More consideration of the accident off Clearwater
 

OK, think about it a little more. These guys are not likely to have
fished until the waves built to 14' or even 6' and 40 miles off
Clearwater the water is deep enough that the waves prob were not
breaking and the survivor said they swamped when they hauled the
anchor. I would guess that it started to get rough, they hauled the
anchor and swamped and then it got really rough.
Why did they swamp? Anchored from the bow in a 21' boat, you'd think
the bow would rise with a wave. When you read about fishing accidents
like this, you sometimes read they anchored by the stern and that when
they hauled the anchor it drops the stern just enough that a wave
comes over and that is all it takes.
The survivor also said they did not put on life jackets until after
they turned over so that also indicates they were not too worried
until then leading me to think it happened suddenly and not completely
as a result of high seas.

More consideration of the accident off Clearwater
 

On Mar 4, 12:14 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
OK, think about it a little more. These guys are not likely to have
fished until the waves built to 14' or even 6' and 40 miles off
Clearwater the water is deep enough that the waves prob were not
breaking and the survivor said they swamped when they hauled the
anchor. I would guess that it started to get rough, they hauled the
anchor and swamped and then it got really rough.
Why did they swamp? Anchored from the bow in a 21' boat, you'd think
the bow would rise with a wave. When you read about fishing accidents
like this, you sometimes read they anchored by the stern and that when
they hauled the anchor it drops the stern just enough that a wave
comes over and that is all it takes.
The survivor also said they did not put on life jackets until after
they turned over so that also indicates they were not too worried
until then leading me to think it happened suddenly and not completely
as a result of high seas.

Strangely, the pic of the boat in the link provided by Vic
http://www.evergladesboats.com/boats/210cc.php
shows a high transom so water over the transom due to stern anchoring
may not have been the reason. She also looks to have a lot of
floatation forward so you'd think the bow would easily rise to meet a
wave.
Did they truly wait until the seas were really bad to haul anchor?
Imagine, motor at idle while they haul anchor so they have little
steerage, a big wave goes under breaking anchor free of the bottom
allowing her to yaw and slide down the back of a wave, next
wave...........

More consideration of the accident off Clearwater
 

Frogwatch wrote:
OK, think about it a little more. These guys are not likely to have
fished until the waves built to 14' or even 6' and 40 miles off
Clearwater the water is deep enough that the waves prob were not
breaking and the survivor said they swamped when they hauled the
anchor. I would guess that it started to get rough, they hauled the
anchor and swamped and then it got really rough.
Why did they swamp? Anchored from the bow in a 21' boat, you'd think
the bow would rise with a wave.


Not necessarily.

More consideration of the accident off Clearwater
 

salty;2912960 Wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
ohara5.0@ wrote:

OK, think about it a little more. These guys are not likely to have
fished until the waves built to 14' or even 6' and 40 miles off
Clearwater the water is deep enough that the waves prob were not
breaking and the survivor said they swamped when they hauled the
anchor. I would guess that it started to get rough, they hauled the
anchor and swamped and then it got really rough.
Why did they swamp? Anchored from the bow in a 21' boat, you'd think
the bow would rise with a wave. When you read about fishing accidents
like this, you sometimes read they anchored by the stern and that when
they hauled the anchor it drops the stern just enough that a wave
comes over and that is all it takes.
The survivor also said they did not put on life jackets until after
they turned over so that also indicates they were not too worried
until then leading me to think it happened suddenly and not completely
as a result of high seas.

Any chance they had been out there drinking all day?
Not to mention other drugs.


--
Dymphna
Message Origin: TRAVEL.com

More consideration of the accident off Clearwater
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:49:04 -0600, Dymphna
wrote:


salty;2912960 Wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
ohara5.0@ wrote:

OK, think about it a little more. These guys are not likely to have
fished until the waves built to 14' or even 6' and 40 miles off
Clearwater the water is deep enough that the waves prob were not
breaking and the survivor said they swamped when they hauled the
anchor. I would guess that it started to get rough, they hauled the
anchor and swamped and then it got really rough.
Why did they swamp? Anchored from the bow in a 21' boat, you'd think
the bow would rise with a wave. When you read about fishing accidents
like this, you sometimes read they anchored by the stern and that when
they hauled the anchor it drops the stern just enough that a wave
comes over and that is all it takes.
The survivor also said they did not put on life jackets until after
they turned over so that also indicates they were not too worried
until then leading me to think it happened suddenly and not completely
as a result of high seas.

Any chance they had been out there drinking all day?
Not to mention other drugs.


I imagine the real problem was excessive levels of testosterone.

... as in "shouldn't we be going back?" ... "pussy!"

CG says 200 capsizing in last 5 year.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/03/mis...ers/index.html

Recovery of the boat. Shortwave would like those Contenders. Lots of
power.
http://www.tampabays10.com/video/default.aspx?aid=79879

Amazing how little water in the boat when it came upright.

More consideration of the accident off Clearwater
 

Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:49:04 -0600, Dymphna
wrote:

salty;2912960 Wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
ohara5.0@ wrote:

OK, think about it a little more. These guys are not likely to have
fished until the waves built to 14' or even 6' and 40 miles off
Clearwater the water is deep enough that the waves prob were not
breaking and the survivor said they swamped when they hauled the
anchor. I would guess that it started to get rough, they hauled the
anchor and swamped and then it got really rough.
Why did they swamp? Anchored from the bow in a 21' boat, you'd think
the bow would rise with a wave. When you read about fishing accidents
like this, you sometimes read they anchored by the stern and that when
they hauled the anchor it drops the stern just enough that a wave
comes over and that is all it takes.
The survivor also said they did not put on life jackets until after
they turned over so that also indicates they were not too worried
until then leading me to think it happened suddenly and not completely
as a result of high seas.
Any chance they had been out there drinking all day?
Not to mention other drugs.

I imagine the real problem was excessive levels of testosterone.

... as in "shouldn't we be going back?" ... "pussy!"

CG says 200 capsizing in last 5 year.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/03/mis...ers/index.html

Recovery of the boat. Shortwave would like those Contenders. Lots of
power.
http://www.tampabays10.com/video/default.aspx?aid=79879

Amazing how little water in the boat when it came upright.



That boat popped right up. Good video. Trips on anything will have a
lot of power.