On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:15:58 GMT, "Gordon Wedman"
wrote:

Watched "The Perfect Storm" a couple weeks ago and kept thinking how they'd
be dead in a minute if the engine quit. Certainly cured me of any desire to
be out in serious weather in a power boat, at least a single engine unit.
Seems like drogues and sea anchors are even more important on power boats.
Don't read those magazines so I wonder what they say?

===============================================

What you say is true in my opinion but you are less likely to be
"caught out" in a power boat unless you have a true long range cruiser
like a Nordhaven, Willard or similar.

Power boats have the advantage of speed which gets you back into port
quicker if need be, and they also have a finite range which usually
limits time at sea to a more predictable weather window.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:35:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:15:58 GMT, "Gordon Wedman"
wrote:

Watched "The Perfect Storm" a couple weeks ago and kept thinking how they'd
be dead in a minute if the engine quit. Certainly cured me of any desire to
be out in serious weather in a power boat, at least a single engine unit.
Seems like drogues and sea anchors are even more important on power boats.
Don't read those magazines so I wonder what they say?

===============================================

What you say is true in my opinion but you are less likely to be
"caught out" in a power boat unless you have a true long range cruiser
like a Nordhaven, Willard or similar.

Power boats have the advantage of speed which gets you back into port
quicker if need be, and they also have a finite range which usually
limits time at sea to a more predictable weather window.


With a power boat you sure have the speed to get home quickly. But
suppose you have engine failure and don´t want to drift ashore. And
water is too deep to anchor.

Mike







----------------------------------------------
Haluatko lähettää postia? Vaihda osoitteen
eka (vai oliko se toka?) numero viisi numeroon
kahdeksan...
----------------------------------------------

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:17:56 +0200, Mike the Spamkiller
wrote:

With a power boat you sure have the speed to get home quickly. But
suppose you have engine failure and don´t want to drift ashore. And
water is too deep to anchor.

================================

That's a quandry for sure, but except for the most hostile coast lines
there is usually a zone of water shallow enough that your anchor can
grab. If not, you assume the nuclear attack position and kiss it
goodbye.

In article ,
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:17:56 +0200, Mike the Spamkiller
wrote:

With a power boat you sure have the speed to get home quickly. But
suppose you have engine failure and don´t want to drift ashore. And
water is too deep to anchor.

================================

That's a quandry for sure, but except for the most hostile coast lines
there is usually a zone of water shallow enough that your anchor can
grab. If not, you assume the nuclear attack position and kiss it
goodbye.

Like most of the Pacific Coast....




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 12 Dec 2005 17:30:33 -0800, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

Like most of the Pacific Coast....

=================================

No continental shelf at all? Never realized that, guess I'll have to
cruise the west coast one of these days. I'm spoiled however by
having a decent inlet or harbor every 20 to 50 miles, sometimes less.

I met a couple last summer who had cruised south from the Pacific NW
to the Panama Canal in a Nordhavn trawler. They only stopped a couple
of times.

The trouble comes when you lose power. I wrote an article for
"Soundings" two years ago about a guy on Lake Superior who lost one
engine on a Bayliner 39' due to an injector problem and his shaft broke
and dropped out of the other, causing a bit of water to come into the
boat. He had no plugs and was in the bilge trying to pound gardener's
knee pads into the hole to keep from sinking when he broached in 8'
waves. His antenna mounts broke, his wife (on shore) had the handheld
VHF and water was coming over the gunwales as it flopped form side to side.

The wife called the USCG, who came out and rescued him. They confirmed
the sea conditions when I interviewed them.

This was a classic sea achor situation. He has one now.

Capt. Jeff

Tamaroak wrote:
The trouble comes when you lose power. I wrote an article for
"Soundings" two years ago about a guy on Lake Superior who lost one
engine on a Bayliner 39' due to an injector problem and his shaft broke
and dropped out of the other, causing a bit of water to come into the
boat. He had no plugs and was in the bilge trying to pound gardener's
knee pads into the hole to keep from sinking when he broached in 8'
waves. His antenna mounts broke, his wife (on shore) had the handheld
VHF and water was coming over the gunwales as it flopped form side to side.

The wife called the USCG, who came out and rescued him. They confirmed
the sea conditions when I interviewed them.

This was a classic sea achor situation. He has one now.

Capt. Jeff


Hi
Got both. However the problem I see is a significant misunderstanding
on when to use either. I suggest reading Heavy Weather Tactics Using
Sea Anchors & Drogues by E.Hinz as a start.

Read around and most credible sources and authors, including Larry
Pardey, can't even agree on a common definition of either let alone
when either should be deployed. Very confusing at best.
However.............

My first experience with bow deployed "parachute" type sea anchors
was 1981. I was on an 80 foot Japanese catcherboat part of their high
seas salmon gillnet fleet. The fleet worked the north and west pacific
and also moved into the Bering. There were 50 catcher boats per mother
ship with three mother ship fleets. Big operation. When the weather
kicked up the catcher boats deployed a huge parachute off the bow to
maintain station. There was a swivel attached on the parachute where
the 5 inch plated hawser was also attached. It took about 3-5 guys to
deploy and retrieve. I can still remember that big hawser go rod tight
and watch the water literally explode out of it. Lots of force
involved.

It worked great in 30' seas and 40-50 knot wind. Only drifted about
1.5 knots. I asked the Sendo if he would use the parachute in greater
conditions. His eyes got big and said no. Too dangerous! I never could
understand why the Americans did not use or even discuss sea anchors at
that time. However, there is some great advice in an old Night's
Modern Seamanship book. Check out the section titled small boat
handling in breaking seas and landing boats through beach surf. Good
advice on the use of unitary drogues. I guess people have forgotten the
old ways of doing things.

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tamaroak wrote:
The trouble comes when you lose power. I wrote an article for
"Soundings" two years ago about a guy on Lake Superior who lost one
engine on a Bayliner 39' due to an injector problem and his shaft broke
and dropped out of the other, causing a bit of water to come into the
boat. He had no plugs and was in the bilge trying to pound gardener's
knee pads into the hole to keep from sinking when he broached in 8'
waves. His antenna mounts broke, his wife (on shore) had the handheld
VHF and water was coming over the gunwales as it flopped form side to
side.

The wife called the USCG, who came out and rescued him. They confirmed
the sea conditions when I interviewed them.

This was a classic sea achor situation. He has one now.

Capt. Jeff


Hi
Got both. However the problem I see is a significant misunderstanding
on when to use either. I suggest reading Heavy Weather Tactics Using
Sea Anchors & Drogues by E.Hinz as a start.

Read around and most credible sources and authors, including Larry
Pardey, can't even agree on a common definition of either let alone
when either should be deployed. Very confusing at best.
However.............

snip

Bob


The current issue of Cruising World has a couple of articles on drogues and
parachute type sea anchors. One article categorically states that these
devices should always be deployed from the stern. The next article is
written by a fellow who successfully deployed a parachute drogue from the
bow while crossing the Gulf Stream in a blow. I think the Pardeys recommend
a parachute from the bow adjusted to keep waves at some angle to the bow
rather than dead on. Techniques must vary with different styles of boat and
condition.

Yes, there is conflicting advice. For example, Hinz in his book titled
Sea-Anchors and Drogues defines drogues as STERN deployed devices and
sea anchors are PARACHUTE devices deployed from the BOW. Even the
people who manufacture Para-Anchor sea anchors refer to their product
as a bow deployed parachute device.

BUT, in Pardey's book titled, Storm Tactics Handbook, fifth printing
2002, page 15 he states, "Further more, the use of large drogues such
as par-anchors is undergoing an evolution.... And later mentions,
"... heaving-to and parachute drogue usage...." Pardey clearly
believes that a DROGUE is a PARACHUTE deployed from the bow. Apparently
one of the few who do.

Two authorities that can't agree on a simple definition for "sea
anchor. " Very confusing for use who are trying to be safer and more
skilled. Who should we believe?

Interestingly, Hinz describes Pardey's heaving-to bow deployed
strategy. Yet, the opposite is not true. Look as closely as you want
but you'll not find a mention of Hinz in Pardey's book. I wonder
why? Maybe not enough room in his book after Larry Pardey included that
revealing full body picture of himself sporting only a jockstrap and
his sagging ball sack. Now that was a waste of good paper.

Another clue about Larry Pardey's maritime philosophy was a reveling
comment by his wife Lin Pardey. On page 79 she mentioned that his old
school approach does not allow him to consider a scientific approach to
problem solving. For example, Pardey's view of tank testing models.
She says, "Larry who readily admits to being anachronistic, ...feels
tank testing, in itself, proves little. It's too controlled...."
And believes that the only true test of equipment and tactics is by
sailors who use them. In other words, "darn, that did not work. Next
victim......err... uh, I mean next subject please." I'd hate to
have Pardey in charge of the space shuttle program. It would be a
flaming blood bath.

So what is the best way to handle heavy weather? I would start with the
Hinz' books published by Cornel Maritime Press. Later after you learn
a little, look at Pardey's book they had to "self publish."
Pardey takes a whole book to simply say heave-to using a parachute off
the bow. Actually, after reading the Hinz book the only thing needed to
understand Pardey's tactic would be a simple diagram and 50 a word
description. But hey, gotta Pardey credit for trying to make a living.
Anything that keeps people sailing is okay in my book.

One thing I do advise strongly.......... Just don't go out and buy
some gizmo and think it will make you safer. Be a critical consumer of
advice and then practice-practice-practice.

Yea, I know that Pardey has 40 years experience sailing. But maybe
he's only been doing the stuff he learned in his first year 40 times.

What do I do? I use the right tool for the intended job. No single
strategy will work for all conditions.

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, there is conflicting advice. For example, Hinz in his book titled
Sea-Anchors and Drogues defines drogues as STERN deployed devices and
sea anchors are PARACHUTE devices deployed from the BOW. Even the
people who manufacture Para-Anchor sea anchors refer to their product
as a bow deployed parachute device.

BUT, in Pardey's book titled, Storm Tactics Handbook, fifth printing
2002, page 15 he states, "Further more, the use of large drogues such
as par-anchors is undergoing an evolution.... And later mentions,
"... heaving-to and parachute drogue usage...." Pardey clearly
believes that a DROGUE is a PARACHUTE deployed from the bow. Apparently
one of the few who do.

Two authorities that can't agree on a simple definition for "sea
anchor. " Very confusing for use who are trying to be safer and more
skilled. Who should we believe?

Interestingly, Hinz describes Pardey's heaving-to bow deployed
strategy. Yet, the opposite is not true. Look as closely as you want
but you'll not find a mention of Hinz in Pardey's book. I wonder
why? Maybe not enough room in his book after Larry Pardey included that
revealing full body picture of himself sporting only a jockstrap and
his sagging ball sack. Now that was a waste of good paper.

Another clue about Larry Pardey's maritime philosophy was a reveling
comment by his wife Lin Pardey. On page 79 she mentioned that his old
school approach does not allow him to consider a scientific approach to
problem solving. For example, Pardey's view of tank testing models.
She says, "Larry who readily admits to being anachronistic, ...feels
tank testing, in itself, proves little. It's too controlled...."
And believes that the only true test of equipment and tactics is by
sailors who use them. In other words, "darn, that did not work. Next
victim......err... uh, I mean next subject please." I'd hate to
have Pardey in charge of the space shuttle program. It would be a
flaming blood bath.

So what is the best way to handle heavy weather? I would start with the
Hinz' books published by Cornel Maritime Press. Later after you learn
a little, look at Pardey's book they had to "self publish."
Pardey takes a whole book to simply say heave-to using a parachute off
the bow. Actually, after reading the Hinz book the only thing needed to
understand Pardey's tactic would be a simple diagram and 50 a word
description. But hey, gotta Pardey credit for trying to make a living.
Anything that keeps people sailing is okay in my book.

One thing I do advise strongly.......... Just don't go out and buy
some gizmo and think it will make you safer. Be a critical consumer of
advice and then practice-practice-practice.

Yea, I know that Pardey has 40 years experience sailing. But maybe
he's only been doing the stuff he learned in his first year 40 times.

What do I do? I use the right tool for the intended job. No single
strategy will work for all conditions.

Bob


The other thing I wonder about the Pardey's advice : is it based only on
experiences with their own boats? Sounds like it probably is. Now who
sails in a boat like Taleisin? Saw a recent picture of it in Cruising World
tied up to a wall for bottom work. Full keel from stem to stern. Heavy
displacement. Barn door rudder.
Not much like the boats most of us sail in.

The Dashews also have a book on storm tactics. Fairly expensive. Deals
with current designs I believe.