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

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky
Sorry Boatie, can You talk slowly and loudly ?
What exactly make a no sense to You???

Boatie replied, quoting DW:
The theory is, when something is not working as supposed to and one can be sure why.
The practice is when something is working as supposed to, but one can not be sure why.
The most creative mixing of theory and practice is when nothing is working at all and nobody can be sure WTF ! ! !


to which the reply was

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

It's old engineers joke here. My English is probably too poor to translate it to be understandable and funny.
Sorry...

Double Whisky : did you mean something like this:

Theory — you know the 'why' of everything, but nothing works.

Practice — everything works ... but as for 'why' ...
(insert emoticon for puzzled shrug here)


Apologies if someone else answered this. I thought I would try and tidy it up for Boatie when he comes back.

It's a great truism.
I reckon.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

To those inquiring about the mindset of most boatbuilding companies--they are losing money on each boat, and the deposit on a new build goes to finish the previous boat--until they finally sink into bankruptcy.
.......

Which is characteristic of late-term Free-Market Capitalism.
It's a CRAZY situation.

Once all the-low hanging fruit (lifting enough people from poverty to provide a substantial middle class) has been harvested, and its job is essentially done, the in-built incentives of FMC continue inexorably to drive consumption up and prices down, which is GREAT for a while, until the middle-hanging fruit is all gone, and then society starts to consume itself.

Free Market Capitalism (assuming competent and honest national governance) is certainly the best tool we have for lifting third world nations from poverty.

It's not perfect, but the alternatives which have been tried all seem to suck.

BUT .... It's a crappy way of ensuring first world nations use their affluence sustainably and responsibly.
It seems virtually guaranteed to do the exact opposite.

(OK, rant over, returning to the thread topic in three, two, one, NOW

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

They are not in any position to spend lots of money in a futile effort to find a boat in the middle of the ocean.

.......

Hmmm - tricky finding a boat once it is abandoned,, assuming no pinger left aboard.... but I thought the suggestion was that the builders join forces with the owners to PRE-EMPT the need to abandon, with all the costs and wastage that has inevitably set in train.

I thought that in the present era, "finding a boat in the middle of the ocean" while that boat was transmitting, was a trivial exercise.

The notion that boats are disposable and human life infinitely precious has become ingrained, so that abandonment has become mandatory. There have been people castigated on this very forum for their 'irresponsibility' and 'putting potential rescuers at risk' when they have exhibited self reliance and good seamanship, by jury rigging their crippled vessel and getting themselves back to civilisation unaided.

I stand with those who find abandonment, when mandated by 'authorities', inappropriate and somewhat offensive.

The only persuasive rationale I can think of for me personally to carry a weapon (outside polar bears, and even then I find it questionable) would be to repel rescuers.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Which is characteristic of late-term Free-Market Capitalism.
It's a CRAZY situation.

Once all the-low hanging fruit (lifting enough people from poverty to provide a substantial middle class) has been harvested, and its job is essentially done, the in-built incentives of FMC continue inexorably to drive consumption up and prices down, which is GREAT for a while, until the middle-hanging fruit is all gone, and then society starts to consume itself.

Free Market Capitalism (assuming competent and honest national governance) is certainly the best tool we have for lifting third world nations from poverty.

It's not perfect, but the alternatives which have been tried all seem to suck.

BUT .... It's a crappy way of ensuring first world nations use their affluence sustainably and responsibly.
It seems virtually guaranteed to do the exact opposite.

(OK, rant over, returning to the thread topic in three, two, one, NOW



Hmmm - tricky finding a boat once it is abandoned,, assuming no pinger left aboard.... but I thought the suggestion was that the builders join forces with the owners to PRE-EMPT the need to abandon, with all the costs and wastage that has inevitably set in train.

I thought that in the present era, "finding a boat in the middle of the ocean" while that boat was transmitting, was a trivial exercise.

The notion that boats are disposable and human life infinitely precious has become ingrained, so that abandonment has become mandatory. There have been people castigated on this very forum for their 'irresponsibility' and 'putting potential rescuers at risk' when they have exhibited self reliance and good seamanship, by jury rigging their crippled vessel and getting themselves back to civilisation unaided.

I stand with those who find abandonment, when mandated by 'authorities', inappropriate and somewhat offensive.

The only persuasive rationale I can think of for me personally to carry a weapon (outside polar bears, and even then I find it questionable) would be to repel rescuers.

That's fine. But in this case the skipper decided to abandon , in other cases, if you personally , want to go down with the ship, well quite happily let you , even if your wife and children, will miss you and would prefer you to be rescued.

The implicit underlying sentiment in your post, is that simply because someone leaves a vessel, they are cowards that should have " battled through like john Wayne or do otherfilm hero .

In reality a skipper must concern himself with the lives of the crew and make a call. Who are you to second guess That.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

That's fine. But in this case the skipper decided to abandon , in other cases, if you personally , want to go down with the ship, well quite happily let you , even if your wife and children, will miss you and would prefer you to be rescued.

The implicit underlying sentiment in your post, is that simply because someone leaves a vessel, they are cowards that should have " battled through like john Wayne or do otherfilm hero .

In reality a skipper must concern himself with the lives of the crew and make a call. Who are you to second guess That.


Ps " jury rigged" is quite an easy thing to write in an Internet forum , it's a bit more difficult in a big swell, in wind at sea


Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andrew Troup]

Dave

I think you must have just run your eye across my post and responded to what you imagined I was saying, because your response, stirring and emotive as it is, makes no sense at all if you had actually read my words, rather than my mind.

You are as good as confessing that when you talk of inferring the "implicit underlying sentiment". Your ouija board must have a loose connection, in this instance, because your inference is unsalvageably wide of the mark

I don't propose to defend my post (unless you have a more convincing try) because, as yet, you haven't attacked it.

Yours in puzzlement

(PS: if my meaning is unclear -- as always, I'm only too happy to clarify any points.
It seems a shame to avoid seeking clarification in order to blast away at things I don't say; I'm sure there's plenty of valid potshots to be taken at things I do :-)

[goboatingnow]

The notion that boats are disposable and human life infinitely precious has become ingrained, so that abandonment has become mandatory. There have been people castigated on this very forum for their 'irresponsibility' and 'putting potential rescuers at risk' when they have exhibited self reliance and good seamanship, by jury rigging their crippled vessel and getting themselves back to civilisation unaided.



I stand with those who find abandonment, when mandated by 'authorities', inappropriate and somewhat offensive.

Andrew, this was the piece that drew my attention. I'm not aware that people have castigated self -reliance. , I think that's a fanciful notion in your head.

Your implicit statement here is that boats should be abandoned while afloat and skippers should " battle" on almost irrespective.

If I read in more then that , apologies , the ouja board needs upgrading to iOS 7

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andrew Troup]

Dave

My explicit statement was that I find it offensive that authorities (eg USCG, acting unilaterally) are now empowered to order abandonment.

I still can't follow your drift when you (incorrectly) try to tease out my 'implicit' meaning. You might have left a word out, eg "not" abandoned?

Let's assume (I hate assuming, but you're not throwing me a bone) that's you meant to write:

"Andrew is implying that boats should NOT be abandoned while afloat, and skippers should battle on almost irrespective"

I don't recognise either of those sentiments; they're a product of your imagination.

You are drawing a tortuous reverse inference: that I am criticising those who (hypothetically) choose to abandon, when in fact I am explicitly criticising other parties who (hypothetically) require them to abandon.

But if you're going to go all implicit on me ;-) Here's an implicit meaning I would recognise:

"Andrew considers no bastard is qualified to rock up, uninvited, and order Andrew to abandon Andrew's boat." (amplification/subtext: If Andrew is not too busy, Andrew will doubtless be happy to discuss the matter, and explain why he does not think that is necessary or appropriate under the circumstances")

Can you spot ANY points of similarity with your inference? I cannot.

For the avoidance of doubt, there would undoubtedly be situations in which Andrew would fall gratefully about the neck of a would-be rescuer and dampen him or her with Andrew's copious tears.

I don't know where you're getting this notion that, because I respect self-reliance, I am necessarily disrespecting reliance on others.

And if you cannot recall any threads where self-reliance came under heavy criticism on this forum, your memory is even shorter than mine.

I particularly recall one where uninformed opinion held forth for multiple pages about how misguided and dangerous it must have been to use a fallen rig as an ad hoc sea anchor while waiting for conditions to improve, etc etc etc (at a time when it was already known to the forum that the resilient and versatile sailors in question had salvaged and hoisted the rig onboard without incident, and made their way to port - also without incident).

Would-be rescuers and chopper pilots and their supporters chimed in and said how irresponsible it was not to have put themselves in the hands of those services, and that they much prefer to be called at the earliest indication, even if it subsequently proves unnecessary.

Their mounting feeling of vicarious responsibility alarms me. The next phase is inevitably that THEY end up in the gun for not enforcing abandonment, if things turn bad and the hindsight of crowds rises to its habitual, baying crescendo.

I would happily have put them in the frame at the earliest opportunity in the days before they became empowered to take over the decision process, and on one occasion I do recall making an 'advisory' call to a local Coastguard, in a situation I confidently expected to resolve (and did resolve before they arrived - their choice; they said they needed all the practice they could get)

I have been rescued, come to that, on another occasion when I was unable to get a call in, and am undying in my gratitude.

So, at least in my case, I feel forced into adopting FOR MYSELF a position of rugged independence which is objectively irrational, except that (from my point of view) the alternatives are worse.

Not all authorities are so empowered, YET, and I rail against this here partly in the forlorn hope that, by the time my next boat is finished, there will be fewer rather than more authorities who are so empowered, (and accustomed to exercising those powers.)

Please note: Sticking up for self-rescue is NOT implicit criticism of those who are unwilling or unable to self-rescue.

I say again: What I am against is ENFORCED abandonment; in other words, for self- rescue to be taken off the table unilaterally.

And I feel as strongly about that as libertarians feel about ... well, everything, I guess !

If your ethos catches on with the general public, we would consider military honours (to take just one example) to be tantamount to an accusation of cowardice aimed squarely at soldiers who returned from active service undecorated.

I could understand that ethos better if it came from a culture where decorations are handed out like candy - almost an attendance certificate, like pseudo-'trophies' for kids sports now are - and their absence might raise an eyebrow

but if that ethos exists (which I hope it doesn't) it would only strengthen my argument.

Nothing buggers up a worthwhile endeavour quite so much as well-intentioned people inadvertently infantilising it.

[goboatingnow]

The USCG does not have the power to " force" an abandonment. In the US that only occurs on the issue of a mayday. In the US, mayday, means you have forgone the duties of skipper. Even then the USCG has no record of forcing people from their boats.

In other parts of the world, like UK, most of European, rescuers have no authority to force you from the vessel.

In fact anyway the vast majority of rescuers are called by the vessel itself.

Hence, therefore your argument is of the straw variety. What you are claiming, is a rare occurrence.

Since you posted in the " Alpha " post I presumed your criticism implied that you were referring to that incidence. If that's was an incorrect assumption , my bad

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RunawayC47]

A lot has been speculated and said regarding the problems of the Alpha 42 "Be Good Too". I am in unique position having known Gregor Tarjan for 12 years, having sailed with him, against him and discussed catamarans at length. He is extremely knowledgeable and dedicated.

I have done a good amount of glass work on catamarans over the years. I was able to inspect the construction of hull #1 on 4 occasions during the build process from molds faring to topside installation to finish work. The construction process that I observed was excellent. I do have to say that the expected time to finish all of the projects on a hull #1 was under estimated which is often the case. I believe that this is what ultimately led to a part of the problem.

Having finished hull #1 at the start of winter they began test sails in difficult conditions with the new owner expecting immediate delivery. Then after delivery an anxious owner decided to head to the Caribbean in mid winter from the North Atlantic. A very poor decision as anyone who has made the trip will tell you. It is always better to reach the stream as soon as possible leaving land from far further south. At a minimum the lower Chesapeake for that time of year but preferably well below Hatteras.

In the Wavetrain personal account of the event they say that they were sailing with 2 reefs in on the large roach main and a unuseable rolled up jib. The sail plan was so unbalanced they had the rudder hard over to keep the boat going straight a terrible decision. As any sailor know a balanced sail plan is critical on any vessel especially a cat. By having the rudder hard over they created a situation that allowed the large wave that threw them backwards to cause the rudders to fail. Would more robust rudders have survived? Maybe but no one knows. I have seen dozens of well proven boats loose rudders offshore.

With the conditions they were in the main should have been dropped and they should have motored slowly with both engines in a comfortable reasonable effective direction. This was not a race.

I think that in this as in any situation there is much to be learned. Knowing Gregor he will address all the problems that arose and probably make a few additional improvements as well. He is a dedicated professional. Time will tell but I think after all issues are addressed the Alpha 42 will be an excellent reliable vessel.

I do not have any personal interest in the Alpha 42. I am just in a better position than most to speak out knowing the builder, seeing the construction and having personally sailed over 50,000 miles on my own catamaran.

[Southern Star]

Thanks for your imput, runaway. No doubt departing from New York in January on a relatively untested boat was a significant contribution to what happened. In addition, having to sail with the rudders relatively hard over no doubt also contributed to the ultimate failure of the rudders. Whether they carried sufficient diesel to motor to a safe haven, I cannot say. Nevertheless, I for one fully understand why the captain and crew instead attempted to sail to such a destination: they were still making decent progress under sail prior to being hit by a wave that, from the sounds of it, they would not have readily anticipated.

I too hope that Gregor Tarjan can overcome this incident, remedy any problems with the build and/or design and that the Alpha 42 goes on to become a success story for both Gregor individually, and for the North American boatbuilding industry in general.

Brad

[RunawayC47]

My thought was not to motor to an ultimate destination but to motor till conditions improved and they felt safe to repair the jib sheet. It would also give them time to address the charging issues. Today's cruising cats can motor for upwards of 100 hours at moderate rpm. If only one engine is run the numbers go up accordingly.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by RunawayC47

A lot has been speculated and said regarding the problems of the Alpha 42 "Be Good Too". I am in unique position having known Gregor Tarjan for 12 years, having sailed with him, against him and discussed catamarans at length. He is extremely knowledgeable and dedicated.

I have done a good amount of glass work on catamarans over the years. I was able to inspect the construction of hull #1 on 4 occasions during the build process from molds faring to topside installation to finish work. The construction process that I observed was excellent. I do have to say that the expected time to finish all of the projects on a hull #1 was under estimated which is often the case. I believe that this is what ultimately led to a part of the problem.

Having finished hull #1 at the start of winter they began test sails in difficult conditions with the new owner expecting immediate delivery. Then after delivery an anxious owner decided to head to the Caribbean in mid winter from the North Atlantic. A very poor decision as anyone who has made the trip will tell you. It is always better to reach the stream as soon as possible leaving land from far further south. At a minimum the lower Chesapeake for that time of year but preferably well below Hatteras.

In the Wavetrain personal account of the event they say that they were sailing with 2 reefs in on the large roach main and a unuseable rolled up jib. The sail plan was so unbalanced they had the rudder hard over to keep the boat going straight a terrible decision. As any sailor know a balanced sail plan is critical on any vessel especially a cat. By having the rudder hard over they created a situation that allowed the large wave that threw them backwards to cause the rudders to fail. Would more robust rudders have survived? Maybe but no one knows. I have seen dozens of well proven boats loose rudders offshore.

With the conditions they were in the main should have been dropped and they should have motored slowly with both engines in a comfortable reasonable effective direction. This was not a race.

I think that in this as in any situation there is much to be learned. Knowing Gregor he will address all the problems that arose and probably make a few additional improvements as well. He is a dedicated professional. Time will tell but I think after all issues are addressed the Alpha 42 will be an excellent reliable vessel.

I do not have any personal interest in the Alpha 42. I am just in a better position than most to speak out knowing the builder, seeing the construction and having personally sailed over 50,000 miles on my own catamaran.

Good glass work is only part of what makes a good boat. How big is your cat, and what diameter are your rudder shafts.

[RunawayC47]

Mine is a 50' performance cat. My shafts are 2 3/8" stainless tubes.

I have done the route they were attempting 5 times always in Nov. It can be nasty. The first time from Long Island which I would prefer not to do again. I would not want to do it in Jan. I have had similar situations with odd waves at odd angles out of nowhere. They can be very violent.

One in particular took 2 - 6'4" 250lb men and threw them across the cockpit leaving 6" of water in the cockpit. That was the only time we have ever had water in the cockpit. After that I made the drains bigger. Was it a rogue wave I don't know? But very violent. We could have easily lost a rudder but luckily didn't.

I believe the hard turned rudder had a major influence in the rudder failure. The longer I sail the more I respect the power of the ocean particularly the North Atlantic.

[Sand crab]

Runaway we all would like to see some pics of your boat.

[RunawayC47]

Here is a pic from The Bitter End BVI last year.