DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

Read about it, I won't discuss things with you.


Of course not, you look too much like an ignorant fool when you do.

I already know a good bit about the loss of the Pride of Baltimore, and
"poor seamanship" was not one of the factors in her sinking.


OK you don't need to repeat that you know it all so often. Perhaps you
should listen to someone who is an authority on seamanship?

Read Parrott.

"Carefully examined, the evidence shows that, contrary to some official
findings, ignorance of and disregard for age-old practices of seamanship
were at least as responsible for the tragedies as "acts of God." In some
instances the seeds of a ship's ultimate undoing were planted years
before, as ill-considered structural changes, rig modifications, and
"mission creep" eroded stability and seaworthiness."

I wonder if he agrees with my views about losses I've argued with you
before...

Cheers

Navigator wrote:
OK you don't need to repeat that you know it all so often. Perhaps you
should listen to someone who is an authority on seamanship?

Read Parrott.

Or maybe parrot Read?


"Carefully examined, the evidence shows that, contrary to some official
findings, ignorance of and disregard for age-old practices of seamanship
were at least as responsible for the tragedies as "acts of God."

Is he talking specifically about the Pride of Baltimore? Sounds like
he's referring to several incidents, not one specifically. Is this guy a
favorite of yours because he too has a grudge and an emotional need to
insult others. "Ignorance at all of age-old practices of seamanship" is
nonsense, the designer, builder, & captain all were very highly regarded
scholars of maritime history as well as consummate professionals.


... In some
instances the seeds of a ship's ultimate undoing were planted years
before, as ill-considered structural changes, rig modifications, and
"mission creep" eroded stability and seaworthiness."

I'd be interested to know specifically what structural changes, and rig
modifications he's talking about.

Mission creep may have some basis in fact, the first Pride was not built
with the intention of crossing oceans. She was deliberately built with
more historical accuracy and less regard for modern safety
considerations, and all concerned knew this well.


I wonder if he agrees with my views about losses I've argued with you
before...

I wonder if he actually knows of what he's talking about, unlike you.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Navigator wrote:

OK you don't need to repeat that you know it all so often. Perhaps you
should listen to someone who is an authority on seamanship?

Read Parrott.


Or maybe parrot Read?


"Carefully examined, the evidence shows that, contrary to some
official findings, ignorance of and disregard for age-old practices of
seamanship were at least as responsible for the tragedies as "acts of
God."


Is he talking specifically about the Pride of Baltimore? Sounds like
he's referring to several incidents, not one specifically. Is this guy a
favorite of yours because he too has a grudge and an emotional need to
insult others. "Ignorance at all of age-old practices of seamanship" is
nonsense, the designer, builder, & captain all were very highly regarded
scholars of maritime history as well as consummate professionals.


... In some instances the seeds of a ship's ultimate undoing were
planted years before, as ill-considered structural changes, rig
modifications, and "mission creep" eroded stability and seaworthiness."


I'd be interested to know specifically what structural changes, and rig
modifications he's talking about.

Mission creep may have some basis in fact, the first Pride was not built
with the intention of crossing oceans. She was deliberately built with
more historical accuracy and less regard for modern safety
considerations, and all concerned knew this well.


I wonder if he agrees with my views about losses I've argued with you
before...


I wonder if he actually knows of what he's talking about, unlike you.


Oh dear. Parrott is acknowleged as an expert on seamanship. Hey it's OK
just insult him too 'cos you are always right! But do us all a favor and
read his book, you'll really learn something about seamanship and tall
ships.

Cheers

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

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote

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

proving yet again the old saying,'' women are bad luck on ships''.

SV

proving yet again the old saying,'' women are bad luck on ships''.

Scotty Potti needs to believe that as no woman will step aboard his rat trap.

RB

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

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