptions one typically makes about boats.

[zeehag]

strong breezes are ok and water acts kinder in deep areas than in shallow---curls on ye in shallow water and waves become steep---not fun.....hits boat harder .....i prefer deeper water....