Considering the offshore sailing I have done, I would not be here to answer you
if
I did not observe the proper safety precautions.

I think your statement that multihulls never sink is a fantasy, as is your
presumption
that monohulls sink after they capsize. How many times have you heard of
monohulls capsizing and then continuing to sail, with a jury rig if need be. If
you
haven't heard any, I think you are not in touch with the real world.]

Sherwin D.

"Capt. JG" wrote:

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
And I answer you that I have done extensive ocean cruising with my 22 foot
sailboat, including a winter passage through the Windward Passage from
Jamaica
to
Florida. It was no picnic, so I know what rough weather sailing is. You
can
add to
that sailing my boat from Greece to Israel and back fighting the strong
Meltimi
winds. I think I have seen enough bad weather.

It does depend on your point of view. I like to work myself out of
trouble, and
not
depend on some electronic signal to send the cavalry over the next hill to
rescue me.
I think with 35 years of cruising experience, I have seen quite a few bad
storms. I
never capsized, but I am not a racer who pushes their boat to the maximum.
When

the weather gets bad, I shorten sail, sometimes heave-to, and/or put out a
sea
anchor. Problem is that many sailors think their multihulls cannot flip
over,
and that's
when they get into trouble.

Sherwin D.

This isn't demonstrated by your post. What is demonstrated is lack of
understand about safety, or rather single-mindedness about what safety
means, which is almost as bad.

We all "like to work ..ourselves... out of trouble and not depend on some
electronic signal... blah, blah." But understanding that you have that
device should you not be able to "work it out" is the point.

And, no. What multihull sailors know is that their boats can't sink. Big
difference.

"Capt. JG" wrote:

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Gee, do I have to spell everything out! My comment was directed to the
concept
that boats are unsinkable, period. They said the Titanic could never
sink. Get
the
analogy? I guess not.

I personally would rather take my chances on a boat that most likely
will
go
back
to an upright position where I have a chance of salvaging enough
rigging
to
continue
sailing. We are slaves to our EPIRB's to get us out of trouble. Your
first
thought
when in trouble at sea is how can I recover a bad situation, not make a
grab for
the
EPIRB. Of course, in the case of an upsidedown multihull, they didn't
have much

of a choice.

Sherwin D.

The logical choice is to pick the most survivable situation and to
recognize
when a situation is becoming untenable. I suggest that you've never been
in
a washing machine-style situation, where everything (as a best case) is
going round and round and everything is flying. It's not a place you
would
want to stay for very long. Need a dramatic account? Read Fastnet Force
10.
The mono will capsize, then right itself, perhaps a number of times, and
if
you're very lucky, you won't be killed or injured by the flying debris.
If
you're unlucky, water will enter and the boat will right itself on the
bottom.

On the other hand, if a multi capsizes, it will likely stay capsized
providing a stable and likely livable place to await rescue.

No where have I seen anyone suggest that triggering an EPIRB is a first
action or even third option, but neither is it necessary to wait until
the
situation is unsalvagable to trigger it. When you say, "they didn't have
much choice," you imply that they had a choice at all. It's more likely
that they were swept overboard before being able to get to it or below.

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



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

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:
Considering the offshore sailing I have done, I would not be here to answer you
if
I did not observe the proper safety precautions.

I think your statement that multihulls never sink is a fantasy, as is your
presumption
that monohulls sink after they capsize. How many times have you heard of
monohulls capsizing and then continuing to sail, with a jury rig if need be. If
you
haven't heard any, I think you are not in touch with the real world.]

Sherwin D.

Would you rather be lucky or good? I think you've been lucky.

Multihulls don't sink from a capsizing. On the other hand, monos will
sink if enough water gets below. It's disingenuous to claim that I
said monos always sink when they capsize. How many multis have you
heard than have sunk? Perhaps far fewer than monos. Either that or
you're not in touch with the real world.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Multihulls don't sink from a capsizing. On the other hand, monos will
sink if enough water gets below. It's disingenuous to claim that I
said monos always sink when they capsize. How many multis have you
heard than have sunk? Perhaps far fewer than monos. Either that or
you're not in touch with the real world.

Not taking sides in the multi vs mono debate
although I do own two mono's at the moment.

I did read a while back about a ~45' Cat that was
abandoned due to structural failure during a storm
in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm thinking that this
type of structural failure is probably far more
common than outright sinking for multihulls, but I
could be wrong about that.

A friend was one of three crew on a ~60' Cat on a
passage from Belize to Florida several years back.
They hit a storm in the gulf and suffered enough
damage that the insurance company totaled it.
They made it into port, but the boat was toast.
The skipper was a professional who had sailed the
same boat all over the world for more than ten
years with many Atlantic crossings etc. I had a
hard time understanding what kind of damage you
could suffer that would cause an insurance company
to total a $1.5 million boat. He said that among
other things, the mast was punched through the top
of the salon, and the "structure" of the boat was
damaged beyond economical repair.

It doesn't do much good to have two hulls which
float if they are no longer attached to each other

Don W.

"Don W" wrote in message
.. .


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Multihulls don't sink from a capsizing. On the other hand, monos will
sink if enough water gets below. It's disingenuous to claim that I
said monos always sink when they capsize. How many multis have you
heard than have sunk? Perhaps far fewer than monos. Either that or
you're not in touch with the real world.

Not taking sides in the multi vs mono debate although I do own two mono's
at the moment.

I did read a while back about a ~45' Cat that was abandoned due to
structural failure during a storm in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm thinking
that this type of structural failure is probably far more common than
outright sinking for multihulls, but I could be wrong about that.

A friend was one of three crew on a ~60' Cat on a passage from Belize to
Florida several years back. They hit a storm in the gulf and suffered
enough damage that the insurance company totaled it. They made it into
port, but the boat was toast. The skipper was a professional who had
sailed the same boat all over the world for more than ten years with many
Atlantic crossings etc. I had a hard time understanding what kind of
damage you could suffer that would cause an insurance company to total a
$1.5 million boat. He said that among other things, the mast was punched
through the top of the salon, and the "structure" of the boat was damaged
beyond economical repair.

It doesn't do much good to have two hulls which float if they are no
longer attached to each other

Don W.



Well, I guess they made it into port, so it must not have sunk... I
currently own a mono... Sabre 30, and the only multi I've owned was a
Windrider 16. I used to occasionally take it off Crissy Field (San
Francisco) and would regularly get it complete filled with water. Rode low,
but wouldn't sink. I'm pretty sure that if I filled my Sabre with water, it
would sink.


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

I too would not like to take sides on this debate but I wonder, if
multi's are safer than monos because they won't sink, where is the crew
of the lost cat?

It seems there was a shred of line tied to a sail drive. So someone,
presumably, survived the flip. But then what? Dead is dead.

Now, they might have been dead faster in a mono, I don't know.

Multi or mono either one is a risk, I guess the question is, which one
is the greater risk.

I went to the Annapolis boat show this fall and saw a bunch of big cats
with sliding glass doors across their cabins and no bridge deck. So, it
made me think, how hard is it for that massive expanse of glass to give
up the ghost. And there is nothing to stop downflooding into the cabin.
And they had these escape hatches in the hulls.

On the other had there are many pilot house monos with huge expanses of
glass. A friend of mine was on a boat lost in the Atlantic this fall.
They had a hull mounted port that punched out and were consequently
taking on water. Not sure if that was a fatal flaw.

I have seen Montisiers (sp?)"Joshua" described as more submarine than
sailboat, with a glass turret for inside sailing.

Maybe the comparison is not mono or multi but "sea hardened" (to coin a
phrase?) or not.

Just some thoughts.


Capt. JG wrote:
"Don W" wrote in message
.. .

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Multihulls don't sink from a capsizing. On the other hand, monos will
sink if enough water gets below. It's disingenuous to claim that I
said monos always sink when they capsize. How many multis have you
heard than have sunk? Perhaps far fewer than monos. Either that or
you're not in touch with the real world.
Not taking sides in the multi vs mono debate although I do own two mono's
at the moment.

I did read a while back about a ~45' Cat that was abandoned due to
structural failure during a storm in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm thinking
that this type of structural failure is probably far more common than
outright sinking for multihulls, but I could be wrong about that.

A friend was one of three crew on a ~60' Cat on a passage from Belize to
Florida several years back. They hit a storm in the gulf and suffered
enough damage that the insurance company totaled it. They made it into
port, but the boat was toast. The skipper was a professional who had
sailed the same boat all over the world for more than ten years with many
Atlantic crossings etc. I had a hard time understanding what kind of
damage you could suffer that would cause an insurance company to total a
$1.5 million boat. He said that among other things, the mast was punched
through the top of the salon, and the "structure" of the boat was damaged
beyond economical repair.

It doesn't do much good to have two hulls which float if they are no
longer attached to each other

Don W.



Well, I guess they made it into port, so it must not have sunk... I
currently own a mono... Sabre 30, and the only multi I've owned was a
Windrider 16. I used to occasionally take it off Crissy Field (San
Francisco) and would regularly get it complete filled with water. Rode low,
but wouldn't sink. I'm pretty sure that if I filled my Sabre with water, it
would sink.

Howard wrote:
I too would not like to take sides on this debate

Agreed. it reminds me of an argument that I had with two friends years
ago. The debate: which would kill you faster a .44 or .357 or .45. We
were 16- or 17 at the time.

Maybe the comparison is not mono or multi but "sea hardened" (to coin a
phrase?) or not.

Sea hardened... sea capable....? I to have seen thoes sliding glass
doors. I wonder how many kids runn into them. Maybe the owners could
put black outlines of waves on the glasss so the waves dont get
confused and slam into the glass. Seem to work using falcons to scare
off song birds.

When is was 13 I put a message in a bottle and threw it over the side 5
miles off Oregon coast. Two years later I got a reply from a woman in
the Philipines. IN the 1980s I threw another bottle over the side about
20 miles off Oregon coast. It only took one year for it to reach
hawaii. Conclusion: If a glass bottle can float across the Pacific so
can I.

however, the boat I chose was a 39', double ended, cut away, full keel,
26,000 lbs slug with 1 1/2" glass at the water line and have upgraded
to mil spec on the refit. If Im going to sink I want to be comfortable
on the way down. There are many ways to get the same place.
However I will take one thought to the grave. Dont let charter
operators, marketing departments, and boat brokers tell you why their
boats are safe. Again I I feel compelled to post a quote from a person
who was sent to save the hapless soles caught in the Fastnet disaster
of 1979:

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Interview with Bill Burrows, Chief Engineer Royal Navy Lifeboat
Institution. Retrieved three disabled sailboats in a 21 hour rescue
during the fatal 1979 Fastnet Storm.

"... Look, you get 300 Yachats in poor weather and you're going to
have some trouble, almost certainly. But the majority of the trouble
was hysteria created by the situation and by inexperienced crews. And
that it was. They were blaming rudders and such, but none of those
rudders would have snapped if they had put drogues out and storm jibs
and run before the weather. They were under bare poles, most of them,
and they were getting up on the seas. And the seas were about 45 feet.
Not what we around here call big.

They got up on these seas and they were running. When the boats were
starting to broach, what the helmsmen were doing was hauling on the
rudders to stop them from broaching. They were putting too much bloody
strain on the rudders, and they had to go.

Yes, I know they were racing sailors, not cruising men, but that's no
excuse. We went out that night and we passed a little old hooker sort
of thing with a family of kids aboard and they were going away to
Ireland with no trouble at all...."
(The Yacht, April 1987)
__________________________________________________ ______________________

BOb

Just some thoughts.

"Howard" wrote in message
rvers.com...
I too would not like to take sides on this debate but I wonder, if multi's
are safer than monos because they won't sink, where is the crew of the lost
cat?

It seems there was a shred of line tied to a sail drive. So someone,
presumably, survived the flip. But then what? Dead is dead.

Now, they might have been dead faster in a mono, I don't know.

Multi or mono either one is a risk, I guess the question is, which one is
the greater risk.

I went to the Annapolis boat show this fall and saw a bunch of big cats
with sliding glass doors across their cabins and no bridge deck. So, it
made me think, how hard is it for that massive expanse of glass to give up
the ghost. And there is nothing to stop downflooding into the cabin. And
they had these escape hatches in the hulls.

On the other had there are many pilot house monos with huge expanses of
glass. A friend of mine was on a boat lost in the Atlantic this fall.
They had a hull mounted port that punched out and were consequently taking
on water. Not sure if that was a fatal flaw.

I have seen Montisiers (sp?)"Joshua" described as more submarine than
sailboat, with a glass turret for inside sailing.

Maybe the comparison is not mono or multi but "sea hardened" (to coin a
phrase?) or not.

Just some thoughts.


It's always possible to find an inappropriate boat crewed by inappropriate
people and put it in an untenable situation.

They clearly had a stable platform to survive after the flip, and it's at
best speculative to wonder why someone died afterward. It's also easy to
say, "If I had been there, I would have done X."

BTW, even with the expansive glass sliders, modern cats won't sink just
because the glass gives way. It would just be more of a dangerous mess. The
cat in question clearly didn't sink.


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