HMS Bounty in trouble... - Page 26 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


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

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

Advertise Here






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


Like Tree718Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #251  
Old 11-03-2012
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,192
Thanks: 21
Thanked 100 Times in 83 Posts
Rep Power: 11
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnewaska View Post
Unregulated capitalism? ...

Let's see if they were operating within the limits of the regulations that do exist. I highly suspect we are going to learn they were not, but let's see. If not, writing more won't obviously make much difference, will it.

p.s. "uninspected vessel" is a term of art in USCG certificates and doesn't mean you are free to do whatever you want.
It seems that in this case all was legal and it is the legislation that has big holes that allow these boats to exist and sail without being inspected, being considered as an private yacht that can carry only 12 passengers. I don't know the US law, but these guys seem to know

....

when MCA goes away for any and all "yachts" over 500grt and they become "ships" under SOLAS...will that ever happen?
....
Unfortunately, no. In my opinion, the MCA hangs onto the yacht licensing scheme as an income stream. It is years beyond the point where it should have been abandoned and I also blame the IMO for allowing the MCA to describe yacht limited licenses as having the same STCW code as legitimate licenses.

....

I have been repetitively using the term Sail Training Vessels but in reality these are simply private yachts run as a tax deductible non profit, for dreamers and using a loophole in the manning and operations regs to make it work. Look on the bounty web site. It lists ways to get sailing trips in with the vessel. And do you really think they just took 12 pax? Heck no. there were...... a whole bunch of trainees! (who paid for the privilege.

Ask yourself honestly, Is this industry viable? really? If so, then I (an a couple thousand other people) must have read it wrong. I have yet to find (out of 6 attempts) a Sailing Vessel or Yacht or both graduate who has been successful entering my industry. There may be some. But not alot and none that I have seen....

You bring up a very interesting observation here. Technically a STV carries a certified crew and a group of uncertified trainees which cannot exceed . STVs have COIs so they do have a minimum complement of mates and able seamen but the BOUNTY was not an STV and so did not have any minimum safe manning determination from the Coast Guard other that 46CFR15.605 which only mandates a master and a mate but sets no requirements for ABs, OSs, engineeers or anybody so by theory an uninspected 12pax <300grt can carry a crew of 100 uncertified "volunteer crew" and 12 "paying passengers" as long as there are enough lifesaving appliances for all of these persons onboard, but who is a volunteer and who is a passenger? Provided the vessel is under 200 tons then STCW would not apply so no basic safety training for anybody (but the BOUNTY was more than 200grt so I guess the crew must have had BST certificates).

THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOOPHOLE IN THE REGULATIONS HERE LARGE ENOUGH TO DRIVE AN M1A1 ABRAHAMS TANK THROUGH!

.....

For T boats, volunteers, that do not meet the qualification to be legally considered crew, are passengers. Any crew, paid or not must meet the same requirements.

STV's and attraction vessels have different standards.

STV standards are clear and easy to understand in the CFR's. Attraction vessels have much less oversight.

.....

I'm not talking about T boats or SSV/STV's or attraction vessels...I'm talking about Subchapter C uninspected 12 passenger vessel (>100grt but <300grt ) which is exactly what the BOUNTY was! The BOUNTY was not inspected as a Sail Training Vessel under 46CFR subchapter R but was a subchapter C uninspected 12 passenger vessel...big difference!

....


In Europe all coastal yachts and offshore yachts of any size have to be inspected by the maritime authority experts normally all four years. Without a valid inspection the boat is grounded.

Regards

Paulo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #252  
Old 11-03-2012
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Grendel is on a distinguished road
HMS Bounty

The following link details the HMS Bounty's inspections.


cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=345399]USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #253  
Old 11-03-2012
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,192
Thanks: 21
Thanked 100 Times in 83 Posts
Rep Power: 11
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
The following link details the HMS Bounty's inspections.


cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/PSIXDetails.aspx?VesselID=345399]USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page
I always said that the boat was in a legal situation.

Do you care to en-light us?:

I understand the boat is classified as a dock side attraction and was inspected as one.

The BOUNTY was not inspected as a Sail Training Vessel under 46CFR subchapter R but has a subchapter C uninspected 12 passenger vessel.

There are a huge difference between the requirements needed on a Dock side attraction classified ship and the ones needed on a ship classified as a Sail training Vessel.

Last edited by PCP; 11-08-2012 at 12:53 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #254  
Old 11-04-2012
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
Grendel is on a distinguished road
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

sailtraining.org/about/sailtraining/world/regulations.php
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #255  
Old 11-04-2012
billyruffn's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,282
Thanks: 5
Thanked 27 Times in 18 Posts
Rep Power: 11
billyruffn will become famous soon enough
Bounty crosses the Rubicon

Quote:
Originally Posted by chef2sail View Post
You guys are really too much. Sitting in your computer chairs making speculations and pronouncements with only the evidence you can find on your computer screens....and then whats worse...making judgements with the limited information you have....

....Slow down here, two people have died......hardly any of the facts are in yet. The ship left on the 25th,THE CG is remarkable. Those are really the only facts which are really undisputed and have been verified. There will be plenty of time to understand and process the facts and I am sure it will be done by real experts on the field and real lawyers rather thean the computer screen lawyers here. Then and only then will we really have the truth about this. Until then tell me....what pleasure do you derive from speculating on this.

Dave
Dave, I agree with some of what you've said about arm chairs and computer screens, but I disagree with your conclusion. The computer screens have provided us with more than the departure date and the heroism of the USCG SAR forces. For example, we know for a fact the track of the vessel and we have the weather charts and model runs available to the crew before they left and presumably after they were underway . Apparently, we also know that the captain intended to run down the west side of the storm as it was moving north. And we know the vessel had been launched after a yard period in Maine less than two weeks before the accident -- given that she was a wooden vessel that means it's highly probably she was making water sitting at a dock.

I see no harm in the sailors here who have gone on long offshore/ocean passages and faced departure and routing decisions discussing the evidence, options available to the vessels skipper, and then providing their opinions regarding the Bounty captain's decisions on departure and the track chosen. Such discussions help us all learn from each other's experinece and knowledge.

In that spirit I offer the following. The facts available to us (ship's known track and NWS weather charts / model runs) when combined with knowledge of the Gulf Stream's nature and location suggest that when Bounty left New London her captain made two fateful decisions -- first, to go to sea, and then once at sea the decision to cross the Gulf Stream. Crossing the Stream south of Long Island in moderate easterlies was probably not difficult, but by crossing the stream when he did, with the storm where it was and where it was forecast to go meant that he could not seek safe haven along the east coast until he was well south of the storm. It was at this point that options begin to disappear and the course of the vessel becomes more or less fixed. Why? Because by the time the Bounty was on the other side of the Gulf Stream, the storm was far enough north and he was far enough south that the winds were or were very soon to be out of the north, building in force AND running against the current of the Gulf Stream.

In vicinity of Cape Hatteras the Stream is 80-90 miles wide, the set NNE and it's speed is often 2-3 knots. 40-50 kts of N-ly wind against a 2-3 knot current is a very dangerous combination. An experienced seaman would not think of trying to cross the Gulf Stream in those circumstances. This means that by the time the Bounty was approaching Hatteras from the NE they had no place to go but straight ahead. They were literally squeezed between the storm and the eastern wall of the Gulf Stream into an area where seas were 20-25 ft and winds were approaching 50 knots both out of the north (according to Monday's wind wave charts available via computer screen). If he went further east toward the eye of the storm and thing would get worse. Going further west into the Gulf Stream itself, the wind speed might decrease but the sea state becomes untenable. If you plot the position where Bounty was abandoned on the OPC wind-wave chart for that day it suggests that Bounty may well have already been slightly west of the east wall of the Stream, bucking a northerly current running against 50 plus knot winds.

And the really sad thing is that ALL of this was more or less predictable once the vessel crossed the Gulf Stream headed SW sometime Saturday. The combination of the postion, speed and track of the storm and the position and direction of the Gulf Stream meant only one thing -- Bounty was in for a very rough ride and her skipper and crew had NO way to avoid it. That's not arm chair speculation, nor supposition based on hypotheticals, it's the facts.

Had he not crossed the Gulf Stream other options would have been available to Bounty and her crew, but once the ship crossed it.....well as Caesar said crossing the Rubicon, "The die is cast." At that point all that remained was to learn of the consequences of the decision to cross the Stream....and now we know that as well.
jrd22, smackdaddy and lancelot9898 like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #256  
Old 11-04-2012
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,192
Thanks: 21
Thanked 100 Times in 83 Posts
Rep Power: 11
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
sailtraining.org/about/sailtraining/world/regulations.php
?????????????????????????

The Bounty was in this class:

uninspected passenger vessels over 100 gross tons, carrying 12 or fewer passengers for hire.

These regulations will implement this new class of uninspected passenger vessel, provide for the issuance of special permits to uninspected vessels participating in a Marine Event of National Significance (e.g., OPSAIL 2000 and Tall Ships 2000), and develop specific manning, structural fire protection, operating, and equipment requirements for a limited fleet of PVSA-exempted vessels.


https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-of-1993-pvsa

In the link you posted:

Under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention, administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), vessels of any nation signatory to the convention and over a certain size or carrying more than 12 passengers and operating internationally must comply with the requirements of the Convention with regard to construction, safety equipment, manning, crew training, etc. Compliance is documented in a “SOLAS Certificate” issued by the ship’s national maritime authority.

This is not a ship that carries more than 12 passengers and i don't know if the size will make it a SOLAS ship, but let's admit it is.

US-registered vessels listed in this directory will generally fall into one of the following categories: Small Passenger Vessel, Sailing School Vessel, Oceanographic Research Vessel, and Uninspected Vessel. For each category there is a comprehensive set of regulatory requirements governing construction and arrangement, watertight integrity and stability, lifesaving and firefighting equipment, machinery and electrical systems, vessel control and equipment, and operations.

With the exception of Uninspected Vessels, all categories of US-registered vessel are subject to Coast Guard inspection on an annual basis. Upon satisfactory completion of the inspection, a Certificate of Inspection (COI) is issued, and must be permanently displayed on board the vessel. The COI spells out what waters the vessel may operate in (its authorized route), how many passengers or sailing school students may be carried, how many crew must be carried and what qualifications the master and crew must have, the requirement for and location of lifesaving and firefighting equipment, and so forth.

Although not inspected annually, Uninspected Vessels (which are generally vessels less than 65 feet in length and carrying 6 or fewer passengers for hire) must still comply with requirements for safety equipment and a licensed skipper. The type of COI to be issued to inspected vessels is determined by both the size and construction of the vessel and the operating intentions of the owner. Some vessels carry dual certification.
.....

Attraction Vessel certification is required whenever a vessel is open to public boarding or conducts dockside programs. The vessel may be permanently moored to a pier, or it may also be certified under one or more of the above subchapters, but the Attraction Vessel COI (ATCOI) certifies its safety for dockside programs and visitation only.



So the Bounty had to have an attraction vessel certification (and to be inspected on account of that) and, as an Uninspeted vessel, is not subject to Coast Guard inspection. But even if it was what would be verified would be the requirements for safety equipment and a licensed skipper. not the hull integrity and condition or the water tight condition.

If the boat was inspected in what regard water tight condition the boat would have failed because it needed to have the pumps working every hour even with the boat stationary as one member of the crew had stated.


....

Last edited by PCP; 11-04-2012 at 12:52 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #257  
Old 11-04-2012
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,921
Thanks: 8
Thanked 31 Times in 28 Posts
Rep Power: 10
nolatom will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Back when I was in the Coast Guard learning to be a marine inspector long ago, the saying I heard about uninspected vessels (referring to the rule that more than six paying passengers required a Certificate of Inspection):

"You can drown six---you can't drown seven"

I suppose you could change this to 12 and 13 as the circumstances may warrant.

I await the Board of Investigation with interest. In my experience the Coast Guard is not unwilling to criticize themselves when warranted (read the report of the sinking of the SS MARINE ELECTRIC off the Delaware Capes as an example). Even more so if the NTSB gets involved, they regularly ping on the Coast Guard while sharing investigatory jurisdiction with them. I wonder if they will join in on this Board as they often do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #258  
Old 11-04-2012
chef2sail's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,050
Thanks: 30
Thanked 57 Times in 53 Posts
Rep Power: 8
chef2sail will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to chef2sail
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Quote:
I see no harm in the sailors here who have gone on long offshore/ocean passages and faced departure and routing decisions discussing the evidence, options available to the vessels skipper, and then providing their opinions regarding the Bounty captain's decisions on departure and the track chosen. Such discussions help us all learn from each other's experinece and knowledge.Billyruffin
Thank you for the thought provoking post. I have great respect for your experience and read your posts always. You manage to present your opinion which is well thought out, but also not accusatory. I couldnt agree with you more about the track he took,as well as the consequences of taking that track. Having done both Gone outside the GS ( both south and north and sailed closer through/ around Diamond Shoals, I have always advocated in many other SailNet threads what I perceived as the dangers of the inside route and for me personally, I avoid it and have not gone on vessels anymore with captains who chose the route.

Quote:
]I see no harm in the sailors here who have gone on long offshore/ocean passages and faced departure and routing decisions discussing the evidence, options available to the vessels skipper
You will find on very few of the posters have this experience, but many have offered opinions or accusations and they did so without hesitatuion or hardly any information at all

My biggest problem with the postings are the rush to judgement to afix blame on the captain entirely, and then the glee to assassinate his character. This isnt done by a group of savy well experienced ocean and blue water sailors ( my apologies to the few who have this experience) but is being done by the armchair quarterbacks who start analyzing the situations as soon as the story comes apparent. It leads to this feeding frenzy which can prevent them from looking and absorbing other details as wells as focusing on unimportant snippets of u tube postings as the paramount reasoning. Its like its a story of thodse damn shows following network news at 7 PM. The SN jury has already found the captain guilty as charged and not even waited for any evidence of the companies pressure or involvement, statements from the survivors. or atatements from professionals.

As this continues to play out with more and more information a clearer picture will take place. Already we have some CG reports and some people on a CG blog which I have seen are less vitriolic and hype minded than the posts on SN. There are key pieces of information I would like to see before I damn the Captain in hell like most of the SN posters. ( Funny many of the interviews I have seen with the Captains professional aquaitences do not paint a picture of a reckless man), I would like some eye witness testimony or statements ( what happened on boartd, sea state, how she got in trouble other than what we can see on GPS position fixing and storm histroy, I would like a professional report concerning the condition of the ship before it left ( not speculation reposrts of cousins whoi visited the ship once or saw it, but people who recently refit it and worked on it, I would like to know what role the company played in coercing or pressuring the captain to leave the dock in the first place.

None of us know for certain that this storm and waves were the only things directly responsible for its sinking. Which one of you know for a certain that there was no failure of the bulkheads/ structure on the ship which could have happened on the very next
passage, heavy weather or not. How do you know there was not a material defect in the refit, wrong materials used, designs not followed?

I have my initial opinions of what has happened here. I question mightily him leaving and sailing into this particular enlarging storm with any ship let alone the one he had. I question like you trying to squeeze between a storm and the "Graveyard of the Atlantic. I also question why....why a man with good credentials and experience0 ( better than almost everyone on here casting judgement) would make this decision. Maybe then that gets answered we will find the real culpruit in this is just not him and that someone may be hiding behind the screen or that someone was negligent in the repair of the ship.

Ultimately he will be held with some of the responsibility because he was the captain of the ship. I am pretty sure of that.

When a plane crashes in bad weather do you think immediately that the captain was responsible and get on the internet blaming him/ her. If you saw him drinking with dinner two nights before...do you assume he/ she was a drunk and that caused it? Do you blame it on the heavy weather? The route he took...he could of flown around it or landed somewhere else. See in this instance...very similar to this incident there is a very detailed investigation and NO ONE declares after 1-4 days after the event happend that it was the captains fault. Here however those rules dont apply. Thats what I have a problem with

Dave
__________________

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

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


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

Last edited by chef2sail; 11-04-2012 at 01:20 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #259  
Old 11-04-2012
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,192
Thanks: 21
Thanked 100 Times in 83 Posts
Rep Power: 11
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

Quote:
Originally Posted by chef2sail View Post
T....


You will find on very few of the posters have this experience, but many have offered opinions or accusations and they did so without hesitatuion or hardly any information at all

My biggest problem with the postings are the rush to judgement to afix blame on the captain entirely, and then the glee to assassinate his character. This isnt done by a group of savy well experienced ocean and blue water sailors ( my apologies to the few who have this experience) but is being done by the armchair quarterbacks who start analyzing the situations as soon as the story comes apparent. ..

...

Dave
Dave,

I don't think the comments that were made by professional sailors on a professional forum were less harsh than the ones posted here. This ones were posted even before the boat was in a mayday situation. They knew already what was going to happen with all probability. Your post and your comments regarding arm chair sailors deserve to be complemented with the voice of professionals and mind you, there was not a single voice in disagreement among them. They are arm chair sailors too?:


.....
Sure lets take a wooden hulled sailing ship out into a hurricane, whats the worse that could happen?
.......
Oh but you see it's a sailing school vessel.
Fully seasoned crew ready for anything.
.....
From their Facebook page:
[quote]
Bounty Update 10/28 2012 11PM EST
One of Bounty's generators has failed....they are taking on more water than they would like.
THE CREW AND BOUNTY ARE SAFE.....
At 2118 hrs The Coast Guard issued an Urgent Marine Information Broadcast for the HMS Bounty taking on water 90 miles SE of Cape Hatteras, with 15+ people aboard....THAT HAS BEEN RESCINDED...
The Captain will await till morning to determine if Bounty is in need of any assistance.
.......
Guess the captain needs a sea story
......
They actually left during a hurricane ? The captain is an idiot and should lose is license if that is the case. Needlessly endagering 14 other lives...very bad decision!!
.....
All I can say is pray for them. My local news station reported they sent out a mayday and have lost all propulsion...
......
I will be praying for them througout watch this morning. Perhaps the captain should stay onboard when they are rescued. Just kidding, but he should never be allowed command of another vessel for the rest of his days!
....
Update 7 minutes ago from CBC news. Abandoning ship!! CG working on rescue ideas, C130 on scene. I want to see this ******* cPtain crucified!!!!
.....
This captain should be in jail.
......
Indeed, if he survives he needs to be tried and hopefully convicted of reckless endangerment leading to manslaughter if others die of course.

In looking at the track from the woodenboat website, I suspect that what this clown was thinking was that if he maintained being on the west (good) side of the storm, that he'd have favorable winds throughout and a following sea to ride. Seems fine on paper, but a ship's hull works harder in a following sea that a head sea because they corkscrew so violently. I suspect that the hull worked so hard for so long that all the seams have sprung and that was that.
......
The praise people are heaping on the captain and saying he made the right choice on the bounty's Facebook page makes me sick. One went so far regardless of the outcome she would have never weathered the record storm surge dockside in new London. WHO CARES! She sinks at the dock its a loss but it still doesn't put 17 people 100 miles offshore in a 60 knot blow. The fact that people still make decisions like this, especially after incidents like the loss of the schooner Phantome baffles me.
....

The Idiot aboard ( I am somewhat reluctant to call him 'the Master') posted a pretty interesting note on Saturday.
It read something like this: " we are heading out, some would call this wrong. It is a calculated risk".

Well buck-o me thinks you have a different set of calculators than a prudent seaman! And for him to post such a dumb statement shows he was wrestling with the prudence of this decision and trying to justify it.

......
They sure are acting like they are reckless yachties. Not only did they put themselves in grave danger by trying to sail aroundp Cape Hatteras during a hurricane they will also be endangering the CG chopper crews who will have to go out and save them.

....
No I am sorry but a voyage of choice not necessity in an old ship into a storm of historic proportions? I don't care about hull condition or experience of the master or crew. We're experienced professionals here and don't need a USCG report to judge this one. If the ship is truly lost then it is a massive failure and if people are lost then it is manslaughter!


HMS Bounty and Hurricane Sandy


Do you still think we have been too severe or out of line?

Regards

Paulo

Last edited by PCP; 11-04-2012 at 01:17 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #260  
Old 11-04-2012
TakeFive's Avatar
Proud "picnic sailor"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Swarthmore, PA
Posts: 2,760
Thanks: 6
Thanked 57 Times in 54 Posts
Rep Power: 6
TakeFive will become famous soon enough
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...

As I have quietly followed this thread, careful not to pass judgement (and realizing I lack the experience to do so), I keep wondering whether the nature of the failure might have led to a similarly fatal result in less severe conditions. It is possible that the storm had little or nothing to do with the root cause of the accident.

It seems that not enough facts have been disclosed to determine this. So many people have repeated the speculation that the boat lost a plank under the stresses induced by the storm that it's easy to mislead oneself in believing that actually happened. So far as I can tell, that is PURE speculation and there has been NOTHING to support that.

So while it's interesting to speculate, we do need to be very careful not to "pile on" based on that speculation.

I do have a lot of experience with investigating safety incidents in the workplace, and in the vast majority of cases the question, "What in the world was he thinking when he did that?" usually has a straightforward answer that suddenly makes everyone realize that the case is not nearly as black-and-white as originally believed.
chef2sail likes this.
__________________

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

Formerly posted as "RhythmDoctor"
1998 Catalina 250WK Take Five (at Anchorage Marina, Essington, on the Delaware River)
1991 15' Trophy (Lake Wallenpaupack)
1985 14' Phantom (Lake Wallenpaupack)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




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

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

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rhodes Bounty ll white rabbit Introduce Yourself 3 07-13-2014 06:00 AM
New Member - Hardin 45 ( 44 voyager bounty ) Bianchi Introduce Yourself 9 01-29-2011 10:33 PM
HELP!! , Need move a boat NC to WA (Rhodes Bounty II, 40'10 x 28' x 10'3" x 5'9") sailandoar General Discussion (sailing related) 1 08-23-2006 02:11 PM
Bounty Windjammer Spectacle (Boothbay Register) NewsReader News Feeds 0 06-23-2006 04:15 PM
April 28, 1789, Aboard the HMS Bounty: NewsReader Mass Bay Sailors 0 04-28-2006 02:15 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 AM.

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

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