Alpha 42 "Be Good Too" rescue 300 miles off Cape Henry Merged

[rockDAWG]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I've been away for a bit, but glad to see that many of the final posts on this thread:

1. Support skipper Hank Schmitt, including one former client who had him bring their boat back successfully after a rudder failure offshore.
2. Make clear that dropping the rudder would likely be impossible if the stock was bent and seized in the bearing (and lets face it, we don't know if their stated efforts at repairing the steering did not include an analysis of this).
3. Suggest that steering with buckets, or drogues with one rudder bent and locked at a severe angle would be difficult, if not impossible for 300 miles on a direct course (especially with a forecast for worsening conditions).
4. Allow that delivery skippers are not gods and must consider the lives and safety of the owners and crew (and their imput) before making any decision regarding abandonment; indeed, acknowledging that with the owners on board, their decision on that issue would carry the day.
5. Confirm that numerous other production cats have equivalent rudder stocks and likely would also have suffered damage if forced backwards in heavy seas.

The simple fact is (as some tried to suggest at the outset), none of us were there. None of us know whether the rudders on other cats would have survived the forces in question. None of us know what efforts were made to repair the steering (although we do know that efforts were made in this regard) or whether any of our suggested plans of action would have worked.

Brad

Given that Captain Schmitt has so much experience in sailing and delivery, why couldn't he say no to the new owner? Was the money so good that he could not pass the opportunity. On Be Good Too, there were two who's who in sailing world set out to sail in the middle of winter. What messages did it give us?

The conventional wisdom tells us to stay put and wait, but yet these two went. Should we take a chance when our opportunity comes?

[Cotemar]

Alpha 42 "Be Good Too" would still be good to go today, had they not been in such a rush and just stayed in the ICW or just off shore and come in when the weather told them to.

Winter is a bad time to be far offshore.

[socaldmax]

What does that say about the guy who is currently in the Bermuda area, crossing the Atlantic in a kayak? Crazy or just lucky?

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

What does that say about the guy who is currently in the Bermuda area, crossing the Atlantic in a kayak? Crazy or just lucky?

Kayaks have been around for a long time.

This Alpha 42 was hull#1 of a brand spanking new design. It had a very short cold icy sea trial the week before it left Long Island NY.

[rockDAWG]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Alpha 42 "Be Good Too" would still be good to go today, had they not been in such a rush and just stayed in the ICW or just off shore and come in when the weather told them to.

Winter is a bad time to be far offshore.

I thought the air draft was the problem they could not do ICW?

[Cuttyhunk]

Originally Posted by rockDAWG

I thought the air draft was the problem they could not do ICW?

From the Alpha 42 specs on the website:

Air draft (mast above water): 64’3″ (US Intercoastal Waterway capable)

Did this one have a taller mast, maybe?

[beiland]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

...Winter is a bad time to be far offshore.

Granted the winter time is not a good time to be in the NORTH Atlantic. But around Bermuda and south it is not that bad,..actually can be quite pleasant.

I believe they were thinking the same thing I took into consideration when I left out of Norfolk Va on Christmas eve one time. If you can get out pass the Gulf Stream then you are far less likely to hit bad wave conditions regardless of wind conditions. And it is much less distance involved if you do that directly off the Va coast than if you travel (via ICW) down to a traditional jumping off point of Beauford/Moorehead City NC area, There you must travel over twice the distance to get out pass the Gulf stream, thus more chances of encountering a winter northerly while still in the stream.

Alpha 42 "Be Good Too" would still be good to go today, had they not been in such a rush and just stayed in the ICW or just off shore and come in when the weather told them to.

NOT a good idea to parallel the coast around Cape Hatteras, particularly in the winter.

And not an easy task to 'come in' (back to land) as a strong cold front passes off the coast. The wind strengths likely double in strength as it reaches clear unobstructed water. So what is reported on land is not the same as at sea. And you want to try and beat into this, and then negotiate some tricky inlets in those conditions? ...not wise

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

What does that say about the guy who is currently in the Bermuda area, crossing the Atlantic in a kayak? Crazy or just lucky?

No, just Polish

http://aleksanderdoba.pl/

[Southern Star]

Rockdawg, when were they to have 'stayed-put' until? They apparently had a decent weather window at the start of their passage. And Cotemar, you are correct that winter is a bad time to be far offhshore - but when is a good time? The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June through November and by December one is already into winter weather in the North Atlantic. Are you suggesting that a prudent skipper should only make the passage in late April or May? Of course, unless one intends to sail directly through the Caribbean islands to Venezuela or Trinidad before the start of hurricane season, those leaving in April or May will be island-hopping in hurricane alley during the worst time of the year.

Yes, I know that hurricanes are unusual in November - although November storms have included not only the 'perfect storm', but also the gales this past year that led to the sinking of the Bounty. June and July also have less hurricane activity than the later months in the season, but having been in one hurricane in Jamaica and one tropical storm in Cape Cod in early July, there are certainly no guarantees.

Captain Schmitt has made many passages to Bermuda and beyond from the northern USA in winter conditions and has never before had to abandon ship. What is more, again I am led to believe that the weather window was decent for that time of year prior to their departure (and that problems only arose after the first few days out). While the North Atlantic is certainly cold at this time of the year, so are many other cruising areas at any time of the year. Should it be a rule to avoid those completely? In any event, they had safely passed the coldest of weather and water before this incident.

Please do not misunderstand me - I wouldn't make that passage at that time of year. However, I am not Hank Schmitt and I do not have his wealth of experience in making that passage in those conditions. I am scheduled to make a passage from New York to Bermuda in late June and am nervous about that, but nevertheless will depart with a favourable forecast. Is that a guarantee that the entire passage will be under good conditions? Of course not.

On the issue of the rudder failures (something which, as has been pointed out, has happened to many boats) - was this something which Hank Scmitt should have been able to predict? Keep in mind that while we have much speculation, we still do not have clear evidence of the precise cause or extent of the failures. Indeed, it must be remembered that one poster on this thread was able to successfully complete an offshore passage with Captain Schmitt even after a rudder failure.

Did Captain Schmitt abandon ship unnecessarily? We can debate this ad nauseum (in fact, I suspect that we already have), but none of us was there. We do know, however, that he had never previously abandoned ship in spite of lost rudders and dismastings. We also don't know whether the owners were insisting upon abandoning ship; however we do know, according to at least one crew member ,that Captain Schmitt remained optomistic that he could still bring the boat safely to port. In those circumstances and in spite of his own belief, what choice did he have but to abandon ship (as has already been pointed out, the coast guard insists on removing all persons from the boat being rescued)?

What exact efforts were made at diagnosing and correcting the problems with the steering? We don't know their thought process, but should not assume that they had not considered all options. Certainly they indicate that they had spent over 1 day attempting to overcome the problem and, in the circumstance, it is surely unfair to suggest (as some have done) that their only efforts were at sending the owner over the side for a brief 'look -see'. Indeed, in view of the fact Captain Schmitt has brought a few boats safely home with disabled rudders, it is clear that he is fully aware of the ability to and has experience with steering with a drogue and sails if the circumstances permit!

I should thank 'Double Whisky' and 'Jimmy Jazz' for suggesting in latin that I have spoken on behalf of Rome, or Belleville (although clearly I have only spoken on behalf of myself). If they believe that my suggestions bring an end to reason, so be it.

They (and others) can believe that my support for (or at least, willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to) Hank Schmitt is irrational. Again, so be it. They (and others) can suggest that I am being irrational when I point out that none of us were there. So be it. They (and others) can suggest that I am being irrational when I point out that if the rudder was seized in the bearing, repair would have likely been impossible offshore. So be it.

On the issue of the suitability of the rudder stock and stops, I am incapable of expressing an opinion as I have no background in engineering/naval architecture. I am, however, unwilling to agree that there were no stops based upon one small photograph of one rudder head - and perhaps that too is 'irrational' in the eyes of Double Whisky and Jimmy Jazz. And again, I am fine with that.

Indeed, if they believe that jumping to conclusions without all (or anywhere near all) of the facts is the 'reasoned' or 'rational' approach, then I am happy that my posts are seen by them as an end to reason.

Cheers!

Brad

[JPA Cate]

Southern Star,

Two great posts, close together: #624, and your most recent one! they did not seem crazy to me.

I'd like to add, relative to delivery skippers in general, as was remarked earlier, usually are prudent folk within the framework of their job of taking boats at difficult times of year, and the boats in questionable condition (as someone else pointed out early in the discussion), with good inventiveness for problem solving. However, such a person, if he has the owner aboard, MUST do what the owner wants. We have no real rights to second-guess the decision to abandon.

You know the old saw about not judging someone till you've walked in their moccasins, sort of applies here, and not throwing the first stone, too. I once was afraid at sea for about 20 hours. I would not want to be afraid for a number of days, barely able to steer, in deteriorating weather conditions. Those of you who have never been to sea, just realize the sea has no morality, it is not your best mate who will help you; like Cary Grant in Gone With The Wind, it doesn't give a d--n.

My two cents.

Ann

[neilpride]

Good post Brad, they can leave in winter weather sure, no problem , but in my opinion they make a mistake with the weather window, in places like that, Bermuda , N Atlantic mixed with the stream weather is really tricky and fronts and gales are very usual , the trick for me is to leave harbour in bad weather or with the last Bang!! from the tail, hoping to get the window far far offshore and be south with the next one, leaving with a good weather forescast you risk to get the **** out there, after 4 deliverys from France across Biscay in winter i realize that, with such short weather windows this work for me very well with no big dramas, they choose a direct route with the risks involved, and they loose...

And to finish a prudent Skipper dont leave the cockpit with bad seas , not even let the AP do the job in this situation..

A sunken or abandon ship is a black spot in the skipper Cv for me..
Cheers.

[Flamingo1]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Southern Star,

Two great posts, close together: #624, and your most recent one! they did not seem crazy to me.

I'd like to add, relative to delivery skippers in general, as was remarked earlier, usually are prudent folk within the framework of their job of taking boats at difficult times of year, and the boats in questionable condition (as someone else pointed out early in the discussion), with good inventiveness for problem solving. However, such a person, if he has the owner aboard, MUST do what the owner wants. We have no real rights to second-guess the decision to abandon.

You know the old saw about not judging someone till you've walked in their moccasins, sort of applies here, and not throwing the first stone, too. I once was afraid at sea for about 20 hours. I would not want to be afraid for a number of days, barely able to steer, in deteriorating weather conditions. Those of you who have never been to sea, just realize the sea has no morality, it is not your best mate who will help you; like Cary Grant in Gone With The Wind, it doesn't give a d--n.

My two cents.

Ann

I agree with everything Ann said 100% except that it was Clark Gable and not Cary Grant.

Of course, I've never been at sea in bad weather in anything smaller than a cruise ship, so what the hell do I know. But I do know movies...

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I should thank 'Double Whisky' for suggesting in latin that I have spoken on behalf of Rome, or Belleville (although clearly I have only spoken on behalf of myself). If they believe that my suggestions bring an end to reason, so be it.

They (and others) can believe that my support for (or at least, willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to) Hank Schmitt is irrational. Again, so be it. They (and others) can suggest that I am being irrational when I point out that none of us were there. So be it. They (and others) can suggest that I am being irrational when I point out that if the rudder was seized in the bearing, repair would have likely been impossible offshore. So be it.

On the issue of the suitability of the rudder stock and stops, I am incapable of expressing an opinion as I have no background in engineering/naval architecture. I am, however, unwilling to agree that there were no stops based upon one small photograph of one rudder head - and perhaps that too is 'irrational' in the eyes of Double Whisky. And again, I am fine with that.

Indeed, if they believe that jumping to conclusions without all (or anywhere near all) of the facts is the 'reasoned' or 'rational' approach, then I am happy that my posts are seen by them as an end to reason.
Brad

Dear Sir,

I really did understand Your post #624 as a kind of the thread summary aimed to end the discussion.
If You were kind enough to read my post #566 above, You would see that we are in reality in much of an agreement regarding the crucial problems, especially regarding the crew.

Roma locuta, causa finita mean – as You know well for sure – summary ending the discussion, no more no less, and has nothing to do with speaking for Rome or for Belleville. Location does not difference, neither the person of a speaker.
To be frankly, I hoped the discussion to be ceased at this point, as it is more and more drifted towards the details, we have not any positive knowledge about. So, I was fine with closing of the issue, even if not being happy with some of Your resume. But the discussion is still going…
I should admit, that I read Your post #624 with some appraisal, up to the the point 5., where I was taken aback somewhat.

Let me explain it. The boat in discussion was abandoned after some failures. There are probably – in general – the following possible causes of abandonement of the boat:

1. Inadequacies of construction leading to irreparable (in circumstances given) failure.
   
2. Bad decision regarding putting to the sea in conditions exceeding the boat possibilities.
   
3. Inadequacy of the crew.
   
4. Act of God (as unpredictable chain of events for which no one can be held responsible).

Points 1. to 4. In Your post #624 regarded the crew abilities and decisions made onboard. As You can see from my earlier post we are in rather complete agreement regarding conclusion here, even if our reasoning may differ in details. On the other hand I can not see an overwhelming majority supporting our common point of view in the content of the thread. Pity in this case, I believe, but I need to live with this, as well as You do.

In Your resume You omitted the decision of putting to the sea. I also do believe that this topic is not really worthy deep discussion (at least in this thread), as the not excessive gale conditions should not lead to disaster, assuming that the boat WAS seaworthy in fact. Nevertheless the point was discussed, so may be it deserved some reference – just my remark on the side.

In point 5. of Your post You addresses the rudder issue. I dare to differ with You completely in assessment of the discussion in this point. My impression was and is that there is quite common (but not unanimous) view as the rudders were of inadequate construction and it is really an issue regarding some other boats.

Leaving out of Your short summary other issues regarding the boat adequacy (as massive electrical failures or windows partly teared off) suggests – may be not wrongly, but in my opinion well prematurely – that the boat was of sound design and construction.

In the matter of fact Your post lead to the conclusion that ill fate of the boat is related to the act of God and I do not think it is possible to substantiate such a view so early.

Given all above my reception of Your post was quite mixed.
I agree with You in most remarks You made, but I can not view Your summary as impartial and objective report of the discussion.

Still I believe – and it is only my personal opinion of course – this thread went to the point where the discussion may well be suspended up to receiving more data regarding this specific occurrence.

There are of course several problems left, may be worth discussion, but my feeling is such a discussions should be placed in separate threads and not based on single accident. Such a problems are (again only in my personal view):

• Construction of rudders, rudder shafts and rudder posts in contemporary cruising boats – real demands vs common practices;
  
• Need or lack of need for some kind of certification, testing procedures and/or safety supervision for production boats;
  
• Practice of selling production boats “from drawings”, without prior testing and/or in absence of independent supervision of design, engineering and building techniques.

Please note, that I never and nowhere suggested that the support for Hank Shmitt is irrational – for all I knew he is a person well deserving support.
I never and nowhere suggested that a view as the repair of the rudder offshore could be impossible is irrational. Just opposite, I must admit I share this view.
I never and nowhere addressed an issue of existence or non-existence of rudder stops and never/nowhere suggested that Your attitude to this matter is irrational. I know nothing about existence or non-existence of the rudder stops on this particular boat.
I never and nowhere on this forum jumped to any conclusions, even having a lot more of hard data as in this case.

May be You just drew too much conclusions from single Latin phrase

Best regards

Tomasz

[Jimmy Jazz]

Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est
An accounting of what transpired between Pope St. Innocent I, Pope St. Zosimus, St. Augustine, Pelagius and Celestius.
By Scott Windsor
Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est
First off, let me begin with the phrase, so often used by Catholics, “roma locuta est, causa finita est,” translated: “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” One of the first things a sharp Protestant apologist may pick up on is St. Augustine didn’t use “those words.” That is how I began studying this topic, in fact. I had “quoted” that phrase in Latin, and a Protestant apologist challenged me, stating, “Augustine didn’t use those words.” I thought this strange, since I had heard and read that phrase many times before, so I started looking into it. I came to find out that St. Augustine didn’t use “those words,” at least not all of them.

The phrase comes from Sermon 131.10 of St. Augustine, the Latin is:
jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est [1]

Translated, it reads,

. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished.

What DID St. Augustine say? Two councils (from the African bishops) had been sent to Rome (the Apostolic See) and Rome had replied by sending a reports (rescripts – in other words, “had spoken”), and upon that the cause is finished.

So, even though St. Augustine didn’t use all of “those words” he did “say that!” Catholics who wish to use the paraphrase of “roma locuta est, causa finita est” must then be aware that it IS a paraphrase so as to not be caught off-guard by a challenger and allow the challenge of “But Augustine didn’t use those words,” to derail and/or sidetrack the point they were trying to make.

[Southern Star]

Thanks for the history lesson guys. As a non-Catholic I was not familiar with the phrase and my admittedly poor latin skills translated it as 'Rome has spoken, reasoning ends.'

Brad