Good Grief Jim, don't be such a coward! I've only quoted your exact words
several times now, then a month later you deny you ever said them? Is this what
they trained you to do in law school??

One more time: I commented that MacGregor had a long list of rather severe
warnings about the stability of the boat. Things that you would never see about
a "normal" sailboat. In particular, at speed without ballast, nobody should
use the forward cabin (or the head?), nobody on deck, no standing, avoid seas
greater than one foot, etc. I felt these warnings were likely justified, and a
bit in contradiction with marketing the boat as a safe family sailor that can to
18 MPH.

Your response was:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort lawyers? If
you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally, are
something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment. Or, like
the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

How can anyone reasonably interpret your comments as meaning anything other than
the warnings don't have to be taken literally. Now you're trying to deny you
ever said them, but the record is still there, and always will be.

You seem to be claiming that the warning don't have to be followed because they
were written by lawyers, or are in some ways contradictory, or that they are
more like guidelines and one is better off just using common sense. But the
truth is the boat is capable of rolling over. Eight adults on deck was too
much, given that the warning specified 6 was the limit. Which warning would I
follow? I would never run the boat without ballast, especially with guests and
kids aboard. Thus I would not expect to ever see the speeds that you keep
claiming. Even the Mac sites make it pretty clear that loaded with gear and
passengers, the boat probably won't do better than 10 to 12 knots. I must admit
that the warnings are contradictory: don't you empty the tanks but running at
over 6 knots? Are you allowed to haul the boat if there's a chop over 1 foot?


As for the accident statitistics, I've already posted the link, and explained
where I got the figure. In 2002, there were 7 drowning deaths aboard auxiliary
sailboats. Two were in the incident we've talked about. There other five
victims were not wearing a PFD; the two children that perished on the MacGregor
were the only people that year that drowned on an auxiliary sailboat while
wearing life jackets.
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2002.pdf



So Jim, you've had the boat for 6 or 7 months now, have you sailed it yet?




"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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