A Sea Story: the Wreck of the Replica HMS Bounty 184
An anonymous reader writes "On October 25, 2012, as residents of the U.S. east coast made frantic preparations for the arrival of Hurricane Sandy, the captain of the HMS Bounty (a replica tall ship constructed fifty years earlier for the Marlon Brando film Mutiny on the Bounty) made a foolish decision, with the assent of his crew, to proceed with a scheduled voyage from New London, CT for St. Petersburg FL. CNN's Thom Patterson has written a long story with the benefit of survivor testimony to the NTSB and U.S. Coast Guard. Captain Robin Walbridge thought he could outrun the hurricane, and besides, he'd 'sailed into hurricanes before.' The crew (officially there were no passengers, a fact that allowed the ship to evade certain safety regulations) consisted of tall ship enthusiasts with widely varying amounts of nautical experience, perhaps taken by the vast historical literature on the great age of sailing. A day and a half into the voyage, Captain Walbridge altered his plan of sailing east of the storm, to sailing south and west of it. A day later, the Bounty was less than 200 miles from the eye of the storm; the engine room started to flood, and the pumps were jammed with debris being torn off by the storm's 70 mph winds. The end came early next day, the Bounty was knocked down by a huge wave, tossing the captain and several crew members overboard. The Coast Guard rescued fourteen of the crew members, but Claudene Christian (an adventure-loving novice who had enlisted as crew a few months before) was dead, and Captain Walbridge's body has not been found."
Remember: (Score:5, Funny)
a tragedy all around (Score:4, Informative)
The ship was originally built as a movie prop, cool to look at but lacking substance. It had decades of trouble as a result since it was of dubious seaworthiness for a very long time. The ship never should have been allowed to skirt maritime law the way it did.
The captain meant well, but his ship wasn't the measure of the dreams that sailed it. The Coast Guard needs to examine how this tragedy was ever allowed to persist for so long and change the law to make sure it never happens again. The loophole that allowed this ship to sail needs closed and the other such ships need safely regulated to museum duty.
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:5, Insightful)
It was sailed for 50 years and only sunk because Capt Dumbass sailed it into a hurricane. Pretty good for a museum piece.
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.
When you go to sea you take some risk, under any circumstances. People doing that should take responsibility for it. It's not the coast guard or the government's job to make sure people who make stupid decisions don't get hurt.
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree. I'm all for regulating passenger travel, because passengers don't have the opportunity to go do a walk-around of their aircraft before boarding, and even if they did they wouldn't know what to look for.
However, if some idiot wants to take their Cessna up in a hurricane then my main concern is for the home that he ends up crashing into. That isn't as much of a concern for a ship out at sea.
As long as everybody on the ship could be expected to understand the risks they were taking, then it was their choice to make.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. The Bounty was simply not registered to carry paying passengers (just like the vast majority of private vessels). The crew were most definitely crew. Almost all of them were experienced sailors and, except for one retired volunteer, were all being paid.
It's hard to say what happened without more information, but it sounds like the captain took a risk and paid for it. The crew was consulted before they left,
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:5, Informative)
Well, about that...
-- Bounty hearings [gcaptain.com].
"The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. "
There's more...including
the rest of it is an interesting read, with more detail than the CNN article. No, they weren't an experienced crew, and yes, they were playing loose with the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
You've enumerated their experience on tall ships. Rereading the article, it sounds like ALL of them were experienced sailors, with the possible exception of the electrician, who may or may not have been. Anybody with any knowledge of sailing at all knows that hurricanes are dangerous and anybody with more than basic knowledge, which all of these people had, should know that things like a cluttered, messy engine room and a captain who likes purposely sailing into hurricanes are bad news.
The inexperience of
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was that the captain had a cult of personality around him, and only chose crew who responded to his projected image of resolve and competence. There was also the factor of feelings of duty etc, that to have stayed on land would have been dereliction of duty, abandoning their comrades etc.(Something many in the US falls for entirely, even in mundane things such as work, easily being conned into working unpaid overtime etc...)
The general consensus on Sailing Anarchy was that the captain was a nut,
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was that the captain had a cult of personality around him, and only chose crew who responded to his projected image of resolve and competence.
So what you're saying is... no great loss. Easily led sheep will be easily led in any direction. Anyone who'd been on a tall ship for two days and decided to sail into a storm that was broadly considered to be one of the most dangerous things we'd seen in some time is a moron who should be prevented from passing on their genetics by any means necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Given your stated views on OSS philosophy, you could also be one of those "easily led sheep", just in another spectrum, so be careful about what generalisations you toss around. People have different blind spots. Case in point, RMS. He's done very little that can be considered productive after mid-80's yet many geeks blindly follow his preaching without further questioning.
Also, you're talking about the storm in retrospective: Many persons, even geeks here on Slashdot who should have enough physics
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, from what I've read I think it's likely the captain was a nut too. If he had survived he would probably be facing some serious repercussions. Possibly the other ship's officers need to be punished. That's why there's been an inquiry. But everyone who went out on that ship should have been capable of assessing the danger, and was given the opportunity not to go. There are well established laws and customs governing this sort of thing. We don't need more.
On another note, I don't understand why peer
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.
Except in this case it was the captain who took the risk doing minimal maintenance on the ship and trying to "use" the hurricane winds rather then going east around the storm. It's not like the captain held a meeting, explained the situation and took a vote before changing course.
This reminds me of the B-25 that crashed [wikipedia.org] into the Empire State Building killing the pilot and 13 other people. The pilot was advised by the airport of zero visibility but chose to try and land anyway. If I remember right a law was
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's exactly what he did. Reported in the first section of the article. Except you don't "hold a vote" on a ship. The captain tells you where the ship is going and you have the chance to quit if you feel it's too dangerous. The crew had that chance and nobody decided to quit.
Yes, the captain sounds reckless. If he had survived it seems likely his license would be in jeopardy, as it should be. If he did knowingly take an unseaworthy vessel to sea there are already laws against that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much of a choice the crew had
There was no mention of future employment on the Bounty for departing crew, the third mate testified, nor did the captain offer to pay expenses home.
So the crew would probably have lost a job they love.
They trusted the skipper almost without question.
Further more they had no reason to doubt that the captain was doing anything too reckless when they made the decision to stay. However, halfway into the voyage
Around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, October 27, about 300 miles east of Virginia Beach, Virginia, the captain made his move: Instead of continuing with his original plan to stay east of the storm, he ordered the crew to change course. He wanted to pilot the ship northwest of Sandy to harness its winds. Turning more westerly, the boat crossed the path of the oncoming hurricane.
I think a lot of labour laws get passed because of incidents like this. People on the job don't speak up because they fear loosing their job and what their being asked to do doesn't seem (at the time) all that risky and they also trust their boss who ha
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:4)
There are already laws about what orders are legal for a captain to give, and what options crew have.
People have been working these issues out in a modern legal way for several hundred years and in a less modern way for a few thousand before that. Maritime law is VERY mature. It doesn't need some knee jerk regulation inspired by one shipwreck.
If a captain is found to have endangered the safety of his ship and crew he can be punished, including loss of his license and jail time. He doesn't get to hide behind a regulation like a regular boss (but I TOLD them to use safety harnesses....)
At a higher level, people need to quit acting like serfs. If your boss tells you to do something dangerous, illegal or immoral, don't do it. Or go ahead and do it, but accept that the responsibility is yours.
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:4)
Spot on. Few Americans seem to have any appreciation for Maritime Law, which is far older than the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much of a choice the crew had
There was no mention of future employment on the Bounty for departing crew, the third mate testified, nor did the captain offer to pay expenses home.
So the crew would probably have lost a job they love.
You have utterly failed to address the issue at hand, whether the crew had a choice as to whether to do a very stupid and almost certainly deadly thing. They chose to do it.
They trusted the skipper almost without question.
Further more they had no reason to doubt that the captain was doing anything too reckless when they made the decision to stay. However, halfway into the voyage
Yes, they had every reason to doubt. It made no sense to go out at that time, period.
I think a lot of labour laws get passed because of incidents like this. People on the job don't speak up because they fear loosing their job and what their being asked to do doesn't seem (at the time) all that risky
Great, then we get some jerk-off labor laws that onl
Re: (Score:2)
I just can't get behind that sort of regulation. I don't see why we can't expect people to refuse to do something that they think will get them killed.
I mean really so what if you loose your job. Not like having money to eat will do you much good if you are a corpse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's interesting how as soon as you socialise the costs of things going wrong you have a case for banning behaviour that is likely to go wrong.
E.g. if we both buy health insurance privately I don't really care if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. If we have a national health service I do because people who live an unhealthy lifestyle will end up hogging resources to the point where I won't be able to get treated.
Re: (Score:2)
You are socializing costs in either example and in both cases you pay more if people live unhealthy lifestyles.
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite. "Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage or loss by rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime environment has always been a Coast Guard priority." If you get yourself in trouble and it's dangerous for the coast guard to come and get you, they will tell you they can't help you until conditions improve. That happens all the time. If they do fish you out and you were doing something stupid, you might just get a bill for it. Or you might be criminally charged
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ship never should have been allowed to skirt maritime law the way it did.
Why? Even if everyone had died, it wouldn't have been a big deal. People die all the time no matter how much regulation is out there.
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:5, Insightful)
The captain meant well, but his ship wasn't the measure of the dreams that sailed it.
People do stupid shit, and put themselves in danger -- and they have a right to do so. We don't need to change the law in this case.
His crew understood or should have understood the risks.
The knowledge of the tragedy should serve as a bigger deterrant than any to sailors who would otherwise be so fool-hardy as to sail within reach of a hurricane.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they also put other people in danger when they do so. Other ships in the area also would have felt obligated to take a risk with their own crews to try to save the crew of the Bounty if they were in the area. The Coast Guard is obligated by law to put their own lives on the line to save people when they reasonably can. These sailors risk their life and limb often enough without someone foolishly compelling them to do so on their behalf.
You also have the dangers presented by the wreck to navigation wh
Re: (Score:3)
Except they also put other people in danger when they do so. Other ships in the area also would have felt obligated to take a risk with their own crews to try to save the crew of the Bounty if they were in the area.
Except they most likely they wouldn't be suicidal enough to go into the area, until the storm passed.
These are possible reasons their conduct of sailing into a storm should have been prohibited, and got their captain wreckless endangerment and manslaughter charges of some sort; but not opera
Re:a tragedy all around (Score:5, Insightful)
The loophole that allowed this ship to sail needs closed and the other such ships need safely regulated to museum duty.
The solution to every problem is not more laws, more regulation, and more bureaucrats. If we are going to progress as a species, we need fewer laws that protect people from their own stupidity, so Darwinism can take its course.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws do not stop natural selection.
We just start selecting for different things.
Like the ability to breed with no funds or education.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously asserting that most humans have had funds or an education?
Re: (Score:2)
I could make a serious assertion that most BREEDING humans have had funds, of one kind or another. Especially breeding males. Have you ever heard of a dowry? A guy who can't pay the bride-price will have a tougher time finding a mate. And, "education" is relative. Other societies educate their youth according to their own needs. Go back 300 or more years, right here in America. A young man who failed to learn to hunt and fish wasn't likely to feed a family very well. The young women looking for a ma
Re: (Score:3)
Your ignorance of human history is absolutely astonishing. Your lack of even basic knowledge of how most humans have lived ther lives indicates a woeful education, and yet you would declare that as the flaw in so many others.
Education and money aren't hereditary, you idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
tThe other thing is that many people have no experience with a hurricane, at
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How about NO.
Let us not make a new law to cover idiots that want to die.
How about this. Lets just move on. People are allowed to take risks. Risk equals danger.
You nanny ass motherfuckers piss me off. People like you are the reason that society sucks so badly.
We do not need a law for this. We do not need to regulate people jumping out of airplanes.
We do not need to regulate people jumping off cliffs.
We do not need to regulate people owning guns.
We do not need to regulate what people eat.
We do not need to re
Re: (Score:3)
So long as you only harm yourself I agree.
I do think we need laws about you smoking around other people though. That is something I find very annoying how can you be sitting somewhere and someone will come up to you and smoke. They have the right to harm themselves, they don't have the right to harm you.
Everyone on this ship basically had informed consent. I have no issues with what they did nor do we need laws against it. The coast card should be paid though by the person that owned the ship though for the
Re: (Score:3)
So long as you only harm yourself I agree.
I do think we need laws about you smoking around other people though. That is something I find very annoying how can you be sitting somewhere and someone will come up to you and smoke. They have the right to harm themselves, they don't have the right to harm you.
As someone who doesn't smoke, I hate your argument and entire line of reasoning. I don't need your government forcing people to accommodate my personal desires related to smoking cigarettes. Forcing all businesses to go smoke-free is asinine. Especially since every business had the opportunity to be smoke-free by their own decision, and almost none did. A few restaurants and nightclubs tried, and changed their mind when revenue plunged.
I find it strange that only about 20% of adults smoke, but a restaurant
Re: (Score:2)
" But they all follow the crowds into the smoke-filled restaurants where "the cool people" hang out."
LMAO - you're right. People are funny. They pretend to hate so many things about other people, but they follow those people around because they are cool.
I drove truck for several years. The CB radio frequently had dickheads on, badmouthing drivers for this reason or that. They HATED truck drivers! But - they invested in a CB radio so that they could talk to us. They frequented truck stops and trucker's
Re: (Score:2)
Well, over here, after an initial drop, the restaurant business became actually better after the anti-smoke laws because people (like me for example) who previously opted to stay at home due to the tobacco smoke harassment actually started eating out.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that does hold for the most part. As the parent poster pointed out lots of restaurants, bars, etc tried to go smoke free before most states passed laws requiring. Many ended up back pedaling because it was a huge hit to patronage.
If it was all that desirable to offer not just a segregated but entirely smoke free facility it should have given them an advantage with lots of clients. People like you should have preferred those places to other eateries and clubs. Here is Cleveland I can tell you the
Re: (Score:2)
Smoker hate is so last century. Its the anti fat bastards laws that we need to be considering now. Why should fat people pay the same for aeroplane seats and why should health insurance insure them at all because we must be subsidizing them with their self inflicted diabetes and heart disease. Heck I don't understand why we haven't passed a law to prevent sick people being treated by our medical system completely. After all most of the sick people brought it on themselves. I would make a law so that only pe
Re: (Score:2)
Smoker hate is so last century. Its the anti fat bastards laws that we need to be considering now. Why should fat people pay the same for aeroplane seats and why should health insurance insure them at all because we must be subsidizing them with their self inflicted diabetes and heart disease.
Because the US government spent literally hundreds of millions of The People's money lying to us about what we should eat. Start here [nytimes.com] and work your way forward. (There is a "rebuttal" to the article, and a rebuttal to the rebuttal, and then there are followup articles...)
Re: (Score:3)
Be careful how you change the laws. Copenhagen Suborbitals has the sea launch platform Sputnik [copenhagen...bitals.com]. That exists exactly because small ships without passengers face little regulation. Obviously changing US laws will not cause trouble for Sputnik, so in that way the example is contrived, but it would likely have been quite a hassle for Copenhagen Suborbitals to get the vessel approved. It is not exactly a typical ship, so the paperwork could end up quite substantial.
I have every reason to believe that Sputnik is
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
lot's ships just register is places with lax laws
This comment fails on so many levels.
Re: a tragedy all around (Score:5, Informative)
They do not necessarily use the internal framing that would have made the original Bounty worthy of Cape Horn. They do not necessarily use the same materials (esp, type of wood) that would have made the original Bounty worthy of Cape Horn. They do not necessarily do maintenance that would have kept the original Bounty seaworthy for 20 years. And they do not necessarily take the ship out of service when rot and decay of natural materials cause skyrocketing maintenance costs to make the vessel un-economical to operate.
This is a common tragedy among both replica and historical tallships: the costs of maintaining them in condition for rough weather are astronomical and the receipts from tourists, day sails, and historical programs are rarely close to those costs. You make compromises, like being sure to steer clear of rough weather because you know how much more water comes in when the seams work, but you try to get as much sea time as possible. Spend enough time at sea, and maybe you start discounting the fundamental structural weakness. Fundamental structural weakness means that one point of failure, which might otherwise be inconvenient, becomes catastrophic. I can see myself in the crew's position, and I know that I would have made the choice to stay aboard.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been on this ship several times, albeit not recently. Steel below the water line.
The sea gives and the sea takes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Subordination (Score:2)
Might have saved lives. ... don't we?
Then again, we have to have subordinates -- I mean,
Christian? any relation to Fletcher? (Score:3)
Re:Christian? any relation to Fletcher? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes she was
A live summary of the sinking can be found at http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2012/10/tall-ship-bounty-in-trouble.html [halifaxshippingnews.ca]
Mario Vittone also gave a good summary of the hearings http://gcaptain.com/bounty-hearings-chief-mates-testifies [gcaptain.com]
Guess next time, the crew will... (Score:3)
mutiny!
Ship's frame was rotted (Score:4, Interesting)
Watch coast guard Florida (Score:2, Interesting)
On the weather channel... I know on the dish on demand they have the special episode available about this exact incident and rescue. They also have a few higher ranking coast guard folks who mention they have sailed with the captain before being tall ship fans themselves and this guy grew up boating and was more than competent but with the hurricane changing directions he was also forced to but didn't make it quite in time.
They also interview a few of the crew, many who said this boat has been in worse stor
Coincidence (Score:2)
One of the details which amused us was that the replica seemed not to have a "seat of ease" up forward.
It was not called "HMS Bounty" (Score:2)
On a sad footnote (Score:3)
On a sad footnote, Claudine Christian was a direct descendent of Fletcher Christian, who lead the mutiny on the original Bounty.
Re: (Score:2)
For those in Peril on the Sea (Score:3)
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Urm, if they had that kind of radio equipment a standard mayday call on marine VHF channel 16 (156.8MHz) FM is all that is needed.
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:5, Informative)
If you knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that marine VHF is good for a maximum range about 110 km, with antennas at both ends mounted high and good conditions. The Bounty sank about 100 miles (160 km) offshore. There weren't a lot of other ships to contact in the area of the hurricane, I'd guess.
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:5, Informative)
The article makes clear that their efforts to communicate using their marine radio were unsuccessful, while using the ham radio (almost certainly HF) worked.
BTW, I have an Extra class ham license, and am well aware of the capabilities and limitations of the various bands.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts. Aircraft still use HF for oceanic communications, and ships spend far more time out at sea. In heavy storms I'd expect satellite communications to be much less reliable than HF. Granted, aircraft mostly use digital transmissions these days, but they still have HF for backup, and I believe they do routinely check in on HF to make sure they have contact with each station along the way.
But, the whole voyage seemed to be a
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:5, Informative)
There are. [uscg.gov] It doesn't do any good if the radio doesn't work, or the antenna blew down, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the radio didn't work, they couldn't use it to send emails.
It seems likely that somebody brought an HF to send email back to base, and that they weren't aware of how to contact the coast card via HF.
Then again, digital protocols are more robust - maybe if things weren't working right (lost antenna, etc) they could get out enough signal to send the email but not enough for voice. That website you listed doesn't mention any stations monitoring for morse code - that seems like a bit of an omission as
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between the marine radio they had on board, and the ham radio. Ham radios generally don't cover the marine bands, at least for transmitting. You really should read the article to understand what happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Understood, but my point was that going far out to sea without being prepared for long-range communications is foolish. Maybe their ham radio couldn't transmit on any of the HF frequencies on that website you provided. Maybe it could but they didn't have that list of frequencies with them. Either way, they weren't prepared.
While I'm not a pilot I am a bit of an aviation enthusiast and the one thing that strikes me is that aircraft in general are prepared for emergencies. They follow procedures designed
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring more to low-bitrate digital modes, not things like digital transmission of voice.
When you think about it, morse code is essentially a digital transmission mode already, but without any kind of data correction/optimization/etc.
If all you need to transmit is a few hundred bytes of data encoding an SOS and your position, I'd think that a digital mode would be able to do that in far more harsh conditions assuming that everything was optimized for this purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
There are. It doesn't do any good if the radio doesn't work, or the antenna blew down, though.
Which obviously was not the case because they were able to send email using the same frequencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts. Aircraft still use HF for oceanic communications, and ships spend far more time out at sea
Me too, last time I checked (2 minutes ago) there are a shit load of them listed in Appendix B of radio navigational aids. (PUB 117)
Re: (Score:2)
Urm, if they had that kind of radio equipment a standard mayday call on marine VHF channel 16 (156.8MHz) FM is all that is needed.
VHF is LOS (Line of Sight) it does not _normally_ work over the horizon regardless of how much wattage is at your disposal. HF (High Frequency) can bounce off the ionosphere and reach anywhere if you select the right frequencies for conditions and range.
Sailors shorthand for height of eye to horizon (in normal miles) is 1.5 * sqrt feet of antenna height above water + the same of reciving antenna minus whatever the 1st fresnel for 156mhz works out to it is not hard to see why there was no response on VHF...
Re:Safest at sea? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe, maybe not ... but the safest place for a ship to be is generally not sailing towards a hurricane.
Your answer will be slanted (Score:3)
Any sailors care to weigh in on this?
You do realize that those that can't, probably have their
remains scattered upon the sea floor, don't you?
Re:Safest at sea? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it the safest place for the crew. I'd also guess it's also safer for the ship to be in a harbor not in the path of a hurricane than at sea in a hurricane.
Re:Safest at sea? (Score:4, Informative)
I frequently come across the maxim that the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea, the logic being a ship in port will be thrown against piers, reefs, etc. and destroyed instead of at sea where, presumably, you can sail away from or around danger. Any sailors care to weigh in on this?
The only way a ship at sea is going to properly steer around any danger, is if there are people on board. And those people will be in much more danger than if they were on land.
Damaged ships can be repaired or replaced, by spending money. Lives of lost crewmembers cannot be restored by paying money.
At sea, waves can sink the boat unrecoverably too.
At port, the boat may be at risk of damage, especially if not properly and thoroughly secured at a sufficient distance from reefs.
Re:Safest at sea? (Score:5, Informative)
So, let's see: If you are caught in a storm, there's no way going near a coast. Waves will throw you onto the beach (if you are lucky) or onto a cliff. In first case you'll kill a few of your crew. In second, you'll kill all, including yourself.
Same goes for a harbor. No way even trying to come near.
That said, I never encountered a hurricane, and I wonder if the Bounty's captain was either incompetent (as to read forecasts), or simply overwhelmed by the speed of the hurricane (which in a way implies incompetence as well.)
In either way, once caught in a storm, you certainly do not try to reach a harbor.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, I never encountered a hurricane, and I wonder if the Bounty's captain was either incompetent (as to read forecasts), or simply overwhelmed by the speed of the hurricane
The way I read it, he knew the hurricane was coming and decided to leave port anyway. I don't know that you can even call that incompetence. More like just utter stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he was trying to safe the ship rather than thinking about the crew.
Just my own opinion though.
Re: (Score:3)
In either way, once caught in a storm, you certainly do not try to reach a harbor.
The point is, if your boat is already at harbor, get your crew off the boat, and leave it properly secured; don't continue with your planned departure.
If you know there is a storm, and you are at sea: don't steer into it, or anywhere near its potential path.
If you're in its path, get out of its path.
If you've gotten into a serious storm already while at sea, may be basically screwed, or you just have to ride it o
Re:Safest at sea? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooohhhh - round bottomed boat, right? I never wanted to be aboard one, storm or no storm. I seldom saw one in the area of a storm, but the ride looked like it would suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
waves during a storm aren't rogue. They're waves. Rogue waves are the ones that appear suddenly, without warning.
Rogue waves can happen during a storm just as at any other time. The definition is simply that the wave is exceptional compared to the current height of waves. Obviously, a wave which is more than twice the significant wave height during a storm is going to be much more dangerous than a similarly exceptional wave on a calm day.
Furthermore, most rogue waves seem to involve nonlinear effects. This means that larger waves are more likely to trigger them and means that they actually probably are more likel
Re:Safest at sea? (Score:5, Insightful)
For large ships, where large is defined as unable to be easily lifted out of the water and stored on land, it is safer for them to be out to sea.
But out to sea does not mean in a hurricane. Out to sea means leaving in advance of the storm such that the ship can get well away from the most severe weather. Large commercial ships go nowhere near these sorts of weather events, it's better to sail a week out of the way to go around than risk losing a large boat.
Dude wanted to get where he was going. Had he left and gone due east, towards Europe, the boat would have been no where near this storm when it hit the eastern seaboard. He could have then turned around and gone to his destination, perhaps a week late, but alive after a nice cruise.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about a Tsunami, then sure (assuming you can get reasonably far out in time).
If you're talking about a hurricane, then no. A very large ship would do better at sea then in the dock, but if the ship is docked there is no need for the crew to stay aboard. A hurricane tends to destroy property, but it isn't THAT dangerous to people who aren't near the coastline, especially if they find any kind of shelter. Oh, a few idiots who decide to go driving around town might get hit by flying debris
Re: (Score:3)
I frequently come across the maxim that the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea... where, presumably, you can sail away from or around danger
I'm sure the safest place to be during an bank robbery is outside and down the road, but I'm probably not going to run past the guy with the gun to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
My preference during a storm is to be far out at sea, or ashore on leave, and far from the ship. I most certainly DO NOT want to be within 50 miles of the coast, hoping that the storm doesn't force us into some rocks, or some other hazard - like the beach.
I guess the closest I've ever been to an officially designated hurricane was - ohh - maybe 300 miles. I'm guessing, we could have been closer than that, plotting courses and keeping charts wasn't part of my job.
But, I rode a destroyer around and around i
Re:took the ship's tour last year (Score:5, Informative)
There were folks dressed in colonial costumes and it was quite the sight.
Colonial dress? Wasn't the Bounty His Majesy's Ship of the Line? The actors/actresses should have been dressed in costume common to Portsmith (Great Britain, not New Hampshire), or perhaps nude, as the natives of New Guinea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:took the ship's tour last year (Score:5, Informative)
The Bounty was originally a merchant ship but she was purchased by the Royal Navy and named the Bounty. Proper dress aboard the Bounty would be late 18th century Royal Navy.
Re:Epitath (Score:5, Interesting)
I cannot be sure how seaworthy the Bounty was. I never saw it, except in photos or video. Photos and videos don't really tell much - a guy needs to get into the woodwork, study everything above and below the waterline to decide something like that.
But, I propose that the ship went down due to inept seamanship.
Debris clogged the bilge pumps? Really? I heard over the ship's loudspeakers, many times during five years of sea duty, "Secure for heavy seas. Secure all missile hazards." Seamen and Petty Officers would go to work, making certain that heavy objects were bolted down, lashed down, chocked, or whatever. Chiefs and officers would come around, inspecting, searching for even small objects that might be free to go flying, possibly putting an eye out. Yes, even pens and pencils were secured. Personal property was stowed in a locker, that locker bolted to the deck, where it had withstood many another day of heavy seas. The ONLY missile hazards permissible, were the bodies of your ship mates!
You got shit clogging the bilge pumps - you're gonna die, simple as that. The most seaworthy of ships is always taking on water, even on calm days, or in port. The crew gets an idea of how much, pretty quickly. Tied up to a pier, they may have to pump a hundred gallons of water out every month, on a smaller ship. On a huge naval ship, they'll get that much condensation!
FTFA: The engine room itself worried Bounty's newly hired engineer, Chris Barksdale. He thought it needed a good cleaning. Sawdust and wood chips littered the floor. Everything just looked old.
That sawdust and wood chips is more than enough to spell the Bounty's doom. It doesn't take much to choke the impellor of a bilge pump. A chip the size of a small person's thumb is sufficient. Strainers help, but strainers can be choked as well.
FTFA: Below deck, crew members suffered from seasickness. In the galley, the motion pulled tables from their hinges.
Definitely not good - the article repeatedly mentions rotting wood. Someone should have been aware that the tables weren't securely fastened down. What of all the rest of the ship's equipment?
FTFA: Wood chips and sawdust from the dirty floor were floating in the rising water and clogging the pumps. They had to be shut off constantly to clear the strainers. Scornavacchi and Adam Prokosh used trash bags – and their bare hands – to scoop debris.
As the scramble to pump water off the ship grew more desperate, deckhand Mark Warner smashed the engine room door open so he could move a portable gasoline powered pump up to the deck.
But the pump wouldn't work. According to testimony, no one had been trained to use it.
Around 7 p.m., one of the ship's two generators failed.
At this point, the ship is dead. She can only take on more water, and sink lower into the water, becoming ever more unresponsive to the crew's input.
Inept seamanship killed the Bounty, plain and simple. The Captain and First Mate failed to do their jobs in preparing for sea, the crew failed, and the ship died. The ship was missing a slave driving Boatswain's Mate to drive the crew into performing the proper preparations.
Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!
Re:Epitath (Score:5, Insightful)
They also appear to have foundered earlier than necessary because they lost power. As my sailing instructor drilled into us, you're in a sailboat. The engines are auxiliaries. Being beam on to the sea in a storm is not a happy situation, and, in a sailing ship, having your engines die isn't a good reason for it.
The captain sounds like an irresponsible thrill seeker, and the crew, although they were all supposedly experienced sailors, does seem to have neglected a lot. The article implies throughout that it was some kind of hero worship.
Re:Epitath (Score:5, Insightful)
I've looked at the decision to leave port. I can't really fault that. Navy captains routinely make that same decision. The Coast Guard, likewise.
The decision to turn south and west to follow the storm seems somewhat less responsible. But, again, Navy and Coast Guard captains do it, with reason.
The captain's failure in this instance centers around housekeeping and seaworthiness. If the ship not truly seaworthy, if housekeeping is a threat to that seaworthiness, then the captain must rectify the situation, or refrain from going to sea and/or chasing that storm. This captain chose to run his ship close to it's extreme performance parameters, despite the fact that the ship wasn't "ship shape".
Re:Epitath (Score:4, Informative)
The thing is, for that particular hurricane, even many USN ships, the ones not fast enough to outrun a hurricane that size, remained in port areas, anchored up for hurricane away from the docks. Hell, from what I read on the SA forums, even many USCG ships sheltered from the hurricane, anchoring up-river in the lee of hills if possible.
Other tall ship captains remained with their ships in port, and even warned the captain of The Bounty, but he set out anyway. The problem is, the captain ran with a personality cult crew who was selected based on who was agreeable. and he WAS a thrillseeker. Several experienced Tall Ship sailors refused to work with him. An interview was found where he stated that "you chase hurricanes".
Another reason behind his departure may have been corporate pressure, wanting them down in St. Petersburg as early as possible for cost reasons.
Re:Epitath (Score:4, Interesting)
He does seem to have neglected seaworthiness and housekeeping. But there's plenty to criticize in his decision to leave port as well. A fifty year old wooden square rigger, particularly one in poor repair, with a small crew with limited experience on the ship isn't the same thing as a naval capital ship. Even if a cruiser, for example, decided to go to sea in advance of a hurricane, you can bet the captain wouldn't be launching helicopters, auxiliaries or the zodiacs unless absolutely necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
I've looked at the decision to leave port. I can't really fault that. Navy captains routinely make that same decision. The Coast Guard, likewise.
All that shows is that you cannot automatically conclude it was a bad decision. Whether it was depends on the specifics of the ship, its crew, the ship's location, the storm's predicted development and the degree of certainty of those predictions, and the other options available.
If the ship not truly seaworthy, if housekeeping is a threat to that seaworthiness, then the captain must rectify the situation, or refrain from going to sea and/or chasing that storm.
Exactly - that is one of the specifics of the ship.
The decision to turn south and west to follow the storm seems somewhat less responsible.
By turning westwards when he did, the Captain was not following the storm, he was crossing in front of it. It certainly looks reckless, but I guess we will never know if the captain
Re: (Score:2)
Yup! I wasn't a Deck Ape, but I spent my fair share of time lashing things down and making sure they stayed secure back when I was in the Navy. Just because the crew isn't properly trained is no excuse for the officers not seeing to it that things are properly ship-shape!
Re:Epitath (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the crew isn't properly trained is no excuse for the officers not seeing to it that things are properly ship-shape!
If a crew member is not properly trained it is the officer's responsibility to quickly remedy that. It doesn't matter if the crew member is paid or a volunteer. You go to sea, you learn to do your job properly, period.
Navy regulations are written in blood (Score:5, Insightful)
Sawdust and wood chips littered the floor ... Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!
My uncle was a carpenter. I never saw sawdust or wood chips on his workshop floor unless he was in the middle of cutting or drilling.
Of course in his youth he was in the Navy, destroyers, WW2. When I asked what he did he said that they maintained the ship and its equipment, cleaned the ship and its equipment, and drilled for damage control and battle. He added that on occasion they were allowed to eat or sleep and that on very rare occasions they went into battle (Pacific, '42-'45, over a dozen battle stars).
He told me he learned to immediately take care of the smallest things when he was in the Navy. That the saying "Navy regs are written in blood" is true, that many regs are the way they are because someone died doing things differently. Given the unforgiving nature of the sea I'm surprised the professional civilian sailors (officers of the Bounty at least) did not understand that sloppiness can get you killed at sea.
Re:Epitath (Score:5, Insightful)
Maintaining a ship takes time and dedication. In the time of the tall ships they had the boatswain and the carpenters. Today we have the chief and the engineering staff. An experienced seaman in either position would probably have stopped this trip, and that is one very important reason that the chief should be on equal standing with the captain.
Re: (Score:2)
"incompetent arrogant morons" comes to mind. Testosterone fueled will power is an efficient route to death, serves them right.