Jeff Morris wrote:
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:
You seemed interested in Mac but want a boat the won't capsize. You should
check this out:
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html
Jim Cate will claim the skipper was drunk (true, but the passengers said
thatdidn't contribute) and that the boat was dangerously overloaded. The truth
isthere were 8 adults on deck, when the recommended limit is 6. The 3 small
children below wouldn't add up to more than 140 pounds, and should have been
lowenough in the boat to have little affect on stability. This may have been a
fluke, but it doesn't seem to happen to other boats. This was the only case
that year of a sailboat passenger drowning while wearing a life jacket.
The skipper's alcohol level was way over the limit, and the passangers
were also drinking.
And nobody ever drinks on a boat.
He was operating the boat in an unsafe manner
(turning it back to shore with multiple adults on the deck, and
operating it without the water ballast).
Turning the boat with "multiple adults on the deck" is unsafe? Isn't that the
whole point here?
As for the water ballast, remember I brought this episode up in the beginning
because you insisted that the warnings, such as the various warnings about
running without ballast, can be ignored. I believe you compared it to warning
to "wear a seat belt on a Nautilus machine." The point is these warning were
deadly serious - the boat is very dangerous when run without its water ballast.
And yet, you continue to quote speeds that can only be achieved without ballast.
In a recent news report on
this case, the judge rejected his defenses about the boat's purported
deficiencies and gave the "skipper" a stiff prison term.
I'm sure that MacGregor had a full staff of lawyers on hand to ensure their boat
was not ruled inherently dangerous.
As to whether this is an inherent problem with the Macs, if there were
reports of multiple incidents such as this one under circumstances in
which they were operated with the water ballast as specified, one might
conclude that the boat has an inherent problem. However, despite the
thousands of Macs in use, no one has provided evidence of such an
ongoing pattern of Macs capsizing, as in this case.
In the last year reported by the Coast Guard, 28% of all drowning victims aboard
auxiliary sailboats, were on Macgregors.
Where, exactly, can I get a copy of that Coast Guard report Jeff? Is it
reproduced on someone's website?
The point isn't that events like this happen all the time, or that its likely to
happen to most owners. The point is that the boat is capable of rolling over,
if misused in a way that would not be particularly dangerous on most other
boats. Having two people over the recommended limit is not usually dangerous
in calm weather. Powering with people on deck is not usually dangerous. Keel
boats, and water ballast boats with full tanks, cannot normally roll over in
calm weather. The Mac is an unusual boat, with unusual safety restrictions. In
particular, extreme care must be taken whenever the ballast tanks are empty.
You, however, claimed these warnings can be ignored, and have quoted speeds that
can only be achieved without ballast.
When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.) - What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.
On the other hand, IF you are suggesting that the warnings should be
strictly followed under all circumstances, then you should tell us which
portion of the warnings you want us to follow. - Are you talking about
the part that advises us never to use the boat without the water
ballast, or, conversely, are you talking about the sections that tell us
about using the boat without the water ballast? - You can't have it both
ways, Jeff.
Which part of the warning are you talking about Jeff?
Also, where, exactly, can I get a copy of that Coast Guard report?
Jim