"KLC Lewis" wrote:


"Skip Gundlach" wrote in message
roups.com...
August 21 - All at Sea


Skip, there is nothing inherently wrong with sailing in foul weather --
provided, of course, that you and your crew are up to it. But from your
report, Lydia is NOT up to it, at least not yet. Please don't repeat this.
You don't have to be ANYWHERE at any particular time. And there is
absolutely no "shame" in turning around and heading back to port if
conditions deteriorate unexpectedly.

"Those who fight and run away, live to fight another day."

I have to say that I did not find what he did particularly untoward. I
noted that he said he was well rested at the start, and at the start
someone that is well rested can do more than if it is at the other end
of the trip (as it was the first time). I don't know if the boat
could have been hove to or sailed in a direction so that the waves
weren't rolling the boat so much or not.

Managing seasickness is not something that one can do for someone
else. It takes a certain amount of trial and error to get it right.
Second guessing Lydia won't help her.

In our case, there's no seasickness problem, but Bob doesn't sleep
well underway. So I adjust to that by sleeping as much as possible
(especially during the day) because I can usually sleep whenever and
wherever I want to. When he runs out of steam or when he would
normally be asleep, I can take over the watch and he can take a nap.
Of course we also don't make a multi-day passage - I don't want Bob
doing that for more than 24 hours.

I have been told that the first 24-36 hours of an extended cruise are
the most difficult because it is hard to sleep at the beginning. After
a day or so, people adjust and are actually able to sleep off-shift so
they think Bob would eventually be able to do more sleeping. I think
that is true. I'm just not sure that he wouldn't get too tired to
sleep before he adjusted to the routine. And actually Lydia being out
of commission from seasickness at the start might make adjusting to
the watches easier because she started out rested in the middle rather
than at the beginning - the equivalent of my sleeping in the daytime
of the first day.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:44:43 -0400, Rosalie B.
wrote:

I have to say that I did not find what he did particularly untoward.

The way I read Skip's post, they started to encounter deteriorating
weather conditions right outside the Chesapeake Bay-Bridge tunnel
area. That's not a very auspicious start for a 200+ mile offshore run
to NYC. Subsequent weather confirms that assessment. I also take
issue with not breaking up the trip into multiple legs, especially
since Cape May is not only an easy inlet, but also a fun town to
visit. What's the rush?

To answer Vic Smith's response, the alternative to the proposed plan
was not the ICW but rather Chesapeake Bay, arguably one of the finest
cruising areas in the mid-atlantic region. Skip's choice was to go
offshore along the Delmarva Penninsula which has no good cruising
inlets for over 100 nautical miles. That violates my "Plan B" rule
which says there should always be a Plan B in case Plan A starts to
look a little sketchy for some reason.

I have made the decision to run offshore of Delmarva several times but
only in a stable weather window, and never for more than 36 hours
which is about my limit for staying fully alert. In addition, neither
my wife or I get seasick under normal conditions, and my wife is an
experienced watch stander who knows her limits.

Wayne.B wrote in
:

What's the rush?


Same as always, his FAMILY is waiting in Sandy Hook....(sigh)


Larry
--

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:35:34 +0000, Larry wrote:

Same as always, his FAMILY is waiting in Sandy Hook....(sigh)

Recipe for disaster.