The Blue Pearl Sinking

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by Paul J. Nolan

Ann, you call them brave. Other adjectives come to my mind.

Paul

Ya I'd be curious too. Care to enlighten?

[Paul J. Nolan]

Originally Posted by exMaggieDrum

Catamaran or monomaran, it's all good.

In my opinion, this is not true. Life is full of differences, many of them glaringly obvious. Idi Amin and Mother Theresa were not equally acceptable human beings. Africa is not the equal of Europe. Cotton candy and eggs are not equal foods. Which brings to: unballasted sailboats are not equally seaworthy as, for instance, Malabar II, Wanderer III, or a Rhodes Bounty.

Throughout this discussion the original poster has been treated as a victim of circumstance, but at some point a man must take personal responsibility for his decisions. The skipper bears the burden of command: he is responsible for the lives of his crew, even the dog. To court folly twice is to me, unconscionable. Not "brave."

Paul

[Prairie Chicken]

Originally Posted by Paul J. Nolan

Ann, you call them brave. Other adjectives come to my mind.

Paul

Paul, I'm with Ann, and call them brave. If you're thinking of anything less kind, please remember what your mother told you...

[Grateful]

Paul Nolan,

Before you crawl back under your bridge, please, please enlighten us: What ocean passages have you made? Any on a catamaran? Any on a monohull? Any at all? I ask because as I read back through your posts, it doesn't look as though you've spent much time offshore, and that makes you the "armchair critic" that keeps good people like the Bluewaters off of this site.

[travellerw]

Originally Posted by Prairie Chicken

Paul, I'm with Ann, and call them brave. If you're thinking of anything less kind, please remember what your mother told you...

I'll go one step further.. Not only do I think they are brave, I find them inspirational. Being about to move aboard with my family, there are days I'm scared shitless.

Knowing that they got back on a boat after that experience has been inspirational to me!

[Dulcesuenos]

Originally Posted by Paul J. Nolan

In my opinion, this is not true. Life is full of differences, many of them glaringly obvious. Idi Amin and Mother Theresa were not equally acceptable human beings. Africa is not the equal of Europe. Cotton candy and eggs are not equal foods. Which brings to: unballasted sailboats are not equally seaworthy as, for instance, Malabar II, Wanderer III, or a Rhodes Bounty.

Throughout this discussion the original poster has been treated as a victim of circumstance, but at some point a man must take personal responsibility for his decisions. The skipper bears the burden of command: he is responsible for the lives of his crew, even the dog. To court folly twice is to me, unconscionable. Not "brave."

Paul

There's just too many ridiculous things here to argue That all I can say is, live much?


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Paul J. Nolan

In my opinion, this is not true. Life is full of differences, many of them glaringly obvious. Idi Amin and Mother Theresa were not equally acceptable human beings. Africa is not the equal of Europe. Cotton candy and eggs are not equal foods. Which brings to: unballasted sailboats are not equally seaworthy as, for instance, Malabar II, Wanderer III, or a Rhodes Bounty.

Throughout this discussion the original poster has been treated as a victim of circumstance, but at some point a man must take personal responsibility for his decisions. The skipper bears the burden of command: he is responsible for the lives of his crew, even the dog. To court folly twice is to me, unconscionable. Not "brave."

Paul

Okay, limiting the discussion to the loss of the Blue Pearl, I wonder what you think you see that I missed. How I remember it is that the BP was bought in good faith, that the survey showed nothing untoward. Then they lost a rudder and had to repair that while in the Caribbean. So why suggest unconscionable folly?

When you buy a boat you only know what you know going in to it, and people's knowledge levels vary. BP was lost in the year of Cheeki Rafiki, and that year, I learned more than I had known before about Beneteau construction. None of that knowledge was available to Bluewaters, because of the timing.

It happens that we had some friends who lost their boat on a reef in the Tuamotus, due to a navigation error. The skipper later volunnteered that it was an emotional trauma, he said he was surprised how bad he felt. It ended their cruising. They came back from it financially, but did not go cruising again.

I personally felt guilty, for quite a while, that I had "allowed" our first Insatiable to be dismasted.

As a result of these experiences, I think I am in a position to claim Bluewater & wife to be brave, in the sense of coming back from a traumatic experience, getting it together financially, and returning to their preferred lifestyle. That seems to me to be quite "responsible."


Is it also folly because they chose a cat? Not really, I don't think. Here in Noumea, yesterday, we were surrounded at anchor by German owned catamarans. They have come here from far away, on their own bottoms. I think knee jerk anti-catamaranism is absurd. All of us who own and live on our boats pays our money and takes our choice. The fact that our choices are various does not, to me, indicate "unconscionable folly."

Maybe, Mr. Nolan, you could tell us what is not brave about coming back from a hard hit to recommence one's chosen lifestyle?

Ann

[Paul J. Nolan]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Maybe, Mr. Nolan, you could tell us what is not brave about coming back from a hard hit to recommence one's chosen lifestyle?

I admire them for overcoming adversity and continuing to sail. Getting back up after life knocks you down can be very difficult, sometimes extraordinarily so, and doing so is to be commended.

It is the choice of boat that I find troubling. With the previous boat, although any sailor could tell at a glance that vessel was a very poor choice, perhaps they were inexperienced. It happens. But they gained a lifetime's experience in one night. And then...make another poor choice? Someone should call PETA and save that poor dog!

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Is it also folly because they chose a cat? Not really, I don't think.

Well, there we must choose to disagree. A bad practice is one which may be engaged in many times without coming to harm, but if persisted in, will certainly come to a bad end. That harbors are filled with multihulls does not, in my opinion, for one moment make them seaworthy craft.

And please, call me Paul.

Paul

[JPA Cate]

As you say, Paul, we must choose to disagree. I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind.

Ann

[nigel1]

I think Ann said it very nicely, and I would not apportion blame to the owners of the Blue Pearl and certainly admire their persistence to get back on the water.

Paul, I wonder why you consider a Bene 50 a poor choice. I'm curious as I have a Bene 473 which sails all year round in mid to high Northern Latitudes, and close to 15,000 over the last 5 years. I have had no cause to question this boats ability to handle what can be thrown at it.

Cheers

[Bluewaters2812]

Generator on, check, ... microwave on, check, ... where's that bridge? Yip, all set!

[Paul J. Nolan]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Paul, I wonder why you consider a Bene 50 a poor choice.

Many would say it's because I'm a crotchety old man stuck in the last century. And I'd have to agree with them.

As for the boat in this thread, in my opinion she was too big, too fat, too shoal-bodied, had a fin keel/freestanding spade rudder that drew almost as much as the keel, had not one dedicated seaberth, had two steering wheels, a cabin too wide, freeboard too great, unbalanced ends, a mid-boom traveller, no boom gallows,no reserve buoyancy forward...and this just from a cursory glance. I would wonder what her details were like...her sail wardrobe, ground tackle, through hulls, the details of her rig (did she have the accursed but nonetheless de rigueur roller furling?) With three cabins all with double bunks, and an enormous saloon, a too-large cockpit with two steering wheels, it seems obvious to me she was designed to be a boat show/marina queen. Nothing wrong with that, life at the yacht club is a lot of fun. But I just think that boat was a poor choice for offshore work, and I think subsequent events bear that out.

Paul

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Paul J. Nolan

But I just think that boat was a poor choice for offshore work, and I think subsequent events bear that out.

A while back, there was a Hans Christian 38 lost at sea. Did that event bear out it's unseaworthiness design? There are countless boats that fit your seaworthy design criteria that were lost at sea - many of them because the boat broke in non-threatening conditions. Does that make them unseaworthy designs also?

Your logic and reasoning is very poor.

Do you really think a catamaran is unsuitable and unseaworthy for doodling around the Bahamas - which is exactly what the people you criticize are doing with theirs?

Mark

[Dulcesuenos]

Andreas Mehlin took his endeavor cat30 with a 2 stroke from panama to French Polynesia to Austrailia. Though maybe not the comfiest boat for the Pacific the boat held together in some adverse conditions. Likewise we had ours in some hellacious conditions, 70 knot winds, 12-16 foot close, breaking seas, and survived with minimal damage. Though coastal they are tougher than most sailors are. Many many seaworthy boats are lying at the bottom, fate and chance and bad luck cause more sinkings than do improperly chosen vessels for the conditions.
And further more who are you to put down someone else's choice of vessel because many share and show sympathy, and admiration, all they did and wanted out of the original post is for some good to come out of it, some learning, that maybe could help one of us be prepared in the event of the unimaginable occurs miles from help, to possibly save a life from the cost of their own misfortune, for that alone I thank them,
It sounds to me you are bitter, maybe you should get out and
Go sailing,
On a cat 😺


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Paul J. Nolan]

Originally Posted by colemj

Do you really think a catamaran is unsuitable and unseaworthy for doodling around the Bahamas

Yes I do. To doodle around the Bahamas one first has to get there. Because the Bahamas are close by, many take that passage lightly, but I remember Revenoc, a much more seaworthy boat than a catamaran, lost with all hands.

Like I said, despite harbors filled with them, I don't think unballasted craft are a good choice for offshore sailing. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!

Paul