Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on Cruisers Forums. Advertise Here
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-09-2017, 01:18   #31
Registered User

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Dubai
Boat: 450S
Posts: 188
Re: Not another one?

S Fan the Skipper does indeed sound experienced and that is where the lesson lies for the rest of us. What is it that made an experienced skipper hit a reef, a reef that other posters have stated appears on the electronic charts? Accidents never have one single causal factor but involve a chain of events that align to invite disaster. (Google Swiss Cheese model). The Vestus report shows this where the failure to zoom a vector chart was the last event in a chain of events. To focus on the chart alone limits our understanding of the cause and more importantly limits our learning.
Pascals Wager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 01:35   #32
Registered User
 
SailingFan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Florida
Boat: Hunter 27, 1978
Posts: 538
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascals Wager View Post
S Fan the Skipper does indeed sound experienced and that is where the lesson lies for the rest of us. What is it that made an experienced skipper hit a reef, a reef that other posters have stated appears on the electronic charts? Accidents never have one single causal factor but involve a chain of events that align to invite disaster. (Google Swiss Cheese model). The Vestus report shows this where the failure to zoom a vector chart was the last event in a chain of events. To focus on the chart alone limits our understanding of the cause and more importantly limits our learning.
You are correct, and are making my point quite effectively. Had this skipper taken the time and effort to consult something other than digital charting, and had he taken the time to examine waters he was obviously not as familiar with as he had assumed, he would have seen the reef danger and at least plotted course around it.

However, he did not, he assumed that a single examination of an electronic device was sufficient, and that somehow paper charts no longer were valuable to his operation, and staked his reputation on his performance. He failed miserably, and stated such in more "glowing" terms, and should be ashamed that he did this on someone else's dime. If lives were lost, he is directly responsible.

That said, you are also correct that we could, any of us, fall on this particular sword, and I stated that I in fact had, and more than once. However, and this is a key point, I was doing it on my own vessel, in a situation where lives were less at stake and damage to vessels including my own was far less likely or substantial.
I don't get paid by someone else to know how to do these things, and I don't have a license that supposedly qualifies me to be able and understanding of these issues. He did. I vote it is revoked or at least suspended pending review of the incident, and if he is found negligent, he should be paying someone something for the losses he created. Then he should have to retest to get the license back (because he obviously did not get it the first time around) because he is currently a hazard on the high seas, to be frank.

I would expect no other treatment for myself had I held a captains license in my own incidents and had they been the same gravity as this was. It is only fair to treat the goose as the gander, after all.

Still, if someone wants to defend this guy, and wants to say it is just an accident and is acceptable, I would opt to not sail with (or nearby) that person either because it shows how little discretion in their own actions they apply when they are sailing. I would be putting my life at risk intentionally unless I volunteer to navigate their vessel. Of course, not being a licensed and tested navigator, I would also be direlect in my duties if I accepted a wage for doing that, so it certainly must be voluntary work...

__________________
SailingFan
1978 Hunter 27
Learning by the day!
SailingFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 01:38   #33
Registered User
 
SailingFan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Florida
Boat: Hunter 27, 1978
Posts: 538
Re: Not another one?

The inattention of the skipper to the available paper charts is what caused this. It is not the fault of a computer program that has known deficiencies and that the captain just casually consulted, though he apparently knew those deficiencies existed. He failed in his duties because he was lazy. There is no other explanation that seems to hold water yet. Had he taken the effort to look a little farther, he would have seen the reef. If he had not been to that area before, he should have looked specifically for the reef. Had he taken that effort, the reef would have been apparent. He failed.
__________________
SailingFan
1978 Hunter 27
Learning by the day!
SailingFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 01:51   #34
Registered User

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Dubai
Boat: 450S
Posts: 188
Re: Not another one?

I was attempting to agree with you, perhaps not clear enough. The buck stops with a skipper regardless...Im not remotely as experienced as this guy and so I am suspicious of danger that I might have missed and so go looking for it. I hope I still have suspicion after 200000 miles.
Pascals Wager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 02:00   #35
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,750
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailingFan View Post
The inattention of the skipper to the available paper charts is what caused this. It is not the fault of a computer program that has known deficiencies and that the captain just casually consulted, though he apparently knew those deficiencies existed. He failed in his duties because he was lazy. There is no other explanation that seems to hold water yet. Had he taken the effort to look a little farther, he would have seen the reef. If he had not been to that area before, he should have looked specifically for the reef. Had he taken that effort, the reef would have been apparent. He failed.
This is extremely unfair.

Yes, he failed, but what makes you think it was "laziness"? Have you ever crossed an ocean, or even skippered a multiday passage? There are a million things to do, and many of them are life safety critical. Proper passage planning is much, much more complicated than just "not being lazy" -- as in, "it could never happen to me." And paper is not a panacea, either. The solution is PROCESS, and it's not easy to get at the right process, and all of us have something to learn from this incident.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 02:04   #36
Registered User
 
SailingFan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Florida
Boat: Hunter 27, 1978
Posts: 538
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascals Wager View Post
I was attempting to agree with you, perhaps not clear enough. The buck stops with a skipper regardless...Im not remotely as experienced as this guy and so I am suspicious of danger that I might have missed and so go looking for it. I hope I still have suspicion after 200000 miles.
My apologies, I was not intending to be confrontational or disagreeable, and I surely have no angst with your comments. I am just a very literal guy, and I tend to boil things down to the extreme level, then overthink them, and I really seem to get concerned when I read about someone getting the benefit of the doubt simply because they have a license and tons of experience.

In my mind, that should make them more likely to NOT have an accident, but in reality, that experience does things like this, makes them complacent, and that seems to be where the accidents tend to gather.

We could examine Titanic and see this sort of complacency, and a host of other marine disasters come to mind, both above and below the surface, where a person licensed to lead the ship lost her because he was too cocky to believe that he could have missed something, only checking on it after the disaster is in process, and then realizing (or not) that he was the fault of it all.

It really burns me when later the authorities do not hold the person accountable, when they are all to ready and willing to hold an innocent accountable for the same crimes against vessels and the stakeholders in those boats/ships.

But that is just me, and I have not yet been to bed (it's 5 am here), and I also have not had coffee (as I was intending to go to bed!).

Rest assured, we are good!
__________________
SailingFan
1978 Hunter 27
Learning by the day!
SailingFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 02:36   #37
Registered User
 
SailingFan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Florida
Boat: Hunter 27, 1978
Posts: 538
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
This is extremely unfair.

Yes, he failed, but what makes you think it was "laziness"? Have you ever crossed an ocean, or even skippered a multiday passage? There are a million things to do, and many of them are life safety critical. Proper passage planning is much, much more complicated than just "not being lazy" -- as in, "it could never happen to me." And paper is not a panacea, either. The solution is PROCESS, and it's not easy to get at the right process, and all of us have something to learn from this incident.
Unfair? Unfair to whom? The ship owner? The skipper? The people awaiting cargo and friends or customers from the vessel? Who is it unfair to? The reef itself? Not like they are not becoming endangered, right?

Lets see. The owner of the vessel intended to get it there unscathed. Any passengers wanted to arrive alive and unharmed, the companies want cargo to arrive undamaged and on time. The skipper was supposed to be competent to accomplish what he was paid to do. Navigation, if beyond the ken of the skipper, should have been handled by someone else. That is why Navigators are trained to do it, and if the skipper wants that part of the payroll in his pocket, he has to be accountable for that part of the job too. That is basic math and good business manners.

I have not personally navigated across an ocean yet as the navigator on my own vessel or for hire for someone else. I have traveled across many an ocean however as ships crew, performing my duties as part of that process, along with any additional tasks assigned to me. I was also accountable for my actions or inactions, and suffered consequences if I were to fail in them, regardless of how busy I was.

I have done multi-day passages however, navigating and piloting for free, and have mentioned multiple times on these forums what happened, and even in this thread for that matter I believe I stated that (I would have to go back and check to be sure, I am not concealing anything there intentionally).

Process is indeed the failure mode here, and he did not fulfill his duties, as he freely admitted. That is what we have to learn, that if we skimp on the process and do not investigate areas we are transiting to our best ability, we are just as likely as not to be involved in something we did not intend. He should have examined the charts closely when he saw he was going to be near a land mass of any size, so that he would locate reefs and shoaling, and did not do so. This time it bit him, but apparently it had not before. Heck, he could have checked this the moment land was approached or sighted, but did not until collision.

That said, I have also worked in the energy extraction industry, as well as on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. I can assure you, I have had my share of process exposure and learned tons from the failures of people who screwed the pooch because they "know it already" and forgot or ignored safety protocols and the reasons for them.

I once witnessed a guy get blown from out of his clothing and against the far side of a drilling rig because someone did not follow proper procedure, venting over 150K PSI of air pressure at the man from point blank range. Killed him instantly, fortunately (because it made a mess of his chest cavity before impact with the rig itself turned him almost inside out). I also witnessed a young lady nearly having her head removed because a driller was too fast on the throttles and nearly decapitated her with a wire noose. She got tons of free surgery out of it, but she was actually saved because she was not watching the noose, and it only tore her lip off, knocked all her front teeth loose, and knocked her unconscious as it broke her lower jaw. My brother drove her many miles to reach a life flight helicopter.

I dodged 11 inch casing myself when someone was not paying attention and launched it off the rig platform and gravity sent it under the rear duals of my semi, dug into the frozen ground over two feet below ground level at that. I never knew a pipe that weighed over a ton could move that fast. I also found out that the rig workers did not know that a 6'2" man that weighed 320 pounds could move that fast, either, and in snow at that.

I even once pulled a new worker from between a semi truck and a rig catwalk preventing him from being crushed when another team member was attempting to lift pipe and slammed the truck into the catwalk. The new guy lost some buttons and his shoes stayed behind, but he did not get crushed in half. He was damned thankful I paid more attention to safety than he or the "experienced" operator did.

Safety violations have been in my mind for decades, and it is likely why I am always thinking about what can go wrong when I see anything made by man or beast.

I can assure you that if this captain wanted to take a few minutes to take a closer look on paper near land masses and islands, he would see potential reefs and shoals near many of them and could have routed around these. He could have done this in the many dead times that happen on even short crossings. He did not do so, and in that, he made election, intentially, to not look closer, for whatever reason he offered.

Now, if he was unwilling to do it because he was busy before and at the time, and did not have time to do a little pretrip planning (stupid idea, right?), now he should have tons of free time to look while his court dates approach.

That won't help the ship, but at least he should not be doing it for pay until he learns how to do his job and recertifies at least for the paper portion of the tests. Does that seem unfair to you? What if people died, then what is fair for them? The difference here is luck, he was just lucky his poor judgement (some would say "negligence") did not kill someone. If it did, we would likely be having another discussion, no? If that is also the case, then he is guilty and should pay for it, in my unqualified opinion. But that is just my opinion. We shall see what happens later, if anything, to this situation.
__________________
SailingFan
1978 Hunter 27
Learning by the day!
SailingFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 02:38   #38
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Back in Montt.
Boat: Westerly Sealord
Posts: 8,178
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
There are a million things to do, and many of them are life safety critical. Proper passage planning is much, much more complicated than just "not being lazy" -- as in, "it could never happen to me." And paper is not a panacea, either. .....
As fine a piece of hyperbole as I have seen in some time...

Yes there are quite a few things in passage ( and voyage ) planning that need to be addressed but right at the very top of the list is 'staying a safe distance off the land both horizontally and vertically'.

Not only does the Admiralty planning chart for the entire South Pacific show Beveridge Reef even my very ancient copy of Admiralty Chart No 3934 'The World' shows Beveridge Reef.

If you do not have 'paper' on the chart table your passage planning has fallen at the first hurdle.

Given that very basic Mk1 burgle brand Cmap shows Beveridge Reef quite well... see pics above ^^^^ ... I would be very interested to know what electronic charting kit was involved in this casualty.

This would be the paramount thing to learn from this sad event.

It would be one to avoid at all costs.
__________________
A little bit about Chile can be found here https://www.docdroid.net/bO63FbL/202...anchorages-pdf
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 02:45   #39
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Back in Montt.
Boat: Westerly Sealord
Posts: 8,178
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailingFan View Post
Unfair? Unfair to whom? The ship owner? The skipper? The people awaiting cargo and friends or customers from the vessel? Who is it unfair to? The reef itself? Not like they are not becoming endangered, right?

Lets see. The owner of the vessel intended to get it there unscathed. Any passengers wanted to arrive alive and unharmed, the companies want cargo to arrive undamaged and on time. The skipper was supposed to be competent to accomplish what he was paid to do. ...........
Whoa There!... Which casualty are you talking about? The yacht 'Avanti' or the "Kea Trader"?

Avanti ran aground due to a planning/electronic chart issue.

Kea Trader ran aground while the Master and the OOW were in the chartroom discussing the finer points of the IRPCS as interpreted by Cockcroft.... *

.
.
.
.

* I made that up... we don't know yet what led to the stranding of Kea Trader.
__________________
A little bit about Chile can be found here https://www.docdroid.net/bO63FbL/202...anchorages-pdf
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 03:09   #40
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,750
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
As fine a piece of hyperbole as I have seen in some time...

Yes there are quite a few things in passage ( and voyage ) planning that need to be addressed but right at the very top of the list is 'staying a safe distance off the land both horizontally and vertically'.

Not only does the Admiralty planning chart for the entire South Pacific show Beveridge Reef even my very ancient copy of Admiralty Chart No 3934 'The World' shows Beveridge Reef.

If you do not have 'paper' on the chart table your passage planning has fallen at the first hurdle.

Given that very basic Mk1 burgle brand Cmap shows Beveridge Reef quite well... see pics above ^^^^ ... I would be very interested to know what electronic charting kit was involved in this casualty.

This would be the paramount thing to learn from this sad event.

It would be one to avoid at all costs.
So I guess it could never happen to you, either?

OK, if a "million" is hyperbolic -- there are at least dozens of things to think about, if not hundreds, and that is not an exaggeration. Of things to "avoid at all costs." Yes, he screwed up. There's no question about that. I dearly hope I wouldn't make such a mistake, and that you wouldn't. But not making such mistakes by some means other than just luck, demands constant vigilance, and humility in front of the process, and in front of the sea, actually. The typical smug disdainful "oh what an idiot", which we see a bit of here, is deeply unseamanlike.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 03:16   #41
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Back in Montt.
Boat: Westerly Sealord
Posts: 8,178
Re: Not another one?

I don't think I have suggested he is an idiot nor has anyone else here... those are your words.

Its all about learning from the mistakes of others.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
So I guess it could never happen to you, either?
.....
Well, I have managed to keep my name out of the papers for the last 54 55 years.........
__________________
A little bit about Chile can be found here https://www.docdroid.net/bO63FbL/202...anchorages-pdf
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 03:18   #42
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,750
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascals Wager View Post
I was attempting to agree with you, perhaps not clear enough. The buck stops with a skipper regardless...Im not remotely as experienced as this guy and so I am suspicious of danger that I might have missed and so go looking for it. I hope I still have suspicion after 200000 miles.
That's a good attitude, and a good start.

But I don't know any experienced ocean skipper who is not "suspicious of danger" and who does not "go looking for it". The problem is that the danger in thousands of miles of empty ocean is a real needle in a haystack, and it is not obvious where to "go looking for it". It's not just a reef -- it's a half-sunken container, a floating deadhead, a ship with watchstanders asleep, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. There are a million things.

It's easy to say of someone who has run into something -- a reef, a container -- "he should have been looking out" or "he failed" -- but when you spend weeks sailing through thousands of miles of empty ocean, the human beings just do not stare at the horizon every minute and 24/7, and most dangers aren't even visible after dark. The key thing to safety is to have a rational and effective PROCESS which takes into consideration the real risks to allocate resources in the way which will produce the greatest effect.

What do I do? I'm not holding it out as any model, by any means, but just as an example of A process:

1. In an attempt to prevent the kind of incident which happened here, I create an electronic route for every passage. I do this in OpenCPN using fully updated "for navigation" official raster charts for all Atlantic waters on a large high resolution screen. I go through the whole route using the largest scale charts to double check for hazards.

2. I create waypoints to mark hazards which might not show up in my vector chart display, with a skull and crossbones.

3. I transfer the route and waypoints to my main nav system. Then I check the route AGAIN using the different cartography (Navionics and NV Charts) in my main nav system, which I also keep updated.

4. If I get off the plotted route for some reason, I do all this over again while underway.

5. I continuously check what the chart says against what eyeballs, radar and depth sounder tell me. Well "continuously" is not the right word -- of course it's not continuously. Coming up with a rational tempo for all of these checks is a serious question. But radar runs 24/7 offshore -- that's a rule on my boat -- and at the helm we either have the radar display showing or radar overlaid on the chart display.

6. I set depth alarms offshore, and set them to values which should not exist. Wouldn't have helped this guy because this particular reef rises out of the depths in a cable or less, but would help a lot in most places to avoid running into land.

7. I keep radar guard zones set offshore.



But this is not for the middle of the Pacific -- I sail in busy complex waters like the North Sea and Baltic. Would I do all the same with the same diligence in the middle of the Pacific, or would I get distracted by other issues like being sure we always have enough fresh water, fixing an erratic pilot, or whatever. I hope I would always devote ENOUGH attention to prevent something like this from happening, but how much is enough? Do you always know?


For those of you who think the skipper failed in a simple task, and so he's an idiot -- here's a question for you -- are your charts up to date? Do you read all the Notices to Mariners? Or do you get by on pure luck that nothing crucial has changed?

Not running into something at night which is indicated in a Notice to Mariners is another thing which should just never happen -- just like not running into a reef. It's basically inexcusable. But do you do enough to be sure it will never happen to you?

I think the cruisers I know who keep their charts up to date to the standards of commercial mariners is a small minority. They are dealing with this issue by pure luck. How many other things which absolutely "should not happen", don't happen, just because you're lucky?
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 03:23   #43
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,750
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
. . . Well, I have managed to keep my name out of the papers for the last 54 55 years.........
Congratulations! And I have no doubt that a large measure of this success is down to your being a very good, very skilled, and very diligent navigator.

But how many reefs or shoals or floating containers did you miss just by luck?


Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
. . . Its all about learning from the mistakes of others......
Indeed! And learning is possible only when you exactly imagine how it COULD happen to you.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 03:49   #44
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Back in Montt.
Boat: Westerly Sealord
Posts: 8,178
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
......

But how many reefs or shoals or floating containers did you miss just by luck?
...... .
Ah... the red herring... which has nothing to do with the current discussion..

However... given that .. on average... there is 12 hours daylight every day.... one would think that I would have seen at least one floating/semi submerged/homing/killer container..... I haven't.

They are a risk... same same falling space junk and re-entering NK ICBMs ... that you just have to accept as remote but unavoidable.

Ice on the other hand... a real hazard in certain parts that I frequent esp in the spring ... is avoided simply by not sailing at night....


Avoiding reefs in the SoPac? Prudent Passage Planners Prefer Paper.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0117.jpg
Views:	106
Size:	216.6 KB
ID:	155398  
__________________
A little bit about Chile can be found here https://www.docdroid.net/bO63FbL/202...anchorages-pdf
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 04:01   #45
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,750
Re: Not another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
Ah... the red herring... which has nothing to do with the current discussion..
Not a red herring at all -- the purpose of passage planning is to MANAGE RISKS. They are exactly risks -- not certain events. We all use luck -- the whole trick is to reduce our reliance on it. This guy's luck ran out, and that doesn't prove that he was so much worse a skipper than the rest of us. Even if we are pretty sure that we would have planned that passage differently and managed THAT PARTICULAR risk better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
Avoiding reefs in the SoPac? Prudent Passage Planners Prefer Paper.
Sure, no argument from me, it's definitely better, but being practical -- who among cruisers covering long distances is able to keep up-to-date paper on board for everywhere they go? I found it overwhelming. I have paper charts stuffed under every mattress on my boat, and it was still not enough, and there is just no way for one man to keep it all up to date, and do anything else on board.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Have you ever been hit by another boat in another country? autumnbreeze27 General Sailing Forum 18 16-01-2017 12:14
Crew Available: India to east, One woman, one set of wheels, one world ruby1984 Crew Archives 4 14-03-2014 03:43
November 12th - Becalmed, bothered and bewildered (another riff on another song) and skipgundlach General Sailing Forum 0 15-11-2007 18:30
We're all commited at one time or another By Invitation General Sailing Forum 0 14-02-2005 10:06
Yup, Another New One! bsampson Meets & Greets 1 18-05-2003 10:48

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 21:13.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.