There is an article in the new Soundings about the first Pride of Baltimore and
the causes of the disaster. It is written by Melbourne Smith, her first captain
and designer of classic ships such as Spirit of Massachusetts.

While Smith does not cite "poor seamanship" directly, he does say that the top
hamper should have been lowered for the voyage. With the topmasts and yards
rigged, he claims the knockdown was inevitable. This was the common practice
for ships of this type, and he claims it was also the cause of her grounding
several years earlier, when three captains refused to take her around Hatteras
in April with the topmasts rigged.

The actual sinking was caused by leaving the companionway hatch open. Since it
was positioned on the port side, a knockdown to port would result in rapid
flooding.

BTW, my wife did a brief cruise on the Pride shortly before the sinking.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Navigator wrote:
Oh dear. Parrott is acknowleged as an expert on seamanship.

Unlike yourself.

... Hey it's OK
just insult him too 'cos you are always right!

Actually, I have never insulted the man, only pointed out that you (and
he, in your specific quote for which you give no details and no context)
were quite insulting to others.

.. But do us all a favor and
read his book

How do you know I haven't? I'd also suggest you read Villiers, Lever,
Chappelle, and a few others. Actually, Thomas Gilmer, the designer of
Pride of Baltimore I and II, has written quite a lot about naval
architecture (of which he was a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy),
and naval & maritime history, as well as designing a lot of excellent
boats. But you already knew that I bet

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Jeff Morris wrote:
There is an article in the new Soundings about the first Pride of Baltimore and
the causes of the disaster.

Okay, I'll definitely read that as soon as we get it.

.. It is written by Melbourne Smith, her first captain
and designer of classic ships such as Spirit of Massachusetts.

While Smith does not cite "poor seamanship" directly, he does say that the top
hamper should have been lowered for the voyage. With the topmasts and yards
rigged, he claims the knockdown was inevitable. This was the common practice
for ships of this type, and he claims it was also the cause of her grounding
several years earlier, when three captains refused to take her around Hatteras
in April with the topmasts rigged.

Saying that a knockdown is inevitable is a bit hyperbole, don't you
think? No doubt at all the boat would have had better reserve stability
with the topmasts & yards unshipped & stowed, but she also would have
been notably slower & possibly much less maneuverable. And in a white
squall with 70+ knot winds, would she have fared significantly better?


The actual sinking was caused by leaving the companionway hatch open. Since it
was positioned on the port side, a knockdown to port would result in rapid
flooding.

I thought it was the main deck hatch which was the culprit. If it had
been sized for safety, instead of historical accuracy, it also would
have been easier to secure. Ironic. IIRC there was some discussion about
it when the Pride 1 was new. In fact, at many places along the line
during designing & building, there were conscious choices made between
safety & historical accuracy.

Leaving the hatch unbattened while on the open sea was sloppy. However,
again it was an issue of history versus modern safety standards... if it
had been a modern hatch it wouldn't have been such a PITA to open &
secure, and there would have been no reason to leave it unsecured.

A point to remember is that white squalls have sunk a lot of good boats
with good captains. The weather was clear and fine, then approx four
minutes later the ship was foundering.

It's possible that Pride 1 would have sunk even with topmasts struck and
hatches secured. If she got knocked on her beam ends and stayed that
way, how long would it take for the same flooding to occur? Longer, it's
true, but how much? In short, it was a tragedy that was exacerbated by a
bit of sloppiness by the captain, but it was hardly gross incompetence
as some have charged.



BTW, my wife did a brief cruise on the Pride shortly before the sinking.

I took a brief daysail out of Beaufort NC on her, and have sailed on
Pride 2 a couple of times. I've also sailed on Shenandoah, another
vessel where historical accuracy took precedence. It's truly a different
world.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Oh dear. Parrott is acknowleged as an expert on seamanship.


Unlike yourself.

... Hey it's OK just insult him too 'cos you are always right!


Actually, I have never insulted the man, only pointed out that you (and
he, in your specific quote for which you give no details and no context)
were quite insulting to others.

I'd say your statement "because he too has a grudge and an emotional
need to insult others." is pretty insulting to him (and me). But then
all you ever really do is insult others who know more than you don't you
Doug?
But then again, you are always right -right?

Cheers

No, I'm being dead honest about my saying she's motoring was a troll. I
knew I could get the Dogs barking if I said she was motoring. I know her
better than probably anyone else here -lived very close to her and
walked past her nearly every day when I worked in Baltimore.

Cheers

Martin Baxter wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Awww c'mon. I say it was the best this week!



What utter drivel. First you post that the Constitution was motoring,
then when it is pointed out that she has no motor, you backpedal and
claim that she was being towed, next it becomes apparent that the tow
vessel was not in fact towing. Finally you lack the spine to say 'oops',
but instead resort to the tried and true Bobsprit cry, "It was a
troll!", implying that you knew the facts all along and were merely
trying to spark nautical discussion. Hogwash. Shame on you Nav!

Cheers
Marty

C'mon, nav, be a man and admit you were wrong. Only a coward like booby plays
the "I was trolling all along" ploy.



"Navigator" wrote in message
...
No, I'm being dead honest about my saying she's motoring was a troll. I
knew I could get the Dogs barking if I said she was motoring. I know her
better than probably anyone else here -lived very close to her and
walked past her nearly every day when I worked in Baltimore.

Cheers

Martin Baxter wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Awww c'mon. I say it was the best this week!



What utter drivel. First you post that the Constitution was motoring,
then when it is pointed out that she has no motor, you backpedal and
claim that she was being towed, next it becomes apparent that the tow
vessel was not in fact towing. Finally you lack the spine to say 'oops',
but instead resort to the tried and true Bobsprit cry, "It was a
troll!", implying that you knew the facts all along and were merely
trying to spark nautical discussion. Hogwash. Shame on you Nav!

Cheers
Marty

Navigator wrote:
I'd say your statement "because he too has a grudge and an emotional
need to insult others." is pretty insulting to him (and me).

No, mostly you. You chose that sentence as paramount to represent that
book. You love to insult others above all else, it seems to be your one
hobby. No ryhme, no reason. If the author's context for that sentence
did not explain his charge, and give some details, *then* he'd be as
guilty of indulging in empty insults as you are.

... But then
all you ever really do is insult others who know more than you don't you
Doug?

Oh yes, ask anybody. All the others, I just constantly harp at them don't I?

If you're a good boy and eat all your vegetables, tomorrow I'll explain
the discussion between Jeff and I on the subject. Oh wait, he just
constantly insults you too, doesn't he? Acting all superior knowing
about tides and stuff? It's a big conspiracy, Navvie!

DSK

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

I'd say your statement "because he too has a grudge and an emotional
need to insult others." is pretty insulting to him (and me).


No, mostly you. You chose that sentence as paramount to represent that
book. You love to insult others above all else, it seems to be your one
hobby. No ryhme, no reason. If the author's context for that sentence
did not explain his charge, and give some details, *then* he'd be as
guilty of indulging in empty insults as you are.

... But then all you ever really do is insult others who know more
than you don't you Doug?


Oh yes, ask anybody. All the others, I just constantly harp at them
don't I?

If you're a good boy and eat all your vegetables, tomorrow I'll explain
the discussion between Jeff and I on the subject.

Of course you are always right! Which is the largest harmonic term in US
tidal prediction? The smallest?


Cheers

Jeff Morris wrote:

C'mon, nav, be a man and admit you were wrong. Only a coward like booby plays
the "I was trolling all along" ploy.


Well if you don't want to believe my post then so be it, but it says
more about you than me. Sorry. Do you really think I don't know the
Constitution better than anyone here? Did you know I was a 'friend' of
the Constitution? But believe what you wish -it's all in your perception
anyway.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

I'd say your statement "because he too has a grudge and an emotional
need to insult others." is pretty insulting to him (and me).


No, mostly you. You chose that sentence as paramount to represent that
book.

Was it from the book or a review of the book?

You love to insult others above all else, it seems to be your one
hobby.

Good lord. My insults are very few and only ever in kind. It's you that
is insulting.

No ryhme, no reason. If the author's context for that sentence
did not explain his charge, and give some details, *then* he'd be as
guilty of indulging in empty insults as you are.


But if you knew the author and his work as you claimed then you would
know that the question of seamanship was most germain. In anycase, he
knows more about that subject and the Pride than you can possibly
imagine and you would do well to read his book before you spout off
again about tall ships in sqaulls.

... But then all you ever really do is insult others who know more
than you don't you Doug?


Oh yes, ask anybody. All the others, I just constantly harp at them
don't I?


No you only 'harp' at anyone who shows up your BS but you often get away
with it because of ignorance.

Cheers

Navigator wrote:
... Do you really think I don't know the
Constitution better than anyone here?

Now *that* is funny.

Navvie, you have shown you know little to nothing about tall ships,
tides, spinnakers, and that's just in the past two days. Apparently your
ego needs a good washing, shrink it to fit.

DSK