North Pacific Gyre Debris Causes Abandonment

[dannc]

Originally Posted by libramax

I probably shouldn't go there, but ... If some boats witness floating debris, and some boats also have guns aboard, do said gun owners ever use the debris for target practice?

Seems like some types of floating debris (hulls, and maybe even containers) could be sunk with small arms fire. I don't own guns, so maybe this is not feasible or too dangerous (ricochet?), but it is meant to be a serious question.

I probably shouldn't go there, but ...

Depending on the material that is floating, it might take a rifle round to put a hole in the object to let the air out. A ricochet would be a real concern.

Something floating with lots of internal floatation might not sink no matter how many holes are shot into it. Give the cost of ammo, I doubt many people would have many rounds on board to shoot in any case.

When I first saw a photo of one of the fish attractors off the PIs, it looked like a 300 gallon fuel tank, my first reaction was put a round in it to cause it to sink. It could have been done if they had a firearm on board. The fish attractor was well off the coast in blue water so it might not have been a fuel attractor, or if it was, it has gotten loose from its mooring.

Later,
Dan

[JPA Cate]

libramax,

Wow, what thread drift!

Certainly, i have read of people with guns aboard shooting at targets of various kinds.

One problem for yachts crossing the gyre at night is that you really can't see low lying debris--it's even hard in the daytime, so the rubbish that is there is a real hazard.

A64pilot's suggestion of people transiting it slowly does make some sense, as the lower the speed the less energy of impact.

Ann

[a64pilot]

I'll take the credit, but what I really meant that the conditions a fast boat would make ten kts in, I'd probably be at six, but being E=MC2, yes there would be a whole lot less energy.

Hey, slow boats are safer

[onestepcsy37]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I'll take the credit, but what I really meant that the conditions a fast boat would make ten kts in, I'd probably be at six, but being E=MC2, yes there would be a whole lot less energy.

Hey, slow boats are safer

I think you meant -

Kinetic energy = (mass × velocity squared) / 2

[simonEdwards]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

About thirty years ago, I ran over a large Alligator on a jet ski in the Ogechee river near Savannah, does that count?

Didn't realise Alligators could ride jet skis

[europaflyer]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I'll take the credit, but what I really meant that the conditions a fast boat would make ten kts in, I'd probably be at six, but being E=MC2, yes there would be a whole lot less energy.

Hey, slow boats are safer

Never sailed at relativistic speeds myself... although I occasionally give engine orders to the helm as a warp factor.

[Twomuch]

Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[dannc]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

About thirty years ago, I ran over a large Alligator on a jet ski in the Ogechee river near Savannah, does that count?

What the heck, even if this is an old thread...

Where you in a hurry to get to Loves?

Later,
Dan

[Red Sky]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I thought they slept like this, or actually swam slowly with other whales that were awake?

Sailing from Hawaii to Victoria Canada aboard the '78 Whitbread winner, Flyer (under the name Alaska Eagle), in '09, we struck a sperm whale sleeping in the tail down position. A glancing blow just aft of the bow on the port side woke everyone who was asleep below but did no damage to the aluminum hull.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by savoir

How do you know the origin of whatever they hit ? Maybe it was a log from Oregon.

The 'flying out of the water and hitting main hull with enough force to cause significant internal damage thing' I am not buying.

They hit a whale.

I have really zero prejudice against multihulls. Some of them are among the most enviable boats in the world, though my own preference runs to speed and sleekness rather than boxiness, so let me just get that out there before I get a storm of mono vs. multi nonsense. However, I have long considered that multihulls are both more vulnerable to whale strikes, and more likely to be struck. The former is because the whale may find itself between the hulls and smack the structure while crash diving… the former is because multis naturally have less below water surface, and so are nearly "invisible" to whales. What the whale does actually "see" looks more like two or three logs than one big boat… Having had many whales breach, spyhop and even (in the case of one Minke and yes, I have video evidence) bowride for quite a time, I can attest that even really very large whales (biggest I ever had within a boat length was a pair of Seis {one either side!} South of the Canaries, and biggest ever three or so lengths away was a blue North of NZ) can and do come up RIGHT BESIDE vessels. Now… if said whale considers there to be TWO closely parallel vessels… it may well surface right "beside" them. Only to find it is actually UNDER something, and crash dive.

I reckon this is what happened here. Anything light enough to have been flipped high out of the water by the outer canoe would not have had enough force to do the damage to the main hull which ensued. No object seen, I call whalestrike.

[Paul Elliott]

Here's what a whalestrike looks like (well, really just a sideswipe). The flukes slapped our shrouds well above the lifelines. If we hadn't been paying attention it might have seemed (?) like debris flying through the air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYJt1ka7HHM

[gjordan]

I am going to repeat something that I posted several years ago about whale strikes. In 1976 I was cruising in Mexico, and was having a drink at a Cabo San Lucas beach bar, and the American bar tender told me a WHALE OF A TALE about leaving Mexico for the Marquesas in a Piver trimaran. Several days out while being in close quarters to whales, one of the crew members brought music (I dont remember if it was guitar or a boom box) out on deck and started the music. Within a few minutes they were struck by a whale and holed in the main hull. He said it took them 3 weeks to get back to Mexico with the main hull damaged. I tended to take the story as a bartenders B.S. A few years later I was told by an old friend from Santa Cruz about his passage from Mexico to the Marquesas in 32 foot racing Tri. They were cruising along with a bunch of Pilot Whales surrounding them. Life was good. One of the crew came on deck and started playing a flute, and they were rammed within a few seconds. The whales all dissapeared quickly and they were alone. It holed the main hull, which they took plywood from the interior and patched the hole, and did a 200 mile day the next 24 hours. This was told to me by a long term friend who was a serious sailor, surfer, boat builder, and very stable personality. I had no reason to doubt him. Looking back I thought that maybe the bartender wasnt as full of B.S. as I thought. Whales/dolphins have very sensitive hearing and maybe certain sounds can irritate them. Maybe (speculation) something about this other boat (trimaran) caused an attack. I have sailed through the gyre 4 times and seen large logs, but nothing that was not alive that could come up out of the water and damage a boat. All of my thoughts go to a scared or pissed off whale. Just another opinion. ______Grant.

[DeepFrz]

I'm not doubting that they hit or were hit by a whale but have you ever seen a dead head come a few feet out of the water. I have no doubt that the dead head that I saw would have put a hole in my boat or at least caused very significant damage had it hit me.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

The 'flying out of the water and hitting main hull with enough force to cause significant internal damage thing' I am not buying.

They hit a whale.

I have really zero prejudice against multihulls. Some of them are among the most enviable boats in the world, though my own preference runs to speed and sleekness rather than boxiness, so let me just get that out there before I get a storm of mono vs. multi nonsense. However, I have long considered that multihulls are both more vulnerable to whale strikes, and more likely to be struck. The former is because the whale may find itself between the hulls and smack the structure while crash diving… the former is because multis naturally have less below water surface, and so are nearly "invisible" to whales. What the whale does actually "see" looks more like two or three logs than one big boat… Having had many whales breach, spyhop and even (in the case of one Minke and yes, I have video evidence) bowride for quite a time, I can attest that even really very large whales (biggest I ever had within a boat length was a pair of Seis {one either side!} South of the Canaries, and biggest ever three or so lengths away was a blue North of NZ) can and do come up RIGHT BESIDE vessels. Now… if said whale considers there to be TWO closely parallel vessels… it may well surface right "beside" them. Only to find it is actually UNDER something, and crash dive.

I reckon this is what happened here. Anything light enough to have been flipped high out of the water by the outer canoe would not have had enough force to do the damage to the main hull which ensued. No object seen, I call whalestrike.

Guess whalestrike is another negative for catamarans.

Funny that nearly all the whalewatching vessels in Hervey Bay, Queensland are catamarans.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by downunder

Guess whalestrike is another negative for catamarans.

Funny that nearly all the whalewatching vessels in Hervey Bay, Queensland are catamarans.

I hope you noticed that I stated in opening that am in no way prejudiced against cats. And SPECIFICALLY said I didn't want some character to come on and start a pointless discussion that way… but there you go. Plenty of monos have been sunk by whales (notably the majority were wood…). I just think it stands to reason that the likelihood of whale strike/damage is somewhat higher on a cat. Don't think so? You could try an actual discussion point or argument rather than gesturing…

My personal preference for cats is the older style fast cats with a bit less of the living room in the centre, for which modern cats often sacrifice most of their other great advantages, it seems to me. They had the great advantages of a cat, being speed and stability. Yes these days the prize seems to go to great boxes of cats which look a little bit more like barges than sleek sailing vessels to my eye, and in some cases sail so poorly that they are overtaken on a reach or a run by older heavier monos of the same length! There are, however, plenty of cool, modern fast cat designs out there closer to the spirit of the thing, just flooded nearly out by the mass market living rooms on pontoons. IMHO.

But yes. PLEASE do not consider me prejudiced against cats in general. Why would I be?

And with regard to the whalewatching vessels… so what? Cats are intrinsically more profitable for such a venture. Your point?