Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by colemj

Ah, OK. Yes, there is a lot to be believed to reach that point. Both that the conditions to cause that happened (assuming the vessel was as sound as you say), as well as that those conditions would cause failures in the types of vessels I mentioned. It is difficult to picture our boom in the water in F5 conditions. In fact, we just did a marvelous overnight in F6 and I don't think our boom went any further than 5-10* closer to the water than upright.

Also, the conditions described, as well as a single knockdown (if that happened), has happened countless times on many boats not built to those scantlings with no structural damage. Google the internet for lightweight racing boats experiencing their mast in the water.

It is possible that other vessels may not have found themselves in that attitude in those conditions. Again, I know we would surely be lost if our mast was in the water. Are you saying that these were conditions that would capsize a multihull? Is Eric saying that?

Mark

They were in the Pacific! Could have gale from one direction and sizeable seas from another.

[JPA Cate]

Eric stated that he thought a counter current to the direction of the winds they experienced is what peaked up the seas.

Ann

[JPA Cate]

This is for Kenomac and others who have not passed that way as yet. The ITCZ can contain squalls, and squalls in the Pacific in that region sometimes have a lot more wind in them than one would at first expect. A knockdown is pretty believable, to me, especially with a fatigued crew, and conflicting wave sets.

I know HC's have the mystique of being "hell for stout", but they were Taiwan built boats, and as such, subject to the known failings of the type. Eric and Charlotte are too young to have easily have found out all the failings that made Jim (my husband) decide he did not want any Taiwan built boat any time any where. That there might have been a sealant failure seems not unimagineable to me.

Seventy gallons per day is a significant encroachment of water. Look at your dinghy fuel tank. Five gallons. Now figure 70, A lot of pumping. Now, a while back, there was a CF faction essentially expressing the opinion that Eric should have abandoned Charlotte and the kids to their safety (being rescued) and Eric carried on and saved the day with a successful arrival--suggested destinations ranging from the Galapagos to Atuona, in the Marquesas. Now exactly how he was to accomplish this with sails damaged, meeting pumping needs, repairing leaks sails, getting rest, and without crew has IMO not been satisfactorily addressed. I wouldn't want terribly much to stay aboard a boat taking on that much water, wuss that I am! I'd be concerned, what if it opened up more?

I think Kenomac's call of BS was a little over the top, and he has perhaps not yet stated his reasons for having a scornful opinion. If he should state them, perhaps he would no longer sound OTT.

Still and all, "Judge not, that ye be not judged also." We weren't there, we did not share their experience nor their concerns, so I think we should let Eric and Charlotte tell us what they want to, and we go think about it, as weavis suggested, we don't know nearly enough of EVERYTHING. Generalizing, and simplification, I'm afraid, will remove meaning from the experiences of Rebel Heart's crews experiences, and decrease our understanding.

Ann

[ka4wja]

Eric (Rebel Heart),
Welcome home!
I'm glad you and family are doing well.

Please know that the thoughts and prayers of everyone here are with you and your family (and especially that your daughter makes a full recovery).


Fair winds..

John
s/v Annie Laurie

[ka4wja]

Paul,
1) Easy answer...

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

John, You are correct. Thanks for the updated info. What Ham frequencies would you recommend for emergency communications? Maybe ordered by area and time-of-day.

With the usual caveats that it's no substitute for an EPIRB, nor HF-DSC radio, etc. if you wanted a ham radio frequency to use in an emergency, it would be 14.300mhz USB....used/monitored just about round-the-clock...

As I wrote above....
There is the Intercon Net, MMSN, and the Pacific Seafarer's Net...all on 14.300mhz....
14300.net

The BEST 20-Meter Net Going! | A member of the 14.300 mHz net family.
1100z - 1600z

Maritime Mobile Service Network
1600z - 0200z

Welcome to the Pacific seafarer's net | Pacific seafarer's net
0300z - 0500z




2) And, FYI....
The Maritime GMDSS Distress / Calling freqs are:

Voice: 2182khz; 4125khz; 6215khz; 8291khz; 12290khz; 16420khz...

DSC: 2187.5khz; 4207.5khz; 6213khz; 8414.5khz; 12577khz; 16804.5khz

Effective 01 August, 2013, the U. S. Coast Guard terminated its radio guard of the international voice distress, safety and calling frequency 2182 kHz and the international digital selective calling (DSC) distress and safety frequency 2187.5 kHz. Additionally, marine information and weather broadcasts transmitted on 2670 kHz will terminate concurrently

.


NBDP (SITOR): 4210khz; 6314khz; 8416.5khz; 12579khz; 16806.5khz; 19680.5khz; 22376khz; 26100.5khz;


Here is the USCG Calling/Distress Freq page...
DSC DISTRESS



Fair winds...

John
s/v Annie Laurie

[mbianka]

FYI The written transcript for TAL Rebel Heart broadcast is available now here:
Transcript | This American Life

[savoir]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

They were in the Pacific! Could have gale from one direction and sizeable seas from another.

That isn't possible in deep water other than for the first hour or so of the gale.

[IdoraKeeper]

Thank you for posting Rebel Heart. I heard part of the interview but not all. Glad all are safe. I will be interested to see which boat you choose for the next attempt.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by savoir

That isn't possible in deep water other than for the first hour or so of the gale.

It's not possible except it is?

WTF does that sentence mean?

Welcome back Eric, glad all are safe. Good luck to you and yours in the future.

Don't let the idiots get you down, and don't feel you have to justify yourself.

[savoir]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

It's not possible except it is?

WTF does that sentence mean?

Welcome back Eric, glad all are safe. Good luck to you and yours in the future.

Don't let the idiots get you down, and don't feel you have to justify yourself.

It means that in deep water the waves will always follow a strong wind except for a short period after the wind changes direction. Shallow water is different.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

The Maritime GMDSS Distress / Calling freqs are:

Voice: 2182khz; 4125khz; 6215khz; 8291khz; 12290khz; 16420khz...

DSC: 2187.5khz; 4207.5khz; 6213khz; 8414.5khz; 12577khz; 16804.5khz



John
s/v Annie Laurie

Hi John,

I'm not sure its good to reference 2182 at all as it may be put into presets that could be used in a future emergency and consequently NOT be responded to.

For instance in Australia there is automated listening on only the folowinf frequencies.

4125 continuous

6215 continuous

8291 continuous

12290 (0730-1930 South Australian time)

You will even note 12290 isnt 24 hours.

DSC

DISTRESS AND SAFETY CHANNELS

2187.5 4207.5 6312.0 8414.5 12577.0 16804.5 (kHz)

Why I feel its pretty important to give 2182 the boot is that Australia which has a similar land area to the USA doesnt have too many antennas

All GMDSS HF radio services are now provided by a new AMSA HF DSC network employing transmit and receive sites located at Wiluna and Charleville. These sites have been chosen for their electronically quiet conditions and strategic locations which give good coverage around Australia and well into the Australian SRR.

Note it does NOT cover all our search responsibility area, just "well into" it.

I dont know how many other countries provide a decent service in the Pacific or Asia, but those wanting to follow Rebel Hearts path, and/or use HF, may be better off without giving 2182 a thought...




Mark

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

I don't know of we are allowed to comment in this thread but I will and its nothing to do with Eric or his boat, but a general comment about the quote below



I find it's weird that so many people claim the old methods are good... And so good that they dont use, or little use the modern methods.

It just seems crackers to me for anyone venturing out to spend so much time learning the sextant (as Eric did) but no time learning DSC etc.

Or, for example, so into paper charts but they don't have Google Earth images and position in real time on Google Earth cached images, and a variety of ECN options.

That "seamanship" is so important and not running into ships so important but will not buy a modern device like an AIS Transponder.

Sat phone really only for work, and would not have been brought along for weather.

The weirdest thing about this particular sinking is that Eric is quite a young man... Much younger than most of us. But steeped deeply into the old ways.

Forum threads often seem to be biased towards the old technology... The writers who use the new kit just dropping out of a discussion whenever someone says "GPS - nice toy but wait till the satellites fall out of the sky"


Mark

You make a lot of valid points Mark and although I cannot speak for Eric...knowing him from La Paz, I can tell you he is in the same catagory as many of us who want to get out cruising. He, like myself, have humble means. I'm a novice Celestial guy and have a few GPS's like Eric. He nor I depend on Celestial navigation. It is more of an interest of how things were 50 to 250 years ago.
In as far as modern electronics...there is a limit to the amount of money a person is able to spend each year on the boat. I had paper chart for 2013, along with a fixed GPS and a back up hand held. Now tat I am back "shaking the money tree", I have acquired a water maker, more solar wattage,more safety gear and soon a mini, low power PC tablet with Open CPN. I think for people like Rebel Heart and myself, cruising is done on the installment plan.
Keep in mind, none of the modern day electronics would have prevented his boat being broached and the water egress.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by colemj

Being prolific bloggers, we had almost a blow-by-blow account of their passage. Seems like since they were noting when they had sex, they could have also thrown in a couple of words about being knocked down in horrific conditions. The two events were very close to each other in time...

So you are saying astronomical forces can cause failures of a "blue water cruiser" - then they could also cause failure for other not-so-bluewatery? Do you think all catamarans would have been flipped in these conditions? Are you saying that no huntabentalina could have survived the same conditions?

Because this one boat suffered, all others are less?

If you aren't saying this, then many of your (and other's) premises here have been scandalized.

Actually, you have said that if this boat's hull-deck joint failed, then the forces and conditions had to be astronomical. I find that disappointing reasoning of cause/effect from someone with your background. You have never seen a problem with a precious "blue water boat"?

Mark

I don't think you're catching on. Having worked in many a HC/Union, I don't believe you could cause that joint to fail by any method less than dropping it from a crane onto concrete. It would require several very large bolts to break, as well as the failure of the heavy internal laminate. Ingress of water I buy, failed hull/deck on a Hans, not so much. Unless hard stuff was involved, I just don't see it happening. Only way it would be possible is heavy previous damage.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by minaret

I don't think you're catching on. Having worked in many a HC/Union, I don't believe you could cause that joint to fail by any method less than dropping it from a crane onto concrete. It would require several very large bolts to break, as well as the failure of the heavy internal laminate. Ingress of water I buy, failed hull/deck on a Hans, not so much. Unless hard stuff was involved, I just don't see it happening. Only way it would be possible is heavy previous damage.

Yes, I can be slow to catch on. You are saying it didn't happen?

Mark

[minaret]

Originally Posted by colemj

Yes, I can be slow to catch on. You are saying it didn't happen?

Mark

Absolutely not. I'm saying I find it unlikely, barring severe previous damage. I wasn't there, I have no idea what actually happened. Anything is possible. And I certainly wouldn't rule out a factory flaw either, I just find it highly unlikely as well, once again having cut and ground into these boats many times.


Hatch failure, poor companionway seal, etc., yes. Totally plausible. I would even buy structural failure elsewhere due to rotten ply core. Almost anywhere on that boat except the hull/deck, which is about the least likely failure point in that boat IMHO. Pulled chain plate? I'd buy that too.