HMS Bounty in trouble... - Page 173 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > Out There > Vessels Lost, Missing, or in Danger
 Not a Member? 


Like Tree718Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1721  
Old 02-19-2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Narragansett Bay
Posts: 8,967
Thanks: 10
Thanked 135 Times in 121 Posts
Rep Power: 6
Minnewaska will become famous soon enough Minnewaska will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maine Sail View Post
That's the whole thing this entire debacle was doomed from the very beginning. The more the testimony goes on the more horrified I am. I though I was horrified by what I saw on the rails a BHS, but it pales in comparison to the rest of what Ive seen in these hearings.......


MY OPINION HERE:

*Unqualified/inexperienced crew
*Rotted & completely unsafe vessel
*Gross & egregious levels of cost cutting (DAP 33 etc)
*Skirting/avoidance of the "rules"
*Lack of proper maintenance
*Lack of proper funding
*Lack of a ships engineer who knew enough about the systems on-board
*Lack of experienced crew who knew how to use critical safety equipment/systems (pumps)
*A captain with too much faith/love/ignorance for his ship to see the forest for the trees.
*A bunch of hobbyists who idolized their captain like a cult and could not see the forest because the TREE (read captain) obliterated their view.

And above all else...

*A COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF ANY COMMON SENSE

The captain is STILL 100% at fault but there were way more contributing factors than I ever imagined possible.....
I agree with this view completely and is essentially the consensus of most prior to the hearings even beginning. This has been hard to catch up, being away last week. However, other than some trivia, have we really learned anything we didn't already expect?

I'm very curious about testimony as to what the Captain told the crew before they left and whether they fully considered options of staying ashore. The boat was simply ill prepared for the voyage, but we absolutely knew that.

In the end, nothing seems to be taking the full blame away from the skipper making the decision to set to sea and its just getting clearer and clearer that they had survived so many other voyages aboard a crappy ship in bad conditions, that they came to believe they could do so forever.

I'm sure the owner was cutting corners. However, say I cut corners in maintaining my personal boat. I hire a deliver skipper to move her and he knows I cut corners. He is still fully responsible for making the choice to go anyway. If the owner of the Bounty is proven to be an unscrupulous, penny pinching, devious toad, I don't see it changing anything. It just adds them to this pile of turd.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jeanneau 54DS

In the harsh marine environment, something is always in need of repair. Margaritas fix everything.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1722  
Old 02-19-2013
Classic30's Avatar
Once known as Hartley18
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,526
Thanks: 28
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
Rep Power: 9
Classic30 will become famous soon enough Classic30 will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

From the stuff that's come out so far there seems to have been quite a few breaches of parts of SOLAS Regulation II/21.4 and especially 21.4.10..

I'm curious: What was their source of emergency power? Did they actually have an emergency generator - or was it just batteries?
__________________
-
"Honestly, I don't know why seamen persist in getting wrecked in some of the outlandish places they do, when they can do it in a nice place like Fiji." -- John Caldwell, "Desperate Voyage"
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1723  
Old 02-19-2013
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Capt.Mhack is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartley18 View Post
From the stuff that's come out so far there seems to have been quite a few breaches of parts of SOLAS Regulation II/21.4 and especially 21.4.10..

I'm curious: What was their source of emergency power? Did they actually have an emergency generator - or was it just batteries?
They had one generator rebuilt and set aside, they were using the second one.

All of them describe when generators quit the "lost power and pumps" so I assume there was no way to run pumps on batteries..
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1724  
Old 02-19-2013
Classic30's Avatar
Once known as Hartley18
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,526
Thanks: 28
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
Rep Power: 9
Classic30 will become famous soon enough Classic30 will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt.Mhack View Post
They had one generator rebuilt and set aside, they were using the second one.

All of them describe when generators quit the "lost power and pumps" so I assume there was no way to run pumps on batteries..
There are specific ABS and SOLAS requirements for emergency power supply including waterproofing (bulkheads, location) and fireproofing.

Not even passenger liners carry two emergency generators, so I assume the generators you are referring to are normal supply.. since I still don't get how they "lost power and pumps" if the emergency power system was designed to meet the regs. Maybe someone can enlighten me?
__________________
-
"Honestly, I don't know why seamen persist in getting wrecked in some of the outlandish places they do, when they can do it in a nice place like Fiji." -- John Caldwell, "Desperate Voyage"
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1725  
Old 02-19-2013
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Capt.Mhack is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartley18 View Post
There are specific ABS and SOLAS requirements for emergency power supply including waterproofing (bulkheads, location) and fireproofing.

Not even passenger liners carry two emergency generators, so I assume the generators you are referring to are normal supply.. since I still don't get how they "lost power and pumps" if the emergency power system was designed to meet the regs. Maybe someone can enlighten me?
They didn't have emergency gens.
They had 2 generators they used for 208V pumps all the time. One at a time.
During the last trip water level submerged both generators and they "lost power and electric pumps"


They had 2 electric pumps working (less than 150 gpm each) and 1 hydraulic pump working periodically pumping about 250 gpm or less.

They lost hydraulic pumps even earlier as engines died first.

They also report that pumps didn't work to full capacity for some reason.

Engineer was assuming he was responsible for pumps but was "not sure", one of the officers was in the engine room ( engineer was not there) trying to start and maintain pumps, at some point as water got to the generator ( 5 feet ) he exited engine room and they were abandoning ship.

P.s one of the engines stopped when the sight glass was broken on one of the tanks. It was reported that engineer blamed Claudine for breaking it. There were also reports she found a fuel leak in one of the tanks.

P.p.s In all the testimony captain was also mysteriously absent during last hours on Bounty, nobody was coordinating abandon ship, nobody could recall who gave orders.

Last edited by Capt.Mhack; 02-19-2013 at 11:59 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1726  
Old 02-20-2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 661
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 6
lancelot9898 is on a distinguished road
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

This whole inquiry shows the complete incompendence from both an operational and maintenance standpoint such that I even question the ability of the Bounty Organization to even operate the ship as merely a dockside attraction. And to think that this went on year after year...

The way I understand it is that Barksdale was asked a month or so prior to the end of October to come aborad as ship's "engineer' because the prior engineer left. Any testimony from the prior engineer?
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1727  
Old 02-20-2013
chef2sail's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,964
Thanks: 29
Thanked 54 Times in 50 Posts
Rep Power: 7
chef2sail will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to chef2sail
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnewaska View Post

I agree with this view completely and is essentially the consensus of everyone prior to the hearings even beginning. This has been hard to catch up, being away last week. However, other than some trivia, have we really learned anything we didn't already expect?

I'm very curious about testimony as to what the Captain told the crew before they left and whether they fully considered options of staying ashore. The boat was simply ill prepared for the voyage, but we absolutely knew that.

In the end, nothing seems to be taking the full blame away from the skipper making the decision to set to sea and its just getting clearer and clearer that they had survived so many other voyages aboard a crappy ship in bad conditions, that they came to believe they could do so forever.

I'm sure the owner was cutting corners. However, say I cut corners in maintaining my personal boat. I hire a deliver skipper to move her and he knows I cut corners. He is still fully responsible for making the choice to go anyway. If the owner of the Bounty is proven to be an unscrupulous, penny pinching, devious toad, I don't see it changing anything. It just adds them to this pile of turd.
From one who FIRST HAND watched almost all of the testimony it never convinced me or I think anyone else that the Captain was not responsible for his actions and wrong for what he did taking an ill equipped vessel to sea. That has never been a real issue here or really been disputed. Just because we bring up other issues doent mean we beleive pther wise about the Captains responsibilities. Nor are we blinded to seeing other improvemets or issues by our singular vison

It is no suprise since you watched none of the testimony ( you were in the Islands I beleive), and have had a singular purpose on blame here, that your opinion remains the same, but thank you for repeating it, Its like beating a dead horse. Especially when no one argues with what you are saying.

Quote:
In the end, nothing seems to be taking the full blame away from the skipper making the decision to set to sea and its just getting clearer and clearer that they had survived so many other voyages aboard a crappy ship in bad conditions, that they came to believe they could do so forever.
I take some issue in this as thats not what I heard at the testimony. Full blame ( your words) ultimately means no one else gets blame at all. I beleive that others will be held liable and pay damages in this ( ie the owner) and if the skipper was fully to blame that would not happen, but we will see what developes in the lawsuit from Chrisitam Fletchers heirs. Very rarely in our world are things quite as black and white as you describe. Other will be brought into the blame circle and when damages are assigned, the blame will be more than Walbridge I am quite certain. ( Before you jump me I am not defending his actions). The issue of "chasing hurricanes" was debunked by testimony.

The crew had the oppertunity according to tesimony to stay on shore. He brough them together, told them where they were going, many had been on the ship with him in weather before and were helping "fix" the boat in the shipyard so they knew the boats condition. The put their trust in Walbridge and each other. Now one testified why he didnt just continue easy when the storm didnt turn into NC and headed up the coats further. No one testified why he didnt seek refuge in NY Hudson, Delaware River or Norfolk.

Other of the things which also became apparent thorugh the direct testimony was the lack of training the crew actually had, and the officers in charge of equipment they did not know how to operate most of it. They doidnt know many basic seamanship concepts...it was astounding to those who watched I think the Rockdawg and myself and we reported that all along.

As Mainesail pointed out and became apparent in testimony the shipyard actually repaired the boat with good materials and planking, but placed it over a rotting frame and said nothing about doing this. As he pointed out it should have remaoined at the dock. And then when out of money should have been destroyed.

Supposedly the shipwright at Boothbay told the Captain, but he couldnt come up with an corroberation even though he met with the Captain 30 times. Took 30 pictures, but never even showed his olwn boss. IMHO watching this testimony there appears to be a CYA with all of them, and the victims being the crew. Interestingly the Manager of the project at Noothbay contradicted most of the shipwrights testimony. The CG Commandet picked up on it. There is something of a disconnect with this shipyard that took money from a organization and let them pour money into a boat which couldnt be salvaged by all accounts now. And then let it sail off without any real concern in terrible condition. Wonder what would have happened had someone made an anonymus call the the CG when they were repairing. I mean even tjhough the CG had no real certification, an alert would have brought things into the light of day.

The crew were just people who wanted to follow the dream of the old sailing ships. Many of you on here appeared to have much more sailing, equipmet experience than any of them had. This may have blinded them to follow along into danger. BTW up until this sailing there was no issue with the plumps not keeping up. BUt imagine the only way you could sail you boat is if you ran pumps to dewater. Somehere it has to cross your mind not to go out in heavy weather where this is a possiblity you could lose the pumps and flounder. Why it didnt cross Walbridge or any of the officers I dont know. Lack of sea experience.

Really all this is redundant with all the previous posts. The question is what do we learn from this and what can be preventable in the future. There really is no fix for the Captain who decides to take a boat in need of deep repairs and head toward a hurricane. How can you prevent that in the future.

What is really difffernt from this and the commercial fishing boats, clam boats in the NE which according to testimony are in as bad if not worse condition than the Bounty which travel out into storms. Essentially the Bounty and they are classified the same as neither carried passangers and both carry paid crew.

They make a movie the Perfect sSorm and glorify the Captain of the Andrea Gail who really did the same thing. Ignored warnings and got caught out in the monster storm of the century with a ship that could never survive it. Far worse sea conditions than Sandy ever was. People have a right to take their ships in disrepair to sea. People have the right to take thieir lack of experience to sea. BTW the testimony talked a little about Sandy and found it to be a large storm, but that many other have had far worse sea conditions.

Can their ever be regulations put on these private ships/ boats? What would they be if there could be? How do you prevent Captains and people from doing stupid things like sailing into a hurricane? or taking a boat out in poor condition? Is the only reason we focus on the Bounty because its the Bounty. The Casta Concordia is a far more juicy story with far more deaths actually.

I am wondering also ( I always look behind things for conspiracies) how much of the hysteria is created by the " true TS" community. It is to their advantage to gain the publicity. It is to their advantage to show the distinctions to their well funded professional operations and the others who are in their mind just pretending to be tall ships. They keep saying they are worried about more regs, but they are already regulated. They dont get a black eye in this because they will show how superior their vessels are inspected

We have had a couple of people come along, Sparkleplenty and other Captains who obviously felt and knew the Bounty was not really up to snuff and dangerous. Anytime in the last 10 years they could have stepped in along the way on this, as the Bounty was part of their organization and brought the master in and told him that his ship was dangerous, but they just took his money. Why didnt they say something? They claim now after the fact they knew. Of course they did.

To me nothing will come out of this other than to demonize the Captain...this is already done and he is dead

He will stand in a long line of Captains who made bad decisions which cost them lives, ships and crew.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
___________________________
S/V Haleakala (Hawaiian for" House of the Sun")
C&C 35 MKIII Hull # 76
Parkville, Maryland
(photos by Joe McCary)
Charter member of the Chesapeake Lion posse

Our blog-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


“Sailing is just the bottom line, like adding up the score in bridge. My real interest is in the tremendous game of life.”- Dennis Conner

Last edited by chef2sail; 02-20-2013 at 12:47 AM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1728  
Old 02-20-2013
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Capt.Mhack is on a distinguished road
Pretty much sums it up:

"Here is what Matt Sanders, Bounty’s second mate, testified to Commander Carroll of the Coast Guard concerning the bilge pumps today.

Carroll: “The hydraulic pumps – when did you first use them?”

Sanders: “On the 28th” [October 28th - the day prior to sinking]

Carroll: “Was it used any other time before that in the season?”

Sanders: “Not that I know of.”

--
Carroll: “Were the crew taught how to use the hydraulic pumps?”

Sanders: “No, I don’t think so.”

Carroll: “Were they trained on the gasoline-powered pump?”

Sanders: “No, they weren’t.”

--

When asked why the portable gasoline pump was not routinely tested, maintained, and trained on, the answers ranged from absurd to worse. No one aboard seemed to have any idea that if you left gasoline in a can for 18 months, it would be a bad thing.

Faunt: “I’d seen it work once when we bought it and put it away and left it alone on Robin’s orders.”

Carroll: “Why?”

Faunt: “Because it wasn’t particularly good and we didn’t want to wear it out by using it. And it was gasoline and we were worried about fire!”

--
NTSB Investigator Captain Rob Jones pressed Faunt to explain why they wouldn’t want to practice with the ship’s portable emergency bilge pump and use it periodically to ensure that it was in working order. Faunt’s incredulous response, “But the pump was gasoline, why would we risk using it if we didn’t have to?” When he was asked why the hydraulic pumps weren’t ever used, he replied, “There was concern about wear, so they were held in reserve.”

--
On October 25th, Bounty was preparing to sail into the Atlantic and dodge a hurricane. Three of the five pumps had not been tested or trained in anyone’s memory. The ship’s diesel engines and generators had no maintenance records and their status was unknown. And on the way to New London from the shipyard, the 66 year-old Faunt, a five-season veteran aboard Bounty, noticed that even the electric bilge pumps weren’t working as well as they had been. He had been running those pumps for years and knew how they operated. He brought his concerns to Robin Walbridge.

Faunt: “Robin thought it might have to do with the impellers.”

Carroll: ”Did he ever check them?”

Faunt: ”Not that I know of.”
--

Less than four days later, Bounty was sinking. The bilge pumps couldn’t keep up with the water, one generator was gone and the other was about to go. Walbridge and Faunt – the ship’s default electrician and GMDSS Operator – were attempting distress calls on the HF Radio and the INMARSAT C. They couldn’t get them to work.

Carroll: ”Did you test them before you left New London?”

Faunt: ”No, we didn’t.”"


http://gcaptain.com/sins-of-omission/
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1729  
Old 02-20-2013
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Capt.Mhack is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by chef2sail View Post


The issue of "chasing hurricanes" was debunked by testimony.

The crew had the oppertunity according to tesimony to stay on shore. He brough them together, told them where they were going,
Don't mean to get in to your guys argument but I have to object here.

I watched the testimony and the "chasing hurricanes" was not debunked other than few crew members trying to imply it was a joke, but their testimony seems suspect as with the same straight face they claimed they "didn't know where the hurricane was", "where the captain was" when they talked to him etc etc.

Second, captain gave them less than 2 hours to think and leave, the conversation he had with them was" I've been to worst than Cat I and I and Bounty always made it". Nothing more.

Some crew members said if they knew before hand that captain will take the ship in front of the path of the Hurricane they would think twice.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #1730  
Old 02-20-2013
Water Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA (Heron, Elephant Butte lakes); Arizona (Lake Pleasant)
Posts: 695
Thanks: 3
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Rep Power: 5
rgscpat is on a distinguished road
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Would manual pumps have had any significant dewatering ability in vessel as large and leaky as the Bounty? It would seem hard to work a manual pump against the large head (vertical displacement) to get water from the bilge to deck level, and that a manual bilge pump on a vessel like that would be mainly a placebo.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rhodes Bounty ll white rabbit Introduce Yourself 3 07-13-2014 05:00 AM
New Member - Hardin 45 ( 44 voyager bounty ) Bianchi Introduce Yourself 9 01-29-2011 09:33 PM
HELP!! , Need move a boat NC to WA (Rhodes Bounty II, 40'10 x 28' x 10'3" x 5'9") sailandoar General Discussion (sailing related) 1 08-23-2006 01:11 PM
Bounty Windjammer Spectacle (Boothbay Register) NewsReader News Feeds 0 06-23-2006 03:15 PM
April 28, 1789, Aboard the HMS Bounty: NewsReader Mass Bay Sailors 0 04-28-2006 01:15 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 PM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.