Abby Sunderland - SoloRound

[clockwork orange]

Astrid,im sure that the floatation is air,not foam,if so common sense at the design stage would have included a way to flood those chambers individually to allow for effective scuttling in case of abandonment,after all it is a fairly common occurence with these types of boats,it would seem very inconsiderate to others to not do so.
Do we know whether or not she attempted to scuttle before getting off? she certainly had plenty of time to think it through.
Steve.

[bengtinge]

Originally Posted by clockwork orange

Do we know whether or not she attempted to scuttle before getting off? she certainly had plenty of time to think it through.
Steve.

Her blog hints that she didn't.
Maybe the fishing boat captain should have taken the initiative. He would benefit from not having abandoned boats drifting on his ocean. It would be emotionally hard for her to scuttle it.

One way would be to leave ventilation openings open, so the boat would be slowly waterfilled during storms. It would be dangerous, I assume, to start a quick waterfilling while onboard.

[David M]

Just pull the hose and crack the seacock open slightly.

[John A]

how long would it take for an average sized boat to fill with water from a two inch sized (thru-hull) hole?

[GordMay]

Depends upon the depth.
See http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...read-6547.html

[Jim Cate]

G'Day All,

A couple of points: First, the yacht is somewhat more bouyant with the rig and sails no longer adding to her weight. And second, the yacht will surely be rolled again sometime in the near future, and again, and again... Thus, I reckon that it will eventually fill, and a practical test of the floatation will follow!

Cheers,

Jim

[osirissail]

The problem with trying to sink a - theoretically - unsinkable boat is it now is a major hazard to other vessels as it floats considerably lower in the water and presents less above water surface for both radar and visual detection. Better to leave it floating high.

[TaoJones]

Well, this is interesting . . . today's 'Lectronic Latitude, in its story on Laura Dekker, is suggesting that Laurence Sunderland may have been in communication with Abby immediately after her dismasting, but kept that information private. From the 'Lec Lat story:

* * *

"Laurence Sunderland has apparently been less forthcoming with the L.A. Times' requests to see records on the sat phone calls between the Sunderlands on land and Abby Sunderland around the time of her dismasting in the Southern Ocean. It's absolutely outrageous, we know, but apparently some people wonder if, after the dismasting, the Sunderlands hadn't been in contact with their daughter all along, but didn't tell anyone — let alone the Australian government that was spending $300,000 to have a Qantas commercial jetliner search for the girl — in an effort to let the worldwide drama build."

* * *

To read the entire article, go to:

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude (scroll down to "Ten-Year-Old to Singlehand Around the World?")

TaoJones

[Wotname]

I just hope this is not true.

[SvenG]

Originally Posted by TaoJones

Well, this is interesting . . . today's 'Lectronic Latitude, in its story on Laura Dekker, is suggesting that Laurence Sunderland may have been in communication with Abby immediately after her dismasting, but kept that information private.

Sure wish they would have stated their reason for saying that. Not giving any reason at all is pretty irresponsible.



-Sven

[bengtinge]

Originally Posted by TaoJones

Well, this is interesting . . . today's 'Lectronic Latitude, in its story on Laura Dekker, is suggesting that Laurence Sunderland may have been in communication with Abby immediately after her dismasting, but kept that information private. From the 'Lec Lat story:

* * *

but apparently some people wonder if, after the dismasting, the Sunderlands hadn't been in contact with their daughter all along, but didn't tell anyone — let alone the Australian government that was spending $300,000 to have a Qantas commercial jetliner search for the girl — in an effort to let the worldwide drama build."

* * *

There is so much dirt throwing against Abby and especially Laurence Sunderland. Some people hate him and invent any story to discredit them, and others believe anything bad.

Just to write "but apparently some people wonder" as 'Lectronic Latitude does shows this. Someone wrote this theory somewhere (of course anyonymously or under fake name), and 'Lectronic Latitude believes that.

On the Sailing Anarchy discussion forum there is more Sunderland hate than on most other places. For example one user is convinced that one other user is in fact Laurence Sunderland. Both write confusing messages, but especially the second one, while the first is more straight rude. Often the first user comments on the second one writing something like "Are you drunk again Laurence, you sociopatic bastard". Is this first guy a reliable source? Yes apparently if you believe his general idea.

Don't believe anything you read on the net, especially if it is about Laurence Sunderland.

The difference between braveness and foolishness is if you succeed or fail.

[Hirophant]

I'm sceptical about the story too, the reality TV one about the Sunderland's kids turned out not to be true anyhow. Frankly the simple fact of Abby & her team's decision to go ahead and sail into the Southern Ocean in winter in a racing sled is bad enough without embroidering it with half-truths or worse.

That Lectronic Latitude piece is pretty unfair on Laura Dekker too: she's just won her freedom and in celebration poses for a press photo call and all of a sudden she's being compared to Britney Spears because of her "girly clothes". Newsflash: she's a girl!. What is a teenage girl supposed to wear for a photo call in front of the world's press? Her outfit is hardly high heels and sussies, it's just something nicer than the usual sailing or working garb we see her in on her blog.

[Randy]

I'd say the difference between braveness and foolishness is proper planning which the Sunderlands were short on.

[paradix]

Originally Posted by SvenG

Sure wish they would have stated their reason for saying that. Not giving any reason at all is pretty irresponsible.

-Sven

In the interview on the Today Show in June with Abby, Laurence and Zac, Laurence implied that he was in conference with Abby when the call came through from SAR that the EPIRBs had been set off.

It was almost certainly just a slip of the tongue, but it has been the seed of a whole lot of wild conspiracy theories nonetheless.

The passage is from 4m20s in the video:

Abby Sunderland Today Show Interview, Teen Sailor Talks to Meredith Vieira (Video)

[David M]

Ten? Seriously? Please for the sake of this child, let it be a joke.