"Capt.Bill" wrote in message
...
http://www.sailfeed.com/2014/01/heli...1/#comment-730




This is clearly just another tale of ineptitude. These people are
no sailors. They made their own bed to lie in.

"We did discuss raising the mainsail, but decided against it,
as we had discovered that the top two full battens had become
detached from their batt-cars when we dropped the sail earlier.
There seemed to be no easy way to repair them, so we decided
to wait for less wind before raising the sail again.

*(translation: motor heads)

"At about 1130 hrs we took a huge direct hit all across our front
windows. The wave that hit us seemed much larger than the rest
and was running at a different angle, such that it hit us from directly
ahead instead of on the starboard quarter. Hank and I were in the
saloon right behind the windows at the time. A fair amount of water
squirted in all around the edges of the window panes and one large
piece of trim was blown right off one vertical frame."

*"Front windows" belong on a house and not on a sailboat.

"After sunrise we took stock of our situation. We first tried our
engines: the port-side engine now would not start; the starboard
engine would start, but wasn't charging the batteries; the
generator would not start. So we tried sailing, as the wind
was now only blowing about 25 knots and seemed much more
manageable. We rigged a new sheeting system for the jib, with
one centerline sheet and barber-haulers on either side, and tried
but failed to get the boat sailing off the wind to the southeast
toward Bermuda, which now seemed like our best destination.
The best we could do was effectively heave to, with the bow
cocked toward the southwest as the boat drifted slowly southeast."

*Motor heads lost at sea without a clue about how to sail.

"Thinking we might still be able to steer the boat with its engines
if we had both of them running, we next spent some time
examining the port engine to see if we could get it started.
This emitted a burning odor whenever we lit up the ignition,
and we soon figured out that the starter had shorted out."

*Reliance on motors is typical of most so-called sailors.


"Finally, after listening to us bat this around for a while,
Gunther reluctantly decided the only really viable option
was to abandon the boat. He placed a sat-phone call to
the Coast Guard in the late afternoon, and the evacuation
wheels started grinding."

*No testicles among the entire crew!

http://static-sailfeed.s3.amazonaws....01/evac.11.jpg

Just look at that thing. Such an abortion does not belong on
the high seas. Stupid, ill-conceived and suitable only for
sheltered waters and as a dockside party platform.

You get what you deserve, IMO. It's simply another case
of more dollars than sense.

--
Sir Gregory Hall
Master of "Cut the Mustard" - blue water, 27-foot monohull
that needs no stinking motor to cross oceans.

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" åke wrote in message
...

"After sunrise we took stock of our situation. We first tried our
engines: the port-side engine now would not start; the starboard
engine would start, but wasn't charging the batteries; the
generator would not start. So we tried sailing, as the wind
was now only blowing about 25 knots and seemed much more
manageable. We rigged a new sheeting system for the jib, with
one centerline sheet and barber-haulers on either side, and tried
but failed to get the boat sailing off the wind to the southeast
toward Bermuda, which now seemed like our best destination.
The best we could do was effectively heave to, with the bow
cocked toward the southwest as the boat drifted slowly southeast."

*Motor heads lost at sea without a clue about how to sail.


Centerline sheeting on the jib with barber haul for going downwind?

DUH? Was there not a man among the crew who actually knew how
to sail? One sheets OUT when going downwind under jib alone. A
whisker pole might be of advantage to spread max square footage
to the wind.

Stupid, stupid and more stupid! Would that they all drowned and
so rid the world of their stupidity that makes a mockery of sailing.

--
Sir Gregory

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:13:10 -0500, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Capt.Bill" wrote in message
...
http://www.sailfeed.com/2014/01/heli...1/#comment-730




This is clearly just another tale of ineptitude. These people are
no sailors. They made their own bed to lie in.

And thus speaks the Pseudo Sailor. Who knows all about sailing. Why,
he once sailed, single handed too, all the way down the bay to anchor
for the night on a mud bank.

--
Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok

On 1/19/2014 6:17 AM, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:


And thus speaks the Pseudo Sailor. Who knows all about sailing. Why,
he once sailed, single handed too, all the way down the bay to anchor
for the night on a mud bank.


I skimmed the article but it seemed to me that the boat was poorly made.
A wave against a 'window' was all it took for the window to leak, lose
trim and other wave / ocean action put the boat out of commission. It
also seems that the rudders were attached to the stock by small set
screws. That on a vessel meant to voyage across oceans?

I was greatly impressed by one guy going for a swim under the boat. I
did sail in this area at around that time and the water is COLD.

Overall, though, it's not the behavior of the crew which I thought
deficient but the construction of the boat.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:50:54 -0700, slide wrote:

On 1/19/2014 6:17 AM, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:


And thus speaks the Pseudo Sailor. Who knows all about sailing. Why,
he once sailed, single handed too, all the way down the bay to anchor
for the night on a mud bank.


I skimmed the article but it seemed to me that the boat was poorly made.
A wave against a 'window' was all it took for the window to leak, lose
trim and other wave / ocean action put the boat out of commission. It
also seems that the rudders were attached to the stock by small set
screws. That on a vessel meant to voyage across oceans?

I was greatly impressed by one guy going for a swim under the boat. I
did sail in this area at around that time and the water is COLD.

Overall, though, it's not the behavior of the crew which I thought
deficient but the construction of the boat.

Agree. There might be a warning there about embarking on an offshore
trip with a boat of unknown "reputation."
It looks like the quality issues went beyond the set screw, which was
handled.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:56:08 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:50:54 -0700, slide wrote:

On 1/19/2014 6:17 AM, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:


And thus speaks the Pseudo Sailor. Who knows all about sailing. Why,
he once sailed, single handed too, all the way down the bay to anchor
for the night on a mud bank.


I skimmed the article but it seemed to me that the boat was poorly made.
A wave against a 'window' was all it took for the window to leak, lose
trim and other wave / ocean action put the boat out of commission. It
also seems that the rudders were attached to the stock by small set
screws. That on a vessel meant to voyage across oceans?

I was greatly impressed by one guy going for a swim under the boat. I
did sail in this area at around that time and the water is COLD.

Overall, though, it's not the behavior of the crew which I thought
deficient but the construction of the boat.

Agree. There might be a warning there about embarking on an offshore
trip with a boat of unknown "reputation."
It looks like the quality issues went beyond the set screw, which was
handled.

===

Clearly there were some issues with the boat but I believe they made a
very foolish choice to go offshore from New Jersey, in the middle of
winter, into the teeth of several North Atlantic gales. It would have
been far more prudent to go down the east coast via Chesapeake Bay
and the ICW at least as far as North Carolina. From NC you assess
the weather and wait for a window when you can cross to Bermuda with
reasonable safety. However in a boat that size, in the middle of
winter, it is far safer to go all the way to Florida via the ICW and
then head down through the Bahamas on the so called "Thornless Path"
to the Caribbean. Having made the winter trip through the Bahamas
several times in a 50 footer, even that route is something less than a
walk in the park.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:06:13 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:56:08 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:50:54 -0700, slide wrote:

On 1/19/2014 6:17 AM, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:


And thus speaks the Pseudo Sailor. Who knows all about sailing. Why,
he once sailed, single handed too, all the way down the bay to anchor
for the night on a mud bank.


I skimmed the article but it seemed to me that the boat was poorly made.
A wave against a 'window' was all it took for the window to leak, lose
trim and other wave / ocean action put the boat out of commission. It
also seems that the rudders were attached to the stock by small set
screws. That on a vessel meant to voyage across oceans?

I was greatly impressed by one guy going for a swim under the boat. I
did sail in this area at around that time and the water is COLD.

Overall, though, it's not the behavior of the crew which I thought
deficient but the construction of the boat.

Agree. There might be a warning there about embarking on an offshore
trip with a boat of unknown "reputation."
It looks like the quality issues went beyond the set screw, which was
handled.

===

Clearly there were some issues with the boat but I believe they made a
very foolish choice to go offshore from New Jersey, in the middle of
winter, into the teeth of several North Atlantic gales. It would have
been far more prudent to go down the east coast via Chesapeake Bay
and the ICW at least as far as North Carolina. From NC you assess
the weather and wait for a window when you can cross to Bermuda with
reasonable safety. However in a boat that size, in the middle of
winter, it is far safer to go all the way to Florida via the ICW and
then head down through the Bahamas on the so called "Thornless Path"
to the Caribbean. Having made the winter trip through the Bahamas
several times in a 50 footer, even that route is something less than a
walk in the park.

I don't know what their sailing background is, so I can't speak to
that. That course and those weather conditions are "unsafe?"
Appears to me they didn't run into anything but one wave that disabled
steering. Then they also had batten problems and electrical.
Seems the boat quality was the main issue.
Even taking your southern route may have broken that boat.
But you know better than I about sailing conditions.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:08:53 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:06:13 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:56:08 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:50:54 -0700, slide wrote:

On 1/19/2014 6:17 AM, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:


And thus speaks the Pseudo Sailor. Who knows all about sailing. Why,
he once sailed, single handed too, all the way down the bay to anchor
for the night on a mud bank.


I skimmed the article but it seemed to me that the boat was poorly made.
A wave against a 'window' was all it took for the window to leak, lose
trim and other wave / ocean action put the boat out of commission. It
also seems that the rudders were attached to the stock by small set
screws. That on a vessel meant to voyage across oceans?

I was greatly impressed by one guy going for a swim under the boat. I
did sail in this area at around that time and the water is COLD.

Overall, though, it's not the behavior of the crew which I thought
deficient but the construction of the boat.

Agree. There might be a warning there about embarking on an offshore
trip with a boat of unknown "reputation."
It looks like the quality issues went beyond the set screw, which was
handled.

===

Clearly there were some issues with the boat but I believe they made a
very foolish choice to go offshore from New Jersey, in the middle of
winter, into the teeth of several North Atlantic gales. It would have
been far more prudent to go down the east coast via Chesapeake Bay
and the ICW at least as far as North Carolina. From NC you assess
the weather and wait for a window when you can cross to Bermuda with
reasonable safety. However in a boat that size, in the middle of
winter, it is far safer to go all the way to Florida via the ICW and
then head down through the Bahamas on the so called "Thornless Path"
to the Caribbean. Having made the winter trip through the Bahamas
several times in a 50 footer, even that route is something less than a
walk in the park.

I don't know what their sailing background is, so I can't speak to
that. That course and those weather conditions are "unsafe?"
Appears to me they didn't run into anything but one wave that disabled
steering. Then they also had batten problems and electrical.
Seems the boat quality was the main issue.
Even taking your southern route may have broken that boat.
But you know better than I about sailing conditions.

===

The North Atlantic in the winter time is a dangerous place. Water
temperatures are very cold, and there are usually gale force winds 20
to 30% of the time. The biggest problem however for a small boat is
that there is no nearby shelter if conditions deteriorate. You are
fully committed to being "out there". Even large, well crewed boats
in top condition get into trouble once in awhile in circumstances like
that. It only takes one major gear failure to become life
threatening, and there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

On 1/19/2014 10:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

===

Clearly there were some issues with the boat but I believe they made a
very foolish choice to go offshore from New Jersey, in the middle of
winter, into the teeth of several North Atlantic gales. It would have
been far more prudent to go down the east coast via Chesapeake Bay
and the ICW at least as far as North Carolina. From NC you assess
the weather and wait for a window when you can cross to Bermuda with
reasonable safety. However in a boat that size, in the middle of
winter, it is far safer to go all the way to Florida via the ICW and
then head down through the Bahamas on the so called "Thornless Path"
to the Caribbean. Having made the winter trip through the Bahamas
several times in a 50 footer, even that route is something less than a
walk in the park.


I can't agree with you because I did exactly this once myself. My
information was that the ICW was difficult to navigate and not cleared
at my almost 6' draft until south of Hampton, VA and even then it can
get dicey. While i have no personal experience in the ICW north of VA, I
can believe that a huge cat like this would be most difficult to deal
with inland. OTOH, heavy weather of 40kts isn't so extreme as that one
would expect it'd disable the boat as it did. I mean, reading the
narrative quickly as I did, it seemed to me that the boat fell apart
very much like a pro captain I met once described an O'Day doing the
same thing under him in lesser conditions.

To be fair, though, the O'Day wasn't ever represented as an offshore
vessel while presumably the cat was. I hit 40 kt conditions and while I
didn't enjoy the ride, nothing broke.

On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:29:12 AM UTC-5, slide wrote:
On 1/19/2014 10:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:



===



Clearly there were some issues with the boat but I believe they made a

very foolish choice to go offshore from New Jersey, in the middle of

winter, into the teeth of several North Atlantic gales. It would have

been far more prudent to go down the east coast via Chesapeake Bay

and the ICW at least as far as North Carolina. From NC you assess

the weather and wait for a window when you can cross to Bermuda with

reasonable safety. However in a boat that size, in the middle of

winter, it is far safer to go all the way to Florida via the ICW and

then head down through the Bahamas on the so called "Thornless Path"

to the Caribbean. Having made the winter trip through the Bahamas

several times in a 50 footer, even that route is something less than a

walk in the park.





I can't agree with you because I did exactly this once myself. My

information was that the ICW was difficult to navigate and not cleared

at my almost 6' draft until south of Hampton, VA and even then it can

get dicey. While i have no personal experience in the ICW north of VA, I

can believe that a huge cat like this would be most difficult to deal

with inland. OTOH, heavy weather of 40kts isn't so extreme as that one

would expect it'd disable the boat as it did. I mean, reading the

narrative quickly as I did, it seemed to me that the boat fell apart

very much like a pro captain I met once described an O'Day doing the

same thing under him in lesser conditions.



To be fair, though, the O'Day wasn't ever represented as an offshore

vessel while presumably the cat was. I hit 40 kt conditions and while I

didn't enjoy the ride, nothing broke.

Sorry but your information about the ICW is wrong, 6' should be no problem. 7'+ is doable if you play the tides. And a cat that size should have no problems running the ICW with a competent person at the helm.