Roger Long wrote:
NE Sailboat wrote:

Why don't you for once just admit you don't have any idea what
happened to Ken Barnes and his boat.

With pleasure. I'd don't know for sure what happened to his boat despite
figuring out what happened to boats and ships being one of my professional
functions.

I do know, via the Internet clips, what Ken Barnes says happens to his boat.
It is similar enough to what has happened to many previous vessels and what
is probably the primary hazard in deep water cruising that is is worth
discussing and thinking about. Having studied quite a few marine casualty
accounts and attempted to correlate them with other facts over the years it
wouldn't surprise me a bit if Ken Barnes doesn't even know what happened to
his boat but only thinks he does.

I'm not aware of any statement of mine that would make disagreeing with me
in any way relative to the question of being a "putterer".
People who disagee with me are my most valuable and respected professional
resource in things like my Titanic research. Puttering about in boats is a
perfectly respectable activity and probably a lot saner and, I believe
ultimately more rewarding, than making deep water voyages for their own sake
and seeing nothing but waves for weeks on end. It's just making judgements
about the ability of someone engaged in the later from the putterer's
perspective that I find a bit grating. It's sort of like hearing an avid
hiker of the New England woods (itself a perfectly respectable activity)
proclaim that someone who fell far up on the slopes of Mt. Everest must have
been clumsy.

--
Roger Long

In this video:

Why was his companionway open?

With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor? The anchor would have brought the bow to
the waves making him much less likely to roll over. Even then, the
breaking waves appear to be few so this would have given the rescuers
time to reach him.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
oups.com...

In this video:

Why was his companionway open?

With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor? The anchor would have brought the bow to
the waves making him much less likely to roll over. Even then, the
breaking waves appear to be few so this would have given the rescuers
time to reach him.


Heaving-to may have been a good idea (can't say for certain since I wasn't
there), but anchoring? I can't imagine that being a good idea in those
conditions. Laying to a sea anchor, perhaps.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
oups.com...

In this video:

Why was his companionway open?

With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor? The anchor would have brought the bow to
the waves making him much less likely to roll over. Even then, the
breaking waves appear to be few so this would have given the rescuers
time to reach him.


Heaving-to may have been a good idea (can't say for certain since I wasn't
there), but anchoring? I can't imagine that being a good idea in those
conditions. Laying to a sea anchor, perhaps.


Wrong vidi -- I was still thinking of Barnes. Regarding the sailboat in the
surf, he would have had to anchor long before getting into the surf. Once
there, he couldn't have laid sufficient scope to hold, and trying to drop,
let alone set it, would likely have holed his hull something fierce.

Karin

Frogwatch wrote:

Why was his companionway open?

Hard to put yourself in the mind of a terrified human being. I would guess
that his panicked 2 year old child on board had a lot to do with the hatch
being open. Being rolled over may have been the last thing on his mind and
watching and reassuring a terrified child would be hard to talk yourself out
of doing.

As to what he was doing out in those conditions with a 2 year old and no
adult... well, maybe that just gives us an insight into his level of
judgement.


With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor?

Looking at how little wind there was, I suspect that the boat would not have
headed up into the seas, if indeed the wind was onshore. He might well have
just ended up in the troughs but anchored. That wouldn't have changed the
outcome very much.

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in
:

Looking at how little wind there was, I suspect that the boat would
not have headed up into the seas, if indeed the wind was onshore. He
might well have just ended up in the troughs but anchored. That
wouldn't have changed the outcome very much.



All the more reason we all need to pay lots more attention to ENGINE and
POWER than to sails and nostalgia.

Larry
--
Extremely intelligent life exists that is so smart they never called Earth.

Frogwatch wrote:
Roger Long wrote:
NE Sailboat wrote:

Why don't you for once just admit you don't have any idea what
happened to Ken Barnes and his boat.
With pleasure. I'd don't know for sure what happened to his boat despite
figuring out what happened to boats and ships being one of my professional
functions.

I do know, via the Internet clips, what Ken Barnes says happens to his boat.
It is similar enough to what has happened to many previous vessels and what
is probably the primary hazard in deep water cruising that is is worth
discussing and thinking about. Having studied quite a few marine casualty
accounts and attempted to correlate them with other facts over the years it
wouldn't surprise me a bit if Ken Barnes doesn't even know what happened to
his boat but only thinks he does.

I'm not aware of any statement of mine that would make disagreeing with me
in any way relative to the question of being a "putterer".
People who disagee with me are my most valuable and respected professional
resource in things like my Titanic research. Puttering about in boats is a
perfectly respectable activity and probably a lot saner and, I believe
ultimately more rewarding, than making deep water voyages for their own sake
and seeing nothing but waves for weeks on end. It's just making judgements
about the ability of someone engaged in the later from the putterer's
perspective that I find a bit grating. It's sort of like hearing an avid
hiker of the New England woods (itself a perfectly respectable activity)
proclaim that someone who fell far up on the slopes of Mt. Everest must have
been clumsy.

--
Roger Long

In this video:

Why was his companionway open?

With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor? The anchor would have brought the bow to
the waves making him much less likely to roll over. Even then, the
breaking waves appear to be few so this would have given the rescuers
time to reach him.

In 3000 feet of water. How much anchor rode do you carry on your boat?

krj wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
Roger Long wrote:
NE Sailboat wrote:

Why don't you for once just admit you don't have any idea what
happened to Ken Barnes and his boat.
With pleasure. I'd don't know for sure what happened to his boat
despite
figuring out what happened to boats and ships being one of my
professional
functions.

I do know, via the Internet clips, what Ken Barnes says happens to
his boat.
It is similar enough to what has happened to many previous vessels
and what
is probably the primary hazard in deep water cruising that is is worth
discussing and thinking about. Having studied quite a few marine
casualty
accounts and attempted to correlate them with other facts over the
years it
wouldn't surprise me a bit if Ken Barnes doesn't even know what
happened to
his boat but only thinks he does.

I'm not aware of any statement of mine that would make disagreeing
with me
in any way relative to the question of being a "putterer".
People who disagee with me are my most valuable and respected
professional
resource in things like my Titanic research. Puttering about in boats
is a
perfectly respectable activity and probably a lot saner and, I believe
ultimately more rewarding, than making deep water voyages for their
own sake
and seeing nothing but waves for weeks on end. It's just making
judgements
about the ability of someone engaged in the later from the putterer's
perspective that I find a bit grating. It's sort of like hearing an
avid
hiker of the New England woods (itself a perfectly respectable activity)
proclaim that someone who fell far up on the slopes of Mt. Everest
must have
been clumsy.

--
Roger Long

In this video:

Why was his companionway open?

With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor? The anchor would have brought the bow to
the waves making him much less likely to roll over. Even then, the
breaking waves appear to be few so this would have given the rescuers
time to reach him.

In 3000 feet of water. How much anchor rode do you carry on your boat?
oops wrong post. Thought this was about Barnes.

In article .com,
"Frogwatch" wrote:

In this video:

Why was his companionway open?

With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor? The anchor would have brought the bow to
the waves making him much less likely to roll over. Even then, the
breaking waves appear to be few so this would have given the rescuers
time to reach him.

Good points, though he had some way on under the main and probably
thought he could claw off the shore. (question, though: how did he later
drift into *calmer* water?)

Still, once he put out a distress call, which happened well before the
video started (or no one would have been there), he had time to toss out
all sorts of anchor, put the companionway to rights, perhaps get the
sail out of the water, drop and furl the main... that sort of thing.

Once you put out that call, they're rightfully expecting you to be where
you said you were.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: (temporarily out of order -- redesigning)
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/