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.
 
#1,200 ·
I don't feel like flipping back in the thread. Didn't the engineer say, in his interview, he had not heard of the incoming hurricane until that briefing where he was offered the chance to disembark?

I may recall it incorrectly, but the fascination with being "back in time" would be correlated with being out of touch with mainstream information.

This winter, I expect to be out of touch for an entire week in the islands.
 
#1,202 · (Edited)
This is the list of survivors:

  • Daniel Cleveland, 25
  • John Svendsen, 41
  • Matthew Sanders, 37
  • Adam Prokosh, 27
  • Douglas Faunt, 66
  • John Jones, 29
  • Drew Salapatek, 29
  • Joshua Scornavacchi, 25
  • Anna Sprague, 20
  • Mark Warner, 33
  • Christopher Barksdale, 56
  • Laura Groves, 28
  • Jessica Hewitt, 25
  • Jessica Black, 34

The names in red were in the WC doc. The names in blue, plus Faunt and Scornavacchi, spoke in the ABC interview. Here's what they said in the ABC interview relating to the incident:

Laura Groves describing what it was like being in the storm: "washing machine, in an earthquake, going down a slide"

Douglas Faunt: The weather was so bad. We had so little control.

John Svendsen: It took every ounce of my strength to focus through, to survive. We had to determine a safe time when we knew that the ship would still be stable, that we could get get everyone on deck and change our focus from saving the ship to saving every life.

Daniel Cleveland: I've been through two other hurricanes with Robin on The Bounty. The ship was in great shape. We were literally going to be getting up and launching the liferafts and she went over.

John Svendsen: (in reference to the survival suits and strobes Walbridge had for the crew) I give my life to Robin, to the ingenuity, to his leadership, that I'm here today.

Svendsen was the only surviving crew member who never made it to a life raft. He was pulled directly from the sea by the CG.

Douglas Faunt: about Claudene Christian, She was having the most fun ever on the best ride ever. She was so happy.

As the crew speaks more, we will know more. Maybe they are already doing so in social media?
 
#1,207 · (Edited)
All I can say is the audacity of the so called "professionals" compare to us so called "amatures" sux. We sail-boat cruisers sometimes know vastly better Markseaof life!
I totally agree

I think he was a bullsh!t artist who began to believe his own bull and was caught out by his own bullsh!t once too often.Markseaoflife
So lets looks at this intelligently vs hysterically. Almost to a man or woman everybody including me, his crew, people who have sailed with him before, a few people on here (SN) who met him like wingnwing....NONE, not one of us say what you said above or had that first hand impression of him..

Then you say
...I know he was your friend, so I won't ask you to agree with me,-Markseaof life
, others have said my friendhips clouds my opinions. It doesnt actually it may make me emotional about his reputation, but my opinions are based on factual evidence.

And after all that is the point isnt it really. Not just me...many others have talked about him with respect and say he was a quality man this is where I have fault on this thread. People who do not know him making judgements and building cases on only snippets of information on what they read or make up in their own minds. Bringing in facts which only support their positions or posting facts which are not entirely accurate or complete.

Then when the people who knew the Captain in person state a diffferent story, they are dismissed as having a personal relationship with him or they were cult members following him blindly. Give us more credit than that.

So then I ask you who is probably right here and who really has more credibility...the internet social media writers who have never met him and only have to go on what they make up in their own minds ( because they arent reading this from first hand survivors) or the people who met him in person, knew him sailed with him, the choice of who is more accurate to acccesss the Captain is an obvious choice. In person knowledge of the Captain superceeds secondhand knowledge or thoeries fabricated in individuals minds.

There is a reason that first hand knowledge ( direct testimony) trumps heresay or speculation all the time in places like a court of law.

What the Captain friends and aquaintences cannot undertsand or reconcile, just like the rest of social media writers on here and other sites, is what drove an experienced captain who loved his crew, had a wealth of experience to sail off into a hurricane. Simple as that.

This conspiracy that he rushed everyone onto the boat in an hour so they would think or complain, so he could subject them to what turned out to be a tragic journey on purpose does not make sense to the people who really knew this man and how he acted and treated people.

I for 1 person who knew him still do not understand what drove the man I knew to a decision of poor safety and endangering other people in his steed, especuially how I noticed FIRST HAND how he felt about survivasl gear and emergency procedures. This decision was so out of character to the man we knew.

None of this abbrogates him from the repsonsibility he had in the tragedy.
 
#1,208 ·
....

So lets looks at this intelligently vs hysterically. Almost to a man or woman everybody including me, his crew, people who have sailed with him before, a few people on here (SN) who met him like wingnwing....NONE, not one of us say what you said above or had that first hand impression of him..

Then you say, others have said my friendhips clouds my opinions. It doesnt actually it may make me emotional about his reputation, but my opinions are based on factual evidence.

And after all that is the point isnt it really. Not just me...many others have talked about him with respect and say he was a quality man this is where I have fault on this thread. People who do not know him making judgements and building cases on only snippets of information on what they read or make up in their own minds. Bringing in facts which only support their positions or posting facts which are not entirely accurate or complete.

Then when the people who knew the Captain in person state a diffferent story, they are dismissed as having a personal relationship with him or they were cult members following him blindly. Give us more credit than that.

So then I ask you who is probably right here and who really has more credibility...the internet social media writers who have never met him and only have to go on what they make up in their own minds ( because they arent reading this from first hand survivors) or the people who met him in person, knew him sailed with him, the choice of who is more accurate to acccesss the Captain is an obvious choice. In person knowledge of the Captain superceeds secondhand knowledge or thoeries fabricated in individuals minds.

There is a reason that first hand knowledge ( direct testimony) trumps heresay or speculation all the time in places like a court of law.

What the Captain friends and aquaintences cannot undertsand or reconcile, just like the rest of social media writers on here and other sites, is what drove an experienced captain who loved his crew, had a wealth of experience to sail off into a hurricane. Simple as that.

This conspiracy that he rushed everyone onto the boat in an hour so they would think or complain, so he could subject them to what turned out to be a tragic journey on purpose does not make sense to the people who really knew this man and how he acted and treated people.

I for 1 person who knew him still do not understand what drove the man I knew to a decision of poor safety and endangering other people in his steed, especuially how I noticed FIRST HAND how he felt about survivasl gear and emergency procedures. This decision was so out of character to the man we knew.

None of this abbrogates him from the repsonsibility he had in the tragedy.
This are not about impressions Dave. I am quite sure the man was a very agreeable person. Neither it is about "snippets of information" neither about hysterically people making unfounded judgments, but about facts.

The Captain took his ship to the pass of an hurricane when he knew he was there and could avoid it, staying in port, diverting to a safer port or sailing in the opposite direction of the Hurricane path.

He made absurd statements to convince the crew to follow him in this adventure(the Bounty would be more safe at sea than in a port).

He knew that the boat made water, that the bilges where not clean and that obviously could lead to clogging of the pumps in the event of flooding and even so sailed way to unnecessarily face terrible weather.

It is known (by the several statements from the crew, the wife and the organization) that this was not an isolated incident and that he had sailed several times the ship near or on hurricanes.

That ship is not a boat that could be sailed safely through or near an hurricanes.

He could be a very nice man, a quality but all these facts tell us, without doubt, that he was a reckless captain. This are facts Dave, not snippets of information neither hysterical assumptions.

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,211 · (Edited)
Because the Judge and the Jury in law cases are always people who do not know the person on trial. And they only have to go on what they are given in that trial-Markofsealifes.
True about the judge and the jury, however the people posting are neither the judge nor the jury. They are the prosecution. The people posting her are the prosecuters....trying to submit heresay evidence and conjecture as fact. We are not talking about the obvious facts that he sailed away from the dock. But what he was thinking in his mind...and his leaving in one hour thats a fact so they could not refuse to leave is the fiction. It is the conclusions drawn from the facts which are posted as facts by some are merely speculation.

The Captain took his ship to the pass of an hurricane when he knew he was there and could avoid it, staying in port, diverting to a safer port or sailing in the opposite direction of the Hurricane path.
- thats a fact
Thats what he did and that was a terrible error in judgement which makes him responsible for the loss of life and the ships sinking

He made absurd statements to convince the crew to follow him in this adventure(the Bounty would be more safe at sea than in a port).
the fact is he made a statements the Bounty would be safer at sea than port. the speculation- that they were absurd and that he made the statement to convince the crew to follow him

He knew that the boat made water, that the bilges where not clean and that obviously could lead to clogging of the pumps in the event of flooding and even so sailed way to unnecessarily face terrible weather.
the facts- the bilges were not clean, the pumps clogged and he sailed into bad weather/ the speculation- the water ingress was normal and the failed pump was caused by a clogged pump not operator error

He could be a very nice man, a quality but all these facts tell us, without doubt, that he was a reckless captain. This are facts Dave, not snippets of information neither hysterical assumptions
.

See I could agree with this if the statement said he was a reckless Captain in this instance, but thats not what is meant. Now you are trying to say he was always a reckless Captain in general.

the facts- he was a professional captain, the statements about his seasmanship from first hand observers was that it was good and knowledable, NO ONE of the first hand observers, crew or people who had ever been with him ever said he was a reckless captain. That does count for something, inn fact that superceeds and speculation that he was a reckless captain in the past
the speculation- from only the social bloggers not the first hand observers that he was reckless

It makes no difference to me that he was a nice man...thats an attribute you are putting on me and others. That isnt germane to this discuission. To dismiss what I or others say based on that we think is is a nice man, is failing to recognize we think he was a professional, experienced, knowlegeable leader who made a terrible mistake thats all. Thats a pretty simple explainaton for what happened and usually the simple explaination is the easiest to prove by fact. The contiual theories and conjecture base on a few snippets of information is actually reckless in itself.

What they and I have said was that he was professional, he was experienced, he was knowledgeable. Those are facts borne out by statements. The other fact is that this professional, knowledgable, experienced man made a mistake/ error in judgement which caused a loss of life and ship. The speculation- he was a cult leader, they followed him because they were mesmerized, he left in an hour so they couldnt get more information to not go, he was a reckless captain all the time and before, the ship was in bad repair, the ship couldnt survuve the weather it had countless times before, he was a ******** artists.

Try and really differentiate between the actual facts, and the conclusions drawn from those facts as well as speculation and theorizing.

Truth of the matter is tghis man has been in control of this ship for 17 years. This is the first time he made an agregious error which he was brought up on charges for or being cited for.

Because you get caught speeding...doesnt mean that you are a reckless driver all the time and a terrible driver. It means that partuicular time you were. Because you have a car crash doesnt make you a reckless driver for all of history...it does for that particular incident. There is danger is extrpolating a statement to define the Cpatian by this one incident in his life. Albet he will be defined by it by many and the aggregious mistake/ error in judgement he made.

Funny though the ones who knew him first hand, even the crew who was on the boat during the sinking find that not to be true. Why is that do you think? Why dont you hear them all saying he was reckless, a ******** artist and going after him for what shppened?

These are the first hand people now? Listen to them carefully, you dont hear any referneces to many of the speculative things attrributed tot he Captain posted here. Note none of us defend him in this incident of having good judgement.

Why cant the explaination just be a simple one. It doesnt get good press/ It makes for boring posts. There is no spectacle. All the things why some ridicule the CG invetigation. If it doesnt come out with the results they expect, or they think it should we have already seen a number of posters say it isnt correct before it happens.
 
#1,213 · (Edited)
Quote PCP:
He made absurd statements to convince the crew to follow him in this adventure(the Bounty would be more safe at sea than in a port).

... the speculation- that they were absurd and that he made the statement to convince the crew to follow him.
Sometimes I think, that you did not learn anything with this thread and did not really changed opinion regarding the first statements you have made here.

It is obviously a very stupid and wrong thing to say that a XVII century designed wood ship is more safe in a port than at sea in what regards facing a hurricane. This is no speculation is a fact. Regarding a ship the first concern of a no reckless captain is not with his boat but with his crew and they would be much safer on land than out on the sea facing an Hurricane. Where is the speculation here?

If not to dismiss the huge risk the crew would take sailing into a hurricane and to convince them to follow him in this adventure why do you think the Captain had said then that the Ship would be more safe at sea than in Port?

Where is the speculation here:rolleyes:

Try and really differentiate between the actual facts, and the conclusions drawn from those facts as well as speculation and theorizing.

Quote PCP:
He knew that the boat made water, that the bilges where not clean and that obviously could lead to clogging of the pumps in the event of flooding and even so sailed way to unnecessarily face terrible weather.

... the speculation- the water ingress was normal and the failed pump was caused by a clogged pump not operator error
Here I have some difficulty in understanding what you mean but that should be my bad English as you are always pointing out:rolleyes:

"The water ingress was normal"???

I did no state that the water ingress was not normal, or abnormal I just stated that the boat was making water and that the Captain new that. Where is the speculation here?!!! I did not state that the pumps had failed because they were clogged, I stated that they were clogged and that had obvious consequences on their poor performance. Stated also that the Captain knew that the Bilges were dirt and that would cause the clogging of the pumps in the eventuality of prolonged use.

Where is the speculation here? All facts.

Operator error on the pumps???? if someone on that boat deserves credit is Barksdale, the one responsible by engines and pumps working.

It seems that you don't read what is posted on this thread. Barksdale had stated that the pumps were clogged and that they, including the Captain were despairingly trying to unclog the pumps.

Try and really differentiate between the actual facts, and the conclusions drawn from those facts as well as speculation and theorizing.

Quote PCP:
He could be a very nice man, a quality but all these facts tell us, without doubt, that he was a reckless captain. This are facts Dave, not snippets of information neither hysterical assumptions

See I could agree with this if the statement said he was a reckless Captain in this instance, but thats not what is meant. Now you are trying to say he was always a reckless Captain in general.
...

....
I am not trying to say that he, as a Captain, was reckless, I am stating that.

And I am saying that because unlike what you are saying this was not an isolated incident, it was just the one where he run out of luck. He was taking unreasonable risks with that boat and the crew for a long time.

As it was stated by him, the organization, the crew and his wife, the ship had been sailed by him previously several times in hurricanes or near hurricanes. Considering that XVII century designed wooden ship that is a reckless behavior that only a reckless captain would indulge.

No speculation, here, just facts.

the speculation- from only the social bloggers not the first hand observers that he was reckless... The contiual theories and conjecture base on a few snippets of information is actually reckless in itself.
....
You mean, reckless the ones that consider him reckless based in facts???:rolleyes:

Dave, that does not make sense!

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,212 ·
After all is said and done...I still say to just follow the money.

1. The boat was built as a movie prop to be burned at the end of the filming.

2. Brando did not want it burned even though I suppose that he read the ****** before taking the part. Not sure as to when he voiced his objection.

3. For X years it set at a dock as a tourist attraction until Ted Turner aquired it when he bought the movie rights to many of MGM films. When he learned that he had the Bounty he told his accountants to get rid of it and donated it to Y

4. Y may have sold it to Z etc etc but during this period it was being "updated" to take volunteers out for sailing adventures

5. How many times has it been up for sale during this period? It was up for sale when it met its demise off of Hatterous. Look at the Insurance situation all during its life...it's maintenance/operating costs and retro fit costs....its income stream and who or what last owned it

Just follow the money..
 
#1,216 · (Edited)
Sometimes I think, that you did not learn anything with this thread and did not really changed opinion regarding the first statements you have made here.
Paulo,

Beleive it or not, I dont think I can learn anything from you in regards to the Bounty nor did anyone apoint you the authority or teacher here. While you are somewhat of a good reasource on boats you have shown to be less than knowledgeable about many other subjects I have seen you post about. You continue to post these giant posts of other statements or authors and consider them fact. They are not fact sir.

Also even if you were somewhat of an authority on something its very difficult to get past your ridiculing others oppiniopns by calling them stupid and many other words. In your last post alone is an example.

See the problem here is you cand play in the sandbox and accept others have opinions without ridicule. You say you want people to learn but no one learns from someone who puts down others. I also recognize that I have not been perfect in this to others and will work on that. The first part of realiziing there is a problem is to recognoize that yourself, which you fail to do.

It is obviously a very stupid and wrong thing to say
Operator error on the pumps???? if someone on that boat deserves credit is Barksdale, the one responsible by engines and pumps working.
And you know this how, by his own statement. Did it ever occur to you it was self serving? He admitted turning one off.

It seems that you don't read what is posted on this thread. Barksdale had stated that the pumps were clogged and that they, including the Captain were despairingly trying to unclog the pumps.
And he said he never saw the Captain.

And I am saying that because unlike what you are saying this was not an isolated incident, it was just the one where he run out of luck. He was taking unreasonable risks with that boat and the crew for a long time
Prove it
What you are saying here is really based on some of the other statements made in the past and your humble opinion that you neleive that he was reckless in the past.

See Paulo there is a fact that is irreuftable. NO ONE who has sailed with him has said this about him. NO ONE who has sailed with him said he was reckless in the past. NO ONE who knew him personally even remotely says what you preach about him.

Heres a fact. You are sitting in front of your computer in Portugal making statements you call fact which really are nothing than YOUR OPINION. The fact is you have no first hand knwledge. The fact is you generalize and post incomplete data, The fact is you ridicule those who do not deleive what you say. The fact is the people who really knew this man DO NOT say anything which even remotely supports you theory about this man. You misuse the English language constantly calling your opinions facts.

Here is the Oxford Dictionarys definituion of the word fact

noun

a thing that is known or proved to be true: the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas [mass noun]: a body of fact

(facts) information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article: even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts

(the fact that) used to refer to a particular situation under discussion: despite the fact that I'm so tired, sleep is elusive

[mass noun] chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation: there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter
Paulo, you know what doesnt make sense here, is that despite be challenged by myself and others on your use of things you consider FACTS and your definition of that you dont even learn from that you overstep and dont know the difference between your opinion and facts. You keep ramming thes down mine and others throats and I guess I am stupid enough to have taken the bait and keep responding to your mistaken statements of fact.

What is funny here is that we all are expected to have opinions here as this is an internet blog site. You seem to the one fixated that your opinions are facts though. I dont feel my opinions are facts just one humble sailors opinion from my perch here in the US.

As it was stated by him, the organization, the crew and his wife, the ship had been sailed by him previously several times in hurricanes or near hurricanes. Considering that XVII century designed wooden ship that is a reckless behavior that only a reckless captain would indulge.
the fact in this is that he said he sailed in hurricanes previous.....your interrpretation is that this was reckless behavior.
Why was he never brough up on charges if this was reckless behavior?

I have learned some things on this post from others Paulo. I learn a lot on this forum called Sailnet. I have stated many times that the Captain is responsible for this tradgedy. Icannot wrap my head around why he would sail into a hurricane or anywhwre near one. I am not trying to figure out why, because I dont understand it from my refernce point and experience and he is not here anymore to ask him. Therefore I have to live with that. He did it. I will never know why and that anyone who attributes a reason why is just hypothesizing as no one can prove it factual. Its bad enough he did this and cost lives. I dont need to build some ever growing hypothetical story around it.
Along with him, I await ( in years I am sure) the results of the inquirey for some of the factors which actuyallu phsically caused the sinking which maybe we can learn from and prevent to amke things safer in the future ( IE construction, certifications, build quality, ballast, pumps, engines, crew etc.). That is where the learning will take place..not acusing the dead captain of further eckless behavior and denigrating his person.

I dont think we can find a way to test or predict when people make aggregious decuisions ahead of time, so this will happen again. Every day in fact. The facts from the investigation which may turn up physical problems we can remedy will be the only learning experience which we can help makes things safer from.

Since it appears that we will not ever agree on things concerning this topic, I suggest in fairness to others we stop burdening them with the obvious disagreement between us and hold of posting responses to each other in this thread. It serves no purpose. I will not answer your posts in this thread anymore, but will continue to correspond with others. Lets just call it an agreement to disagree. Can you do that.....or do you still need the last word here.

dave
 
#1,218 ·
Quote:
It seems that you don't read what is posted on this thread. Barksdale had stated that the pumps were clogged and that they, including the Captain were despairingly trying to unclog the pumps.
And he said he never saw the Captain.
Minor clarification here... Barksdale's comment about "never seeing the captain" was in reference to only what he saw after being called up on deck for the final time, and being told by other crewmembers it was time to abandon ship...

the fact in this is that he said he sailed in hurricanes previous.....your interrpretation is that this was reckless behavior.
Why was he never brough up on charges if this was reckless behavior?
Again, the only "fact" here, is that it has been claimed the BOUNTY had sailed "in", or "though", at least 2 prior hurricanes (His wife has claimed the number was "too many to remember", but, hey - why quibble over numbers?) As I've stated about 300 posts ago (grin), I will be VERY surprised if we EVER learn the names, dates, or relative positions of those encounters... His claim that he experienced 70' seas from a storm a few hundred miles distant extablishes no "fact", other than the one that he was apparently talking out of his butt in making such a ridiculous claim...
 
#1,217 ·
Julie I also note the tone and content of what the crew does and does not say. Its a bit strange. Maybe its loyalty, maybe naivete, maybe something else. Maybe cluelesssness. I don't know. They seem to give the company line too.
Or maybe........like most of us who really met and knew him keep saying

They truly just beleive what they are saying. I know its not as much fun and you cant write lots of stories about that, but at least give credence to it. Why is it so hard to beleive what EVERYONE is saying. It would be harder to keep a conspiracy together/
 
This post has been deleted
#1,219 ·
Again, the only "fact" here, is that it has been claimed the BOUNTY had sailed "in", or "though", at least 2 prior hurricanes (His wife has claimed the number was "too many to remember", but, hey - why quibble over numbers?) As I've stated about 300 posts ago (grin), I will be VERY surprised if we EVER learn the names, dates, or relative positions of those encounters... His claim that he experienced 70' seas from a storm a few hundred miles distant extablishes no "fact", other than the one that he was apparently talking out of his butt in making such a ridiculous claim..JonEisberg.
I totally agree thats why to build hypopthesis and theories on this unsubstantiated hyperbole or to continue using these statements in the explaination just leads to no credence in those theories.
 
#1,221 ·
Seems this sailor thought the Bounty did the right thing, interesting arcticle, a view point we have not seen from an experienced sailor:

HMS Bounty Falls Victim to Hurricane Sandy | PRI's The World

From above:

The US Coast Guard is searching for two missing crew members from the tall ship, HMS Bounty.

The ship ran into trouble Monday as as the crew tried to escape Hurricane Sandy's fury - off North Carolina's Cape Hatteras.

Fourteen other crew members were rescued early this morning.

The ship itself is reported to have sunk.

The HMS Bounty was built for MGM studios in 1960 for the classic movie, "Mutiny on the Bounty", starring Marlon Brando.

It was built according to the plans of the original 18th century ship.

The Bounty also appeared in one version of Treasure Island, and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."

For the last 20 years or so it's served as an educational vessel.

Sailors say heading out to sea in a storm is quite normal.

"Ships are meant to sail," says one former sailor, Kelsey Freeman. "And they generally are going to float a lot better when they're out to sea than if they're tied to a dock."
Freeman spent seven years working on tall ships.

In a storm like this, says Freeman, where the waters rise because of a storm surge, you have to leave extra slack on the ropes. As a result the ship will "move around a lot and probably dash itself to bits on the rocks."

Looking at the map, says Freeman, it seems the Bounty just didn't have enough room to skirt the storm.

But the Bounty encountered a more critical problem according to the ship's official Facebook page. It lost power.

"If your only pumps are electrically based and you lose your electricity," says Freeman, "then it becomes an issue of when you will sink, not if."

As of 1615 EDT, the US Coast Guard was continuing the search for the two missing seamen.

Read the TranscriptThe text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI's THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI's THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: The US Coastguard is searching for two missing crew members from the tall ship HMS Bounty . The ship ran into trouble as the crew tried to escape Hurricane Sandy's fury off North Carolina's Cape Hatters. Fourteen crew members were rescued early this morning. The ship itself is reported to have sunk. The HMS Bounty was built for MGM studios in 1960 for the classic Film "Mutiny on the Bounty"� starring Marlin Brando. The Bounty also appeared in one version of Treasure Island and in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. For the last 20 years or so, it has served as an educational vessel. Kelsey Freeman is an experienced sailor. She spent about a third of her life crewing tall ships. Kelsey, we don't know why in particular headed out to sea as Hurricane Sandy approached, but why generally is this a common practice, that when a storm comes near, ships head out into the ocean?

Kelsey Freeman: Well, Lisa, ships are meant to sail, and they are generally going to float a lot better if they're out to sea than if they're tied to a dock. Especially in a storm like this, where you have a very, very high storm surge, because it's going to rise-the water's going to rise. You have to have extra slack in the lines. In order to have that much slack, the ship will move around a lot. It will probably dash itself to bits against the docks that it is tied to.

Mullins: It seems counter-intuitive that a ship would go out right in the path of a hurricane. You're saying that, even that, is safer than being tied up?

Freeman: Ideally, you don't want to head directly to the hurricane. It's my understanding, since I was looking at maps of where the Bounty had gone, they had pins showing it's path; it looked like they were heading out to sea and generally attempting to stay out of the path of the hurricane. And it looks like the storm is so big that there wasn't really anywhere that they could go that would be safe. They couldn't skirt it enough.

Mullins: You yourself were what's called a topmen when you served on tall ships.

Freeman: Yes.

Mullins: You were one of the high climbers who worked on the highest of the sails.

Freeman: Yes.

Mullins: We've all seen what kind of images of this. I don't know what it's like-what the view is like up there. Maybe you can tell us and also what the experience is like when you're furling sails in gale-force winds.

Freeman: Ya, it can be quite scary because ships are basically reverse pendulums. So if you're all the way at the top, the ship I sail on was quite large, the royal yards where I worked were a hundred feet up. So you're swaying quite a bit. Though the ideal situation is - let's say you're on a ship like the Bounty that has an engine which you do not want to use your sails during a storm because they do a wonderful job of catching the wind, and can take you in directions you don't want to go or they can flat-out rip off. So ideally, you want to send people into the rigging before a storm to actually furl up the sails and switch to using an engine. And I understand that, that was part of the problem with the Bounty is that they were using their engines and they lost electrical; And when you lose your propulsion, you can't steer.
Mullins: The on-shore staff reported on Facebook is received a distress call from the Bounty at about 6:30 last night saying that the ship had lost power and the pumps were not able to keep up with the dewatering.

Freeman: Yes.

Mullins: So basically they were trying to bail out but didn't have the electrical pumps at their service.

Freeman: And that's the thing that historically, ships had hand-pumps, which I think in this situation, even then they would have had difficulty, but if your only pumps are electrically based, and your electricity becomes an issue of when you will sink not if you will sink. I was reading on there - on the Bounty's Facebook page - they said that when they sent on the distress call, they were taking on two feet of water and hour, and they decided to abandon ship when they had reached 10 feet. I've seen the Bounty in person. Taking on ten feet of water means the ship was almost
awash which means it was almost sunken when they were leaving the ship.

Mullins: Have you had that kind of experience where the ship is tilted enough that you're almost at a 90 degree angle if you are way, way up there?

Freeman: Yes. I was sailing on Lake Heron, and we actually - we were up by the dock, and we actually left to dock to head out into a squall that was coming in. For the same reasons, you don't want to be close to anything the ship can be dashed against. So we sailed out into it, and we were actually moving very, very quickly, because we had to sails up. So I had to go up and help furl up the sails, and I remember and I even have a photo of this -that the ship was beyond a 45 degree angle on its side heeled over because there was so much wind on the sail. And I was on the leeward side, and I remember that it wasn't that I could literally reach out and touch the water, but at one point it was heeled over so much that I felt like I was going to fall off into the water because it was that close and it was heeled over that much.

Mullins: How come you didn't fall in?

Freeman: Because I was tied to the yard. You wear protective harnesses that little clips so when you're climbing up there - when you're climbing, you're not attached to anything, but once you get into place, you're hooked in to a protective line so that even if you do fall off, you'll be just kind of hanging there.

Mullins: All right, thank you so much. Kelsey Freeman, teacher, freelance photographer, based in Alexandria, Virginia served seven years working on tall ships. Very nice to have you on the program.

Freeman: Thank you
 
#1,224 · (Edited)
Seems this sailor thought the Bounty did the right thing, interesting arcticle, a view point we have not seen from an experienced sailor:

HMS Bounty Falls Victim to Hurricane Sandy | PRI's The World
One really has to question how "experienced" that guy is, if indeed he thinks that the only two options available to Walbridge were to remain either tied to the dock in New London, or to put to sea, and sail directly into the path of the storm...

...it looked like they were heading out to sea and generally attempting to stay out of the path of the hurricane. And it looks like the storm is so big that there wasn't really anywhere that they could go that would be safe. They couldn't skirt it enough.
Either he lacks access to charts, or suffers an extreme poverty of imagination... (grin)
 
#1,222 ·
In a court of law, hearsay is inadmissible. Evidence by eyewitnesses is usually given more weight over everything else. Expert testimony is always given more weight over other testimony. Interpretation is given weight based on who is doing the interpretation. It's the same for opinions.

But above all else is fact, not assumptions. At this point we don't have enough facts to be able to say why the captain set sail into the direction of a hurricane. We don't even know if the crew was aware of the potential of the hurricane. We only have supposition. It's possible the crew can provide facts but they can never say what the captain was thinking unless he told them directly. As of this writing, I know of no crew member who has made any statement regarding the captain's state of mind.

A serious human flaw is the almost inherent quality to be unable to repeat verbatim, to another person, what someone has just told them. That's why hearsay is inadmissible in court. For this discussion, we need quotes, and that means from the people on the dock who talked to captain and crew prior to departure and from the crew directly. What we THINK is only that: what we think.

The only people who can shed any further light on this subject are the crew and people who spoke with Walbridge at or around the time he was in New London or during the time he was at sea. I have not heard of there being anyone other then the crew who communicated with Walbridge once they cast off.

So that really leaves the crew and thus far they have not said one disparaging word about Robin Walbridge, that I know of. If and when there comes a time that they do, we will know who is right here and who isn't, provided what they have to say relates to this discussion. Until then we can't know. All we have are our opinions. It's better for all when we remember that.
 
#1,228 · (Edited)
You going to PROVE your relationship and fill us in on this special knowledge of Walbridge?
You serious

Even Paulo who I dont agree with much in this thread rebuked you.

Is true that Dave is many times hostile without a reason to be, or at least I see it that way, but I don't like your post.Why should you or anybody doubt that Dave knew Bounty's Captain?- PCP
Did you ask that of wingnwing when she said she met the captain? I have to pass YOUR litmas test? You...who has absolutley no credibility. Why would I say it if it was not true? Post my e mails between us....silly boy you have lost it, post pictures...silly boy you have lost it more. Some on here have actually met me in person and spent time with me. First hand knowledge of a person again.

I knew the Captain. I said I had met him on more than one occasion. I never said anything about a special relationship, those are your words of hyperbole. Suffice it to say my statements about the Captain are reflected by others who knew him and have been interviewed. You cant seem to digest that can you. The have NO NEGATIVES You cant refute it either. Again note this is FIRST HAND opinions of those who have met or served under him.

Sal,
So again what we have here in your case specifially is you...( I hate to go back to this but I guess I must) sitting in front of your computer...no first hand knowledge, no facts other than what you read, pleanty of interpretation and conspiracy theories dreamed up in your own mind creating all sorts of opinions in your "dark ngative" room.

On the other side, you have eye witnesses, people who knew Walbridge for years, people who entrusted their lives with Walbridge, people who were aquantiances ( me) people who wre professionally involced with him....and they all say the same thing....which when comapred with what you say about Walbridge....makes your opinions about Walbridge look like a load of crap. Read JulieMors post it puts it in maybe better perspective than I can.

Now who has the credibility here...you behind you computer with little sailing knowledge or the people who have sailing knowledge wirtht him directly and knew him first hand....duh

I think it is your hostility that has begun to show through. Actually your posts in respoinse to mine since the smallboatlover thread have a distinct pattern to them/
 
#1,233 ·
Chef,

Is SAL really that bad? Maybe he overstepped in asking you to prove your relationship with Bounty's captain, but he has some good ideas/opinions too. And if he overstepped a bit, is it right to trash him? It seems to me that there were some really mean statements made against him.....and not justified in my book.

You are a defender of captain based on your take of the available information and some personal knowledge of the man. That is your position.

Others look at the available information and draw different conclusions. They are unlikely to convince you of their position, nor will you convince them to change their position.
 
#1,235 · (Edited)
NCC320,

His overstepping was really a questioning of integrity, and you sought to chastise me and minimize his indescretion. Clearly you are biased..enough said about it. Your opinion is noted.

Back to the thread.....the Bounty.

While more and more first hand knowledge and opinions about Captain Walbridge have started surfacing, it appears that almost every one of them paint him as a respectable, knowledgeable, dedicated Captain who for the most part was deidcated to safety of his crew and vessel. FIRST hand interviews have said this time and time again. Interviews with surviors of the ordeal paint him still with a realatvely positive reference. Other people have come forward who knew the Captain or met him first hand have spoken as to his qualities and almost all of them paint him in the same light. These are the facts. They are irrefutable.

So we are looking for lessons to be learned from this. Well I want to include another one. Rushing to judge someone, without questioning the people around them who have first hand knowledge of the person, without questioning the survivors of the incident who paint a differing story of the Captain but the same as the people who knew him is just plain unforgiveable.

I have from the very beginning supported and been able to support those of you who found extreme fault with the decision to leave the dock into the hurricane. I have never thought that this was anything but an aggregious mistake and poor judgement in this instance and that he should ultimately be held responsible as the Captain is for this decision. This responsibility holds even if they find contributing factoprs ( design, pumps, engines, strycture, ballast etc.). He is responsible.

What I cannot support and find dehumanizing is the attck mode some of you have been on to paint this man as a crazy, suicidal, cult leader with little experience or reagrd for his fellow man. Some have very agressively keep accusations about the Captain on incidents other than this one where there were never any questions or charges ever. The only people thinking this way are the attackers. Its like they dont want to admit that even a good Captain, knowledgeable in his craft can make a bad mistake and error in judgement. Sometimes good people do bad things. Sometimes we do.

But for ALL OF US amateur slueths to go on a continual witchhunt directed always back to Walbriodge analayzing structuire and displacement changes, failed pumps for who knows what real reason, pumps may be independent of the motors and any number of technical issues which I would be none of us have expertise in should really be left up to the experts as the constant comjecture and speculation is nothing but that. Some even have mistaken the difference between a fact and their fact which is really an opinion. Having the right to have an opinion is what this forum is about. No opinion really is right or wrong its yours, but thats how it should be stated. SloopJonB and Jon Eisberg are very carefull when stating things as their opinion to note that. What is dangerous is for some newbie to come along and here some spouting outlandish unporved accusations and hypothesis as facts. The initial group of Walbridge rebutation bashers have had to retreat back to where we should have started in the beginning before the hysteria started to questioning the other facts surrounding this. But they were so intent on thorttling those who supported the Captain as a qualified man who made a mistake, they lost sight of what really happened. Now the survuors and the people who new him speak up...and the bashers really have no credibility compared to them.

There will always be questions about his sailing in hurricanes ( if he truly did or it was just a boast), but up until the day he left the dock in New London I have yet to see any evidence/ opinion / post/ citation accusing him of being reckless, suicidal, cult leader etc. All of these accusations or theories have come after the sinking of the Bounty. As I said early on a Rush to Judgement is dangerous as it can lead you to form opinions which really cannot be substantiated with backup facts .

Some of you cant seem to comprehend that these people wont say bad things about him. You continue bashing by saying they must have a reason not to....why cant they see what I see from behind my computer. There must be a conspiracy with ALL of them including the people who have known him and sailed with him for years to not say something bad here. Simplicity is the truth.\\

IMHO the reason we, and I include myself with those who were aquaintances as I was, are stunned by this, stunned to think this really good man with all this experience would make a decision to leave in the face of a hurricane. We are stunned with the inexpliticity of it. It is so out of character as to seem surreal is did it and is gone.

Some of you who have remained mostly silent and quiet may also have come to this conclusion as his friends have. You have not been blinded by a rush to judge and it shows a real strength in your character and sense of fair play. I cant say I have stood with you as I stand accused of judgimg those who judged him which makes me just as bad as them. I have posted out of defense of him, sometimes in a way which was as bad as the bashers which therefore makes me hypocritical. My good freind Mainsail pointed this out to me. Others have also through PMs I agree I am guilty of that. For that I apoligize. I thanks those of you who wrote that to me also, for making me look at myself. Lets see how many of the others apoligoize now for rushing to judgement or will the continual to defend their actions forever.

Robin was a good kind, smart, experienced boastfull, teacher and 17 year Captain of the Bounty.
This good man screwed up big time. It happens we are all humans. His was worse...it cost lives including his own, it cost his good reputation of over 25 years, gone in the instant of a bad decision. As I said sometime good people do bad things. Lets not make him out to be this ogre cult leader who was really suicidal in nature who wanted to put people in danager all the time. Doesnt ring true with the truth. Lets just agree that he screwed up and is responsible which unfortunatley we cant predict or correct in the future because GOOD PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS SOMETIMES

Lets see if we can continue to find some of the thigs we can chance to prevent what happened to the Bounty once they were out there in trouble. One thing I cansay is that he trained his crew extremely well what to do in an emergency...that is why they almost all survived. It also goes back as an indication of his underlying commitment to the crew and safety. Why he did thta and thenleft the dock the ultimate unsafe thing to do I cant explain and neoither can anyone else.
 
#1,239 ·
O.K. I've HAD IT! All you arm chair sailors quit your bitchin'! You have kicked this dog down
the road far enough.
 
#1,240 ·
OK then .... I think we've reached a "cool it you lot" moment.

This is not off topic .... rules re abuse are much more strictly enforced here than in the sewer. I'm not going back to edit out the offences thus far perpetrated but more than one of you need to put a sock in it.
 
#1,241 ·
We can make 2000 posts easy.

By the way, PCP, your english is outstanding. Anyone that can debate in a foreign language has it down, regardless of whether they are right.

My son is taking German as his required language at an Ivy League college. He was laughing, when I saw him over Thanksgiving, that he had a conversational exam with his professor. He was asked what he knew of Alaska. He gave some reply in German that included knowing there were bears in Alaska. Then we was asked what he knew of the bears. He suttered and all he could muster up in German was, "they're brown".

You've got the language down.
 
#1,243 ·
Thank you:). It is one of the reasons I hang here. Just to improve it. I have started recentely on an Italian forum with the same purpose, but that is a bit more difficult since I had not any formal education whit it.

No the German is another thing, I can understand something in what regards reading, but speaking... no way:D. My wife speaks reasonably well German and reads books without difficulty. I have tried to learn but the grammar and all those declinations are just a pain in the ass. I understand quite well your son's dificulties;)

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,242 ·
I am copying the majority of a post I made on a gCaptain forum, something I have been following re:Bounty since soon after she went down. Clearly I have too much time on my hands to be reading all these forums, but well, I have no excuse other than a frozen lake in winter.

Some background on me: I have nearly six years of experience as crew on various Tallships, ranging from 60-150 feet, and sailing in and around both US coasts, the FL Keys, and many many islands in the South Pacific. Professionally, I met Captain Walbridge twice to speak with him about working for Bounty, seen the boat, lived aboard her while at dock, and know many former crew members (I have never sailed aboard Bounty). I also know Captain Miles (the author of the "my friend" letter), and have sailed as a volunteer on the Pride of Baltimore II (he was co-captain of the original Pride, and has been captain of Pride II since her creation).

Please forgive me, I know this is long-winded, but I'd like to share the "tallship sailor's side," if you will.

I have not talked about the Bounty publicly (either in forums, Facebook, etc) out of respect for her crew (some of whom are friends), and I believe that is why the TallShip community as a whole has been quiet. It has NOT been to protect the name of the Bounty by any means, but the actual people. However, it has been several weeks, and I am incredibly frustrated by most of what I've read on this forum and others, not to mention the Bounty Facebook page. I am not defending the Bounty, Captain Walbridge or the decision to go to sea. I only wish to defend the rest of the Tallship Community/Industry (I refer to both because I feel that this is both a career to many of us, and it is also a very small, tight-knit community) who are being grouped in with the Bounty defenders. Nor are probably 99% of those posting inane comments on the Bounty Facebook page or elsewhere.

1. The crew that makes up the base of the TSCI are supported by a large percentage of volunteers. Sometimes those crew volunteered in order to be "promoted" to paying jobs, other times they were retirees or weekend warrior types. Some TallShips have "pay-to-play" or "trainee" type programs, like the Picton Castle. PC left recently for a circumnavigation (notably postponing leaving Nova Scotia until Sandy was out of the way), and "pay-to-play" is how she funds her overhead costs. Most other Tallships are funded by donors, educational field trips, "appearance fees" (though this has become more rare), and passenger fees on daysails/overnight sails. I have volunteered occasionally, though my first gig on a TallShip was as paid crew. Whether they were paid, paying, or volunteer crew, quite often a ship is a sailor's "home." For the majority of the last 6 years, I lived aboard the boats I worked on, and had mail forwarded to friends or family. On top of this, most TallShips don't pay much. Over the years, depending on the organization that owned the boats and my experience or position, I was paid between $400-1400 a month (the lower end of the scale 90% of the time). I'll come back to it, but note that if a sailor were to leave Bounty (former crew have told me they made $200-240 a month, with officers not making much more. Bounty was notorious for low pay.) a few nights in a hotel or a flight home would be a month's pay.

2. In the TallShips Community, Bounty was an anomaly. There are a small handful of other Tallships that are privately owned, and not managed by a non-profit. In essence, the USCG saw her as a yacht (which is why she was an "uninspected" vessel), not much different than a private motor yacht. On the other hand, Lady Maryland, for example, is a 104-foot wooden schooner built in 1986 by the Living Classrooms Foundation. She operates March-November with an ecology based program, teaching 4th-12th grade students and sailing with them in the Chesapeake Bay, as well as in New England. To do this, she is inspected every year by the USCG (not only checking the hull, rig, and maintenance, but also making us crew “re-enact” man-overboard, fire, and evacuation drills), has all the proper paperwork showing exactly how many crew and what licenses (and what size) are needed to operate, as well as watertight bulkheads, etc, and amount of sails and size she can carry (i.e., LM can only sail with her main topsail if there are no passengers aboard). Bounty did not have to go through any of this, and might only have a very basic inspection, and carried a six-pack, or 6 passenger max (some people say 12pax? I'm just going off conversations with crew from years ago), uninspected vessel license. There is a world of difference between the way she and the majority of Tallships are operated. Why did she advertise school/corporate sails on her website? I don't know how the office planned on making that happen, but I have never heard of that happening aboard Bounty, with the exception of the occasional paying passenger. So why did she not have subchapter T certification? I can't answer that question, only the office or Walbridge can. The problem comes when you begin to think about why a vessel like Bounty should be inspected. Because she carries passengers/pay-to-play? Technically as long as it's six/12 or less, she doesn't need any bigger certification. Because she is a large boat? There are private motor/sailing yachts that size that don't need inspection. Because she's old/wooden/replica? There are again, many many privately owned vessels that old or older that remain uninspected (a friend of mine is restoring a 1920s schooner to use as a charter boat with six passengers, so he won't need any inspection).

In all reality, if USCG rules are changed, that's a hell of a lot more paperwork/manpower/regulation that will have to be put into place, for every single “old boat,” or vessel over such-and-such feet.

3. Many other sailors had heard “sea stories” about her, though I know a lot of us wrote these off as hyperbolic (because sea stories usually are). Since this story and the “we chase hurricanes” interview have come to light, it appearing obvious that many of the stories are not as overblown as we thought they were. I must admit, I have warned friends away from working on the Bounty, and I know I am not the only one.

4. Most Tallships carry greenhands. That’s how we learn. In weather like this hurricane, with as much forewarning as there was available, Bounty should never have left the dock especially with newer crew (even with my experience - the biggest seas I've seen are 20ft, and 50-60knots - the thought of sailing toward a hurricane makes my stomach turn over). She did have eight “experienced” crew with licenses/AB cert, and several others with a couple years of experience, but the rest were all new, including Claudene (note: I don’t consider six months aboard a sailor’s first boat “well-seasoned”). To be honest, Bounty was kind of a "green boat." That is, she often had crew fresh off the dock, and many of her officers were crew that had mostly or only sailed Bounty. That can be a good thing, as her older crew are extremely familiar with her nuances, but it can also mean that her crew have a lackadaisical approach when on another vessel (we never did that on the Bounty, etc).

5. In addition, the ship’s engineer in a recent interview (who boarded the ship in Boothbay, where the ship was hauled out) stated "at that point in time, I didn't know a hurricane was coming" and “we didn’t realize the magnitude of the storm.” That blows my mind. I have to wonder, because of their naivety about the weather (I have to admit, sometimes life aboard a Tallship can become very insular with little news of the rest of the world “outside,” but I try to take opportunities to watch news in the bar, or catch the front page of newspapers, etc, and most definitely pay attention to the weather reports on the VHF) was Walbridge able to psyche the crew up for a “wild ride” and get them to follow him?

6. Finally, if you are a crew member at the dock and hear about Hurricane Sandy, what do you do? Do you jump ship and leave your crewmates behind? Remember, not only does this look bad on your part, but you have also left your friends, and home. If Walbridge hadn’t said that he wouldn’t hold it against them if they left, in the small community of Tallships, this is possibly a blacklisting offense. As crew, where do you go? What if you left and the ship made it to Florida safely? All kinds of things could be said against you. If you incite others to leave, when does it become mutiny (and if other captains hear this, why should they trust and hire you, when you didn’t trust your captain’s judgment)? Other posters on this forum wondered why in the 15+ years that Walbridge was captain on Bounty, why no one said anything about him. What do you say? If something happens that causes you as a sailor to lose your trust in your Captain, where do you go? Do you tell another captain? The USCG? That’s hearsay, and certainly your word as a deckhand versus a captain. If you as a captain of another Tallship hear a sea story that makes you question Walbridge, you’re repeating hearsay and possibly ruining Walbridge’s reputation if it was only a false rumor.

7. In defense of Captain Miles' letter, I do not know the exact extent of his relationship with Captain Walbridge, but I do know they were at least friendly and good acquaintances. I think his reasoning for addressing Walbridge as "my friend" was twofold; they were friends and had very similar social circles, but also he was perhaps using "friend" as a way of softening a blow when the letter needed to be said. It comes back to the TSC not addressing the situation other than with condolences because many of our friends are former crew. I know as a majority, the TSC let out a sigh of relief when we read Captain Miles' words. He is extremely well-respected for his experience and knowledge in the community.
 
#1,244 ·
... I know as a majority, the TSC let out a sigh of relief when we read Captain Miles' words. He is extremely well-respected for his experience and knowledge in the community.
Thanks for your post and your explanations. I had the intuition that TSC wanted badly not to be confounded with the Bounty and you make that clearer as already had done another poster that crews on tall ship Gazela.

I love tall ships and traditional wooden boats so I understand very well your concern with the repercussions this sad adventure with a bad ending can have on the Tall Ship Community. I hope CG can find a balanced compromise between the needs to regulate the ships and crews in a way to warrant a good level of safety and sustainability.

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,245 ·
Thank you forn your post. Hopefully you dont join make one post and run. You post was very informative and excellent and provides insight and also raises questions which I hope you are willing to or can answer.

Since you spent so much time in MD on the Pride, Do you know the captain of the tall ship Witchcraft stationed in Pasadena Maryland? What kind of classification would that boat be in terms of tall ships. What kind of liscencing would he need?

What do you say? If something happens that causes you as a sailor to lose your trust in your Captain, where do you go? Do you tell another captain
This is a question I have kept asking. Sorry, but I need more clarity from you about your answer. I understand the blacklisting/ mutiny thing, but now since the Captain is being accused by some of deriliction all along ( we all pretty much agree about his responsibility in the leaving of port to sail into sandy), why are there still no stories or posts from others as to previous instances. Surely there are forum like this one, where your anononimity would be protected and you could air your concerns. maybe had you since you carefully talk around them and others had air concerns about this vessel and crew they would have been looked at more closely.

Many other sailors had heard "sea stories" about her, though I know a lot of us wrote these off as hyperbolic (because sea stories usually are). Since this story and the "we chase hurricanes" interview have come to light, it appearing obvious that many of the stories are not as overblown as we thought they were. I must admit, I have warned friends away from working on the Bounty, and I know I am not the only one
Why?
What are you not saying directly here?
Was there a problem with the Captain here?
Was there a problem with the crew?
Was there a problem with the Ship?
Was there a problem with the company which owned the ship?.

Can you be specific as to what the reason you warned your friends from working on the Bounty? Just saying you wouldnt work on the vessel or wouldnt want your friends to implies irregularities. Mmre than just poor pay.

I look forward to reading your answers.

Dave
 
#1,255 ·
I have to work and sleep a little! Don't worry, I will try to continue to post and be as honest as I can. Thanks for your kinds words, too.

Since you spent so much time in MD on the Pride, Do you know the captain of the tall ship Witchcraft stationed in Pasadena Maryland? What kind of classification would that boat be in terms of tall ships. What kind of liscencing would he need?
I am not familiar with Witchcraft or her owner, so I Googled her. (theyachtwitchcraft.com) To be honest, she's kind of in an odd position.. I personally would describe her as classic boat or yacht. "Tall Ship" to most people are traditional sailing ships, but more in the pre-1900s style than anything else, with stepped masts. Classic boats can fall into that category, but it becomes fuzzy. (I hoped I didn't offend anyone here. I love classic wooden boats, and have had the pleasure of sailing on a few). The website doesn't mention any charter sailing, or taking any passengers out, so really, the owner/captain doesn't need any licensing. (Now, I do wish more states would require boaters to go through some sort of safety class. Florida has only just implemented one, but the older boaters do not have to legally take the class, and frankly, FT Myers has some god-awful boaters. But that's another discussion.)

This is a question I have kept asking. Sorry, but I need more clarity from you about your answer. I understand the blacklisting/ mutiny thing, but now since the Captain is being accused by some of deriliction all along ( we all pretty much agree about his responsibility in the leaving of port to sail into sandy), why are there still no stories or posts from others as to previous instances. Surely there are forum like this one, where your anononimity would be protected and you could air your concerns. maybe had you since you carefully talk around them and others had air concerns about this vessel and crew they would have been looked at more closely.
The TSC in all reality is a loose group of vessels. While we may see each other at Tall Ship Festivals (each summer, a group of TallShips sail between ports on the East Coast, West Coast, or the Great Lakes, and there is often a "reunion" of sorts for crews), or reunite with a former crewmember on another ship, there really isn't one main "forum," if you will. Facebook *has* changed a lot of that, though many folks don't either have internet access or desire to join Facebook or similar websites. I myself didn't know this was here until a week or so ago. (Though I think I've floated through the forums when trying to find info/opinions on tools, etc, in the past.) I think we do still worry about anonymity no matter where we are, because the TSC core is very small.

I also wonder if those of us who had our doubts and opinions might have wondered if we were making a mountain out of a molehill, or if we would be judged.

These "sea stories" that I talk about were very one-on-one communication, either through email (I have certainly emailed friends to ask their opinion of vessels/captains when thinking of working for them) or in person.

It all really comes down to she-said-he-said, though. I think the biggest reason is that nothing was "said" about Captain Walbridge or Bounty is because we (those of us who hadn't sailed on Bounty) had no proof and for the most part only rumors. Like I said in my earlier post, most of Bounty's crew started green, and many didn't have anything to compare it to. There is also a thought of "well how else are we going to get xyz done? If I don't do it, someone else will." I certainly have thought that when faced with a task (say, attaching stays aloft).

Why?
What are you not saying directly here?
Was there a problem with the Captain here?
Was there a problem with the crew?
Was there a problem with the Ship?
Was there a problem with the company which owned the ship?.

Can you be specific as to what the reason you warned your friends from working on the Bounty? Just saying you wouldnt work on the vessel or wouldnt want your friends to implies irregularities. Mmre than just poor pay.
I really don't want I'm saying to be used as fodder. What I will say is that when I first saw the Bounty in 2005, I was working for a sailing museum (I had yet to sail and would join my first ship a year later). I was interested and afterhours, introduced myself to the crew and they showed me around the boat. One of the crew asked if I wanted to go aloft and asked the captain for permission to show me. I was terrified of heights, but he was a cute boy and I certainly didn't want to miss out, so we climbed up to the main course or so, and he pointed out the rig, including describing certain yards as "unstayed" (the lifts were wonky and loose). In 2006 or 2007, she underwent a major yard restoration, and left for what was supposed to be a recreation of the original Bounty voyage. (I heard she ran out of funds, and just went to Europe.) A friend who was crew during this trip told me that in yard, "someone" had forgotten to put a seacock in, so a few days into the transAtlantic voyage, the crew noticed she was taking on water from the "hole" in her hull.

Naturally this stuck with me, and when I saw her again for a Festival in 2008, I was amazed she had looked so different and in much better shape. However, I did have conversations with one of the mates (a friend I met when he was sailing another boat) about why he trusted Walbridge, and how he felt about the boat. It came down to her restoration, and that Walbridge was convinced the ship would survive (I do remember my friend saying Walbridge said Bounty has a "positive buoyancy," that she would not sink completely).

A few years later (this story is related to me from captain friend, and eye-witnessed by his entire crew), Bounty was tied up to dock, and her crew and captain on deck for the morning muster. My friend said that wake came into harbor (his boat was tied on the opposite side of the pier), and Bounty, her docklines still tight from the tide coming in, started bouncing against the dock. My friend and his crew, who were also mustering on deck, watched this happen, and said none of the crew looked over the rail at the taut lines, or even moved. When Bounty started bouncing her "rub rail" (trim along the fore-and-aft midsection) and cracking it on the cement dock, Bounty crew finally noticed and eased her docklines. (Some of Bounty crew came up to my friend's crew and said they should have pointed out the tight lines. My experience as crew is that we ease lines for tide, and often operate a "pee watch" to adjust lines as well - that is, if you get up to pee in the middle of the night, check docklines.)

I really don't want to discuss details further, as some of them are more personal. When I've warned friends, I've often described the boat as "mis-handled." That is not to say Walbridge didn't know the boat.. I've seen him sail onto and off the dock, which is pretty crazy with a large boat. I think overall she was just not a safe boat, due to a lot of green crew, and much lower pay than most of the industry meant she may not have the best or most experienced crew. (I do know that for many years, her first and second mate were the same people, who had spent the majority of their TallShip experience on Bounty. As far as I know, they were excellent mates.)

Lastly, I know very little about the company. Those saying she was left for insurance money, or because she was for sale... frankly, she's been for sale for years, at least since 2010 that I know of. Several Tall Ships are. It's really just a matter of these boats often being more expensive upkeep than the owners realize, or hard times, especially in the last couple years.
 
#1,248 ·
sparklepl3nty, for the most part, what you wrote, and I read every word, didn't surprise me. It sounded a lot like the land based working world. "Keep your mouth shut if you want a job." I'm not saying Walbridge was like that but, like you said, those things can go through someone's head when they are thinking of criticizing the boss.

That speaks to the mentality of keeping quiet to CYA so common in the working world. Ten people can trash talk a boss and it will be they who find themselves out of a job. But one boss can destroy the reputation of as many people he or she wants and it will rarely affect the job status of that boss. I've been on both sides of that fence so I know what I'm talking about.

What did surprise me was your statement about the general knowledge in the TSC to stay away from the Bounty and the relief felt my many in the community when Miles posted his letter on FB. Miles got pretty well trashed here for doing that.

When you apply that CYA mentality to the crew of the Bounty and the situation they were faced with at the dock when Walbridge told them of his plans to sail towards Sandy, one can just imagine what went through the minds of the crew. It wouldn't surprise me if they swallowed hard, crossed their fingers and stepped aboard hoping for the best.

Practically all the crew of the Bounty is on Facebook and not one has posted anything negative about the Bounty or its captain. There are many others on FB who have crewed on Bounty and they too have nothing bad to say about the ship or the captain, even the ones no longer working in the TSC.

We're in tough economic times. Combine that with the lure of the sea many of us have, the romanticized images that may float through one's head just looking at these majestic tall ships and the desire to sail a tall ship, and it's easy to see how someone who crews on a tall ship would feel it wise to speak nothing negative about their experiences or their captain.

But, if that is in fact the case here, that silence cost the loss of ship and crew and will probably do so again unless regular inspections become mandatory. I fear the odds of that are very slim. The only other option is for those who have knowledge of poorly maintained vessels or reckless leadership to report that to the proper authorities. If the TSC is anything like the regular working world, there's almost no chance of that happening either.

Thank you for your insight, your honesty and your willingness to speak out.
 
#1,256 ·
What did surprise me was your statement about the general knowledge in the TSC to stay away from the Bounty and the relief felt my many in the community when Miles posted his letter on FB. Miles got pretty well trashed here for doing that.
I think a lot of it boils down to being green. The TSC is kind of divided (at least to crew) into a couple categories. There are boats you sail on to get your foot in the door (sometimes as volunteer, sometimes paid), other boats whose crew is very qualified and experienced. Some boats only offer "booze cruises" out of the same port, others that travel along the coast with children or students, and still others are "voyaging" and travel just to travel. Many boats offer a mix of this, as Pride II is a "goodwill" ship. She does carry passengers for daysails, and sometimes between ports, but the majority of her time is traveling for appearances.

So if you are new to the TSC, you may not know all the nuances or rumors about boats.
When you apply that CYA mentality to the crew of the Bounty and the situation they were faced with at the dock when Walbridge told them of his plans to sail towards Sandy, one can just imagine what went through the minds of the crew. It wouldn't surprise me if they swallowed hard, crossed their fingers and stepped aboard hoping for the best.
I have to agree with you here. It would be a tough decision (weighing finances, letting your crew down, your next move as a sailor, etc) no matter what boat you're working for.

Practically all the crew of the Bounty is on Facebook and not one has posted anything negative about the Bounty or its captain. There are many others on FB who have crewed on Bounty and they too have nothing bad to say about the ship or the captain, even the ones no longer working in the TSC.
Remember, not everyone has their Facebook public, and what we do say/have said/will say is likely private from the snooping eye. I wouldn't assume that just because you haven't seen it, it isn't there. Not to mention we are all hyper-aware of people looking for dirt.

We're in tough economic times. Combine that with the lure of the sea many of us have, the romanticized images that may float through one's head just looking at these majestic tall ships and the desire to sail a tall ship, and it's easy to see how someone who crews on a tall ship would feel it wise to speak nothing negative about their experiences or their captain.

But, if that is in fact the case here, that silence cost the loss of ship and crew and will probably do so again unless regular inspections become mandatory. I fear the odds of that are very slim. The only other option is for those who have knowledge of poorly maintained vessels or reckless leadership to report that to the proper authorities. If the TSC is anything like the regular working world, there's almost no chance of that happening either.
I will say it again. Bounty was an irregularity. If you look at Tall Ships America's webpage, or wikipedia for info, you will find that at least 90% of these ships are inspected and have extremely high regulations. I have felt very secure on nearly all the vessels I have worked on, and trusted my captains.
 
#1,249 ·
I seem to recall there being three separate professionals from the TSC hat have now opined that the Bounty, as whole, was a inferior operation to their standards. I've read reference to her physical condition, propensity to take on danger and the relative lack of professional crew. That all adds up to a cultural problem with Bounty.

It doesn't make than all the Captain's fault, but he would be the leader responsible for it.

As speculation, I can image a laid back culture would be very attractive to some. Less structure, fewer rules, not living under the tyranny of "the man". I have no way to say that was the culture, I'm only pointing out how a very distructive one could still cause its members to think it was great and retain admiration for its leadership.

My point is that the general support of the crew for their Captain does not convince me that he was a good leader. In some cases, the best leaders are not the most liked.
 
#1,250 · (Edited)
I am hoping sparlepl3nty will return and post again and answer some of the questions I posed to him/ her.

Without starting a storm here, a one post contributer in the past has raised suspicions. Dont read into what I am saying here. I am just folowing a tradition which has been in effect on SN by asking.

I would like to hear what specifically they were worried about instead of trying to guess it. The culture, the ship, the Captain, the owner. Just throwing out generalities only fuels the speculation more.

If the TSC was so worried about the Bounty and now it has sunk and is gone and they are so united about the ship, surely there will be no repercussions about speaking frankly about what SPECIFICALLY was wrong on the Bounty. You would think they would want to try and make it narrowed to the Bounty so that the spotlight isnt cast on the whole industry. Surely you would also think that if there were these specific p[roblems abaord this ship they would be identified so they dont happen again on other tall ships.

That would be part of the learned lesson we are asking for here.

So Sparkelpl3nty speak back up. Let everyone know what it was specifically so we can correct it going forward and it doesnt cost someone their lives again. Its obvious the silence before hand about this didnt work by your own admission. After all this may benefit you and your freinds in this industry which you is aparent oin your passion, which may have safety and culture issues as is now being speculated that can be corrected for all TSC members..
 
#1,258 ·
Thank you for comming back and replying and giving us a further glimpse into what you saw.

I am not familiar with Witchcraft or her owner, so I Googled her. (theyachtwitchcraft.com) To be honest, she's kind of in an odd position.. I personally would describe her as classic boat or yacht. "Tall Ship" to most people are traditional sailing ships, but more in the pre-1900s style than anything else, with stepped masts
.

I am actually quite suprised you have never heard of Witchcraft before. She is a staple of the classB tall ships in the Baltimore area and is berthed in my marina 2 slips from me. She participates yearly in all of festivals in the area and many times over the years and now accompanied both the Pride of Baltimore and the Pride of Baltimore II in events on the Chesapeake. I beleive you mention you sailed on Both. The Captain of the Witchcraft also served on both Prides. He knows the Captain of the pride II and he knew Walbridge even. We spoke about this a week ago and I spoke with him today and showed him your post. Thats why I though you may have certainly run accross him as the Tall ship community here in the Chesapeake is a small one and they do a lot of travelking toigether to many of the festivals on the Chesapeake together.. You are correct that it is now a personal yacht and does not take passangers .

From your post it seems as though one of the things you are saying here is that this underfunded vessel, staffed by mostly green sailors was kind of a train wreck waiting to happen. Even the most basic seaman amongst us know about slacking lines through tidal changes and the effect on lines of a tidal change. In one way it sounds as if those who were on the Bounty were trying to live the dream of the Tall Ship era without the proper vessel, training and funding.

It almost sounds from what you say that them even taking this vessel out of the harbor is something they were not really qualified for by your description of dock lines and the thru hulls. No wonder you had no confidence in allowing your friends to board her in any way other than the dock. I guess she should have just stayed a dockside attraction some
where and not moved. Wow and to think this veessel went accross the Atlantic, San Diego, Peurto Rico with all this potential critical stuff just waiting to be exposed and sink her.

You and your associates on the well funded tall ships must have joked and talked about the Bounty in amazement and worried all the time that she would self destruct due to her green crew inability to handle the most basic of operations, or the lack of managerment of the vessels maintainence. You probably are not suprised that she sunk and assumed some tragedy would eventually befall her sooner or later...Sandy or not. The other TSC boats propbablky though it was grossly unfair all the regulations/ certifcations you had to undergo, while the Bounty went many places and didnt have to go through the same paces. They essentially got a free ride while you were under a microscope/

I bet she was a true embarrassment to the rest of the "real" tall ships in terms of professionalism as she really wasnt of the same ilk, and caliber and discipline or esprit de cor that you had on the "real" tall ships. She was truly the ugly ducking who called her self a tall ship but in your and others minds was really a wannabe tall ship and was just acting the part. It propably miffed many that the Bounty received so much attention and admiration from people because in your mind and the other TSC community she was really not of the same class as your ships. In your minds she was truly just a movie prop, not built to be a working tall ship like the Pride of Baltimore and Pride 2, which you sailed on or many of the other tall ships.

But as you have said the ship because it is reallly a large personal yacht in terms of classifcation does not have to pass any real CG or stringent inspections. Had this just been any other yacht which had sank, it propably would not have had the noteriety.

People do stupid things on ships and boats far worse with more loss of life than two people and dont get nearly the noteriety and play in the press as the Bounty has. Even her in the shark tank of sailnet, the Bounty has had so many permutations as to cause and hypothesis that havent been afforded other ships or vessels which have sunk. It may beg back to a questuion to which JulieMor asked in the beginnning, why does this Bounty evoke so much response?

No wonder you and some in the TSC now want to distance your self from them. I guess you couldnt when they were alive as you were collegues and didnt want to be tagged with being jealous of the publicity and noteriety this wannabe tall ship received. Also you want people to know that you have more stringent qualifications as far as crew and condition of your ships. You are the serious tall ships after all and the Bounty was just playing at it.

Maybe you could go back to some of your frriends and have them post similarly as you or at least come forward some way annonomously to weigh in on this Bounty in this or other forums. Now that you have made it apparent that she really was the outcast, the black sheep of the tall ship community, there shouldnt be any type of black listing or retributions from telling the truth as you indicate most in the TSC beleive as you did.. By doing this maybe you would all be doing this to prevent a similar situation from occuring again and can save lives.

It seems as though this poster indicates it was inevitable that something would happen to the Bounty every time she left the dock. Sailing off into a hurricane insured that it happened that day.

Again thank you for posting. You as a first hand account and professional of this TSC certainly are a breath of fresh air in this thread where lots of conjecture and hypothesis without first hand knowledge have been swirling. Its great to receive a post firsthand,
Your posts so far having given me another way of looking at this terrible tragedy.

Feel free to continue to add where you think you can without putting yourself in a compromising position.

.
 
#1,261 ·
Thank you for comming back and replying and giving us a further glimpse into what you saw.

.

I am actually quite suprised you have never heard of Witchcraft before. She is a staple of the classB tall ships in the Baltimore area and is berthed in my marina 2 slips from me. She participates yearly in all of festivals in the area and many times over the years and now accompanied both the Pride of Baltimore and the Pride of Baltimore II in events on the Chesapeake. I beleive you mention you sailed on Both. The Captain of the Witchcraft also served on both Prides. He knows the Captain of the pride II and he knew Walbridge even. We spoke about this a week ago and I spoke with him today and showed him your post. Thats why I though you may have certainly run accross him as the Tall ship community here in the Chesapeake is a small one and they do a lot of travelking toigether to many of the festivals on the Chesapeake together.. You are correct that it is now a personal yacht and does not take passangers .

From your post it seems as though one of the things you are saying here is that this underfunded vessel, staffed by mostly green sailors was kind of a train wreck waiting to happen. Even the most basic seaman amongst us know about slacking lines through tidal changes and the effect on lines of a tidal change. In one way it sounds as if those who were on the Bounty were trying to live the dream of the Tall Ship era without the proper vessel, training and funding.

It almost sounds from what you say that them even taking this vessel out of the harbor is something they were not really qualified for by your description of dock lines and the thru hulls. No wonder you had no confidence in allowing your friends to board her in any way other than the dock. I guess she should have just stayed a dockside attraction some
where and not moved. Wow and to think this veessel went accross the Atlantic, San Diego, Peurto Rico with all this potential critical stuff just waiting to be exposed and sink her.

You and your associates on the well funded tall ships must have joked and talked about the Bounty in amazement and worried all the time that she would self destruct due to her green crew inability to handle the most basic of operations, or the lack of managerment of the vessels maintainence. You probably are not suprised that she sunk and assumed some tragedy would eventually befall her sooner or later...Sandy or not. The other TSC boats propbablky though it was grossly unfair all the regulations/ certifcations you had to undergo, while the Bounty went many places and didnt have to go through the same paces. They essentially got a free ride while you were under a microscope/

I bet she was a true embarrassment to the rest of the "real" tall ships in terms of professionalism as she really wasnt of the same ilk, and caliber and discipline or esprit de cor that you had on the "real" tall ships. She was truly the ugly ducking who called her self a tall ship but in your and others minds was really a wannabe tall ship and was just acting the part. It propably miffed many that the Bounty received so much attention and admiration from people because in your mind and the other TSC community she was really not of the same class as your ships. In your minds she was truly just a movie prop, not built to be a working tall ship like the Pride of Baltimore and Pride 2, which you sailed on or many of the other tall ships.

But as you have said the ship because it is reallly a large personal yacht in terms of classifcation does not have to pass any real CG or stringent inspections. Had this just been any other yacht which had sank, it propably would not have had the noteriety.

People do stupid things on ships and boats far worse with more loss of life than two people and dont get nearly the noteriety and play in the press as the Bounty has. Even her in the shark tank of sailnet, the Bounty has had so many permutations as to cause and hypothesis that havent been afforded other ships or vessels which have sunk. It may beg back to a questuion to which JulieMor asked in the beginnning, why does this Bounty evoke so much response?

No wonder you and some in the TSC now want to distance your self from them. I guess you couldnt when they were alive as you were collegues and didnt want to be tagged with being jealous of the publicity and noteriety this wannabe tall ship received. Also you want people to know that you have more stringent qualifications as far as crew and condition of your ships. You are the serious tall ships after all and the Bounty was just playing at it.

Maybe you could go back to some of your frriends and have them post similarly as you or at least come forward some way annonomously to weigh in on this Bounty in this or other forums. Now that you have made it apparent that she really was the outcast, the black sheep of the tall ship community, there shouldnt be any type of black listing or retributions from telling the truth as you indicate most in the TSC beleive as you did.. By doing this maybe you would all be doing this to prevent a similar situation from occuring again and can save lives.

It seems as though this poster indicates it was inevitable that something would happen to the Bounty every time she left the dock. Sailing off into a hurricane insured that it happened that day.

Again thank you for posting. You as a first hand account and professional of this TSC certainly are a breath of fresh air in this thread where lots of conjecture and hypothesis without first hand knowledge have been swirling. Its great to receive a post firsthand,
Your posts so far having given me another way of looking at this terrible tragedy.

Feel free to continue to add where you think you can without putting yourself in a compromising position.

.
Chef,

The above are your words. sparklepl3nty said exactly what is posted under sparkle3nty. Why is it necessary to play the game of restating/overstating what the poster has said. So if the poster answers more questions, amateur "Columbos" will not be satisfied, and will ask more until they can identify the person. And then someone who feels strongly about the Bounty will likely go to the tall ship community and get the poster blackballed. Maybe the poster has already given too much information.

Along that line, why would you show the post to the captain of Witchcraft? And even asking about the Witchcraft seems like a trick question, but I could be wrong.
 
#1,260 ·
sparklepl3nty,

Thanks for your informative posts. But take care for your own personal interests. As you said, you are in a small community, and the word has a way of getting back, especially if someone was to decide to get themselves involved where they don't belong. As I'm sure you have seen, when people restate things they don't really say what you said and they read more into it. I would hate for this community to cause you trouble after you came forward. Be careful of leading questions. The more you say, the more that someone will be able to identify you and then cause trouble for you in your field. I've seen that happen before in other places.

Again thanks, but please be careful.
 
#1,262 ·
chef2sail said:
I am actually quite suprised you have never heard of Witchcraft before.
Can't say that I have. It has been two years since I lived in MD, and I've bounced between coasts in the previous years. Also, I never sailed on the original Pride (I was born after she went down) and sailed as volunteer on Pride II whenever I could.

chef2sail said:
From your post it seems as though one of the things you are saying here is that this underfunded vessel, staffed by mostly green sailors was kind of a train wreck waiting to happen..

It almost sounds from what you say that them even taking this vessel out of the harbor is something they were not really qualified for by your description of dock lines and the thru hulls. No wonder you had no confidence in allowing your friends to board her in any way other than the dock. I guess she should have just stayed a dockside attraction some
where and not moved...

You and your associates on the well funded tall ships must have joked and talked about the Bounty in amazement and worried all the time that she would self destruct due to her green crew inability to handle the most basic of operations, or the lack of managerment of the vessels maintainence. You probably are not suprised that she sunk and assumed some tragedy would eventually befall her sooner or later...Sandy or not. The other TSC boats propbablky though it was grossly unfair all the regulations/ certifcations you had to undergo, while the Bounty went many places and didnt have to go through the same paces. They essentially got a free ride while you were under a microscope/

I bet she was a true embarrassment..
Whoa, I sense a lot of animosity here, and I'm not sure why. There was certainly no case of "well-funded" vs. "underfunded," as most TallShips are not well-funded. In the last four years, a handful of TallShips have gone out of business (many are non-profits, by the way), or lost their funding (Pride II is not funded by the city or state anymore, and is now maintained by donors and a non-profit). I have only worked on one vessel where money was seemingly "unlimited;" usually we even re-use our chip brushes to save money.

So no, we didn't see her as an embarrassment, or ask why we had to jump through hoops for our COI and regs, or why she got attention (sometimes, but not always true).

I and the TSC would NEVER want a boat to sink, fall into disarray, or go out of business, no matter the ship. I as well as many of the TSC heard the news and were stunned and mourned the loss of one of our own, as well as Captain Walbridge and Claudene Christian. For several days my close sailing friends texted and called each other with the news and cried. There was no sigh of relief that she went down, if that's what you are inferring.

As for Bounty getting "a free ride while [we] were under a microscope," I don't feel that that was the case at all. Sure, regs and inspections can be a pain (having to re-set and drop two tons of sail three times, then a MOB drill is exhausting!) but I know we as crews were proud of being well-trained and proud of our tidy bilges. Not to mention, it also was a standard to how safe our ship was. We all knew that the more we trained, the less stressed we'd be if a situation were to occur.

This isn't to say she didn't undergo any inspections at all as she still had inspection as a dockside attraction. It was just different regs.
 
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