Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by weavis

Well, it really changed the landscape when I suggested to look into themselves and see what the problem was..

Look, I will take out all references to metaphysical, (That I never put in the first place) and make it easy.

People have personality traits. Kindness, arrogance, gentleness, etc.
People have attitudes.
People have dreams.
People have ways of doing things and priorities.

People are known for their core traits. These traits are what drive a person or what is reflected as being the motivating force in ANY situation.

A core trait will be THE common theme in equation.

A friend of mine who is a recovering alcoholic, once told me this gem.

Whatever the problem,
Whatever the situation that is causing dissension and strife, no matter what you think the problem is, if alcohol is involved,
Alcohol is the problem.

Now replace the word alcohol with the negative trait that an individual has.

We all have them. One clinic partner of mine was driven by greed. You just knew whatever deal he was in, it was for his benefit only and no one else. This trait led to him losing his share in the clinic after he tried to screw us all.

Replace the word with arrogance. Replace the word with selfishness. Replace the word with Laziness etc etc….

Any major negative trait in the mix will be a golden thread through out ALL SITUATIONS, and will be the reason in the main for the outcome of any development.

We all have them. I have them, you have them.

What usually happens, say for a person who is arrogant or lazy, is that essential necessary and important work in preparation, is either ignored, overlooked or deemed not required for the end result. The cumulative result is a substandard product.

If a persons core trait, is an overriding negative one, albeit perhaps masked slightly so as to not be obvious, it will surface at the point of no return.

A friend of mine recently made an observation on another colleague that I laughed at, but essential was true……. This colleague is young, cocksure, arrogant, self willed, critical of others, thinks he knows best and ignores wisdom. We have noticed several ‘mistakes” creeping in from time to time that have been shrugged off as “unavoidable”..

My colleague calls him “An accident waiting to happen”. He will take a decision too far and someone will get hurt. His personality traits are the root.

My suggestion to look inward, is something we all need to do. To reflect on whether any of our personality traits translated into a reason or causation or contribution to the situation that we find ourselves in.

Ultimately, we humans have a protection mechanism too, we subconsciously evaluate all external stimuli and balance words against actions and body language and results. For those of us that apply common sense, we get a “feeling” if someone is OK or not…… a sense that perhaps something does not add up to the package being sold to us and we keep our distance.

None of the above is specific to this situation, it’s a generic explanation.

What is specific to this situation is that a lot of C.F. members are critical of actions taken, and certain aspects of the preparation and some have questioned the probability of certain events occurring in the manner described.

I don’t place myself in any camp. My nautical experience is limited to my nautical experience and I am NOT a professional mariner. I am not a boat builder.

For me, the question is not what happened or the explanation there of.

The question is WHY.

Why do many not agree with aspects of the story?
Why do many question the integrity of the boat build and repairs?
Why do many question certain events in the sequence?

And ultimately…… Why are there questions of doubt at all?

If there is any validity in the comments some have made, then my hope is that the crew of Rebel Heart (deceased) will admit to themselves that changes have to be made. If there is NO validity, then they must continue on with their lives in freedom from a bad conscience.

The rest of humanity will make their own decisions about us.

That is all any of us can do.

Its the Nature of Man...
Suck it up..

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by weavis

A friend of mine who is a recovering alcoholic, once told me this gem.

Whatever the problem,
Whatever the situation that is causing dissension and strife, no
matter what you think the problem is, if alcohol is involved,
Alcohol is the problem.

Your friend has a thinking problem. Alcohol is but a symptom of that. Or was.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by weavis

........For me, the question is not what happened or the explanation there of.

The question is WHY.

Why do many not agree with aspects of the story?
Why do many question the integrity of the boat build and repairs?
Why do many question certain events in the sequence?

And ultimately…… Why are there questions of doubt at all?

If there is any validity in the comments some have made, then my hope is that the crew of Rebel Heart (deceased) will admit to themselves that changes have to be made. If there is NO validity, then they must continue on with their lives in freedom from a bad conscience.

The rest of humanity will make their own decisions about us.

That is all any of us can do.

I'm sure it was not intended this way, but this sounds hard on RH. There will always be some validity(your term) for post accident evaluations. That does not mean that RH should not be free of a "bad conscience".
Your descriptions of personality traits and the implication that they necessarily lead to the out comes of our lives is probably true in the broader sense. Only someone with a certain adventuresome personality is going to take a boat to sea for recreation. Its not clear to me how that information about their personality gives you a lot of useful insight into a rare accident.

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

I remember when we were planning the trip from Cabo to the Marquesas, one which we have done only twice, Jim knew that leaving from further south in Mexico would give one a longish period of lighter airs than we wanted to chance (about a week), and this was in a boat that could sail well in light airs.

Now, I'm wondering whether a Cabo departure point would have given the RH a significantly better wind angle? This question really relates to choice of boat, and all the heavy displacement Taiwan built double enders seem to me to be at a disadvantage in the light wind strength situations. And it would seem that if you're planning on running a water maker, you would need a lot of "extra" fuel, especially if you "need" to motorsail, for comfort or to maintain a previously calculated minimum days' run, which means either added tank capacity or jerry jugs on deck, which we've never done (just the one of water lashed in the cockpit).

Maybe, if one has a heavy displacement boat, you'd want to think a whole lot about what light air sails could move your boat satisfactorily off the wind in the 10-15 knot of wind speed range, if you want to make the Mexico to Marquesas run. [ To SailorBoy1, Mexico to Marquesas is probably the most logical stepping off point for north American west coasters who intend to cross the Pacific or circumnavigate. Its main disadvantage is that you have to go back up to Cabo if you've been enjoying the mainland, upwind and up current.]

Ann

Ann and Jim,

please forgive me for asking probably silly question, but I have no any real knowledge regarding the area...

Does it make any sense to go south from mexico to the Ecquador and try to cross to Marquesas from there?
I know it is much longer way, but can not it be better weather wise???

Just being curious...

Best regards

Tomasz

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I'm sure it was not intended this way, but this sounds hard on RH. There will always be some validity(your term) for post accident evaluations. That does not mean that RH should not be free of a "bad conscience".
Your descriptions of personality traits and the implication that they necessarily lead to the out comes of our lives is probably true in the broader sense. Only someone with a certain adventuresome personality is going to take a boat to sea for recreation. Its not clear to me how that information about their personality gives you a lot of useful insight into a rare accident.

The 'accidents' are not rare.. nor the poor state (in hindsight) of the vessel... many broach and recover.. many have failure of systems and/or boat integrity... many are unsafe in the eye's of others... many also have had to call in help for sick crew and.. from what I can make out with the USCG its a policy of 'One off.. All off'..
Did Eric have the option to stay on board if things were as bad as suggested.. (regardless of what he actually chose to do).. or even if they were not..??
From my understanding of past CG rescues and the debates on here that followed them.. I think not
The only rare thing about this event is that there was a young child considered to be at risk of dying..
I doubt anyone here thinks Eric made the wrong call.. if the child was in danger he did good..
I don't even think he did bad taking the kids..
I know folk who've given birth on board.. sailed the world as they raised their kids and only slowing down as they reached school age and felt an education amongst peers was a good idea.
My interest lies in his seamanship and choices made on route selection etc.. not so much as to criticise.. but as to hear/suggest better options... such as Jim Cate's saying a departure from further N is better for steadier winds and reaching a more favourable point to cross the Equator..
These are the things us 'Voyeurs' can learn from.. or assist those looking to learn..
Simple things like.. in theory an ocean voyage should only take 20 days.. carry food and water for forty.. and don't trust what you put in your tanks.. else you'll end up calling up a Container Ship for drinking water.... OOPPPPSSSSSSSSSSS

[Prairie Chicken]

Whatever the problem,
Whatever the situation that is causing dissension and strife, no matter what you think the problem is, if alcohol is involved,
Alcohol is the problem.

Now replace the word alcohol with the negative trait that an individual has.

Very astute! Or, as Boatie more succinctly suggests, Its the Nature of Man...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

Ann and Jim,

please forgive me for asking probably silly question, but I have no any real knowledge regarding the area...

Does it make any sense to go south from mexico to the Ecquador and try to cross to Marquesas from there?
I know it is much longer way, but can not it be better weather wise???

Just being curious...

Best regards

Tomasz

Not really in my opinion..
I motored most of the way to the Galapagos from Panama.. winds were very light and variable..
I share Jims opinion about starting off further N and crossing the Equator further W where the belt is much narrower..
But.. others may know better..

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Not really in my opinion..
I motored most of the way to the Galapagos from Panama.. winds were very light and variable..
I share Jims opinion about starting off further N and crossing the Equator further W where the belt is much narrower..
But.. others may know better..

Thank You Boatie

It clarifies the things much to me

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The 'accidents' are not rare.. nor the poor state (in hindsight) of the vessel... many broach and recover.. many have failure of systems and/or boat integrity... many are unsafe in the eye's of others... many also have had to call in help for sick crew and.. from what I can make out with the USCG its a policy of 'One off.. All off'..
Did Eric have the option to stay on board if things were as bad as suggested.. (regardless of what he actually chose to do).. or even if they were not..??
From my understanding of past CG rescues and the debates on here that followed them.. I think not
The only rare thing about this event is that there was a young child considered to be at risk of dying..
I doubt anyone here thinks Eric made the wrong call.. if the child was in danger he did good..
I don't even think he did bad taking the kids..
I know folk who've given birth on board.. sailed the world as they raised their kids and only slowing down as they reached school age and felt an education amongst peers was a good idea.
My interest lies in his seamanship and choices made on route selection etc.. not so much as to criticise.. but as to hear/suggest better options... such as Jim Cate's saying a departure from further N is better for steadier winds and reaching a more favourable point to cross the Equator..
These are the things us 'Voyeurs' can learn from.. or assist those looking to learn..
Simple things like.. in theory an ocean voyage should only take 20 days.. carry food and water for forty.. and don't trust what you put in your tanks.. else you'll end up calling up a Container Ship for drinking water.... OOPPPPSSSSSSSSSSS

What does this have to do with Metaphysics though


Really Phil, I agree with the post 100%. We tend to focus on the last domino that falls and disregard the first that started the chain reaction.

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=Palarran;1543752]What does this have to do with Metaphysics though QUOTE]

meta·phys·ics

noun plural but singular in construction \-ˈfi-ziks\ .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; } : the part of philosophy that is concerned with the basic
Cruisers Forum members
causes and nature of things
**** Happens

[DoubleWhisky]

[QUOTE=boatman61;1543757]

Originally Posted by Palarran

What does this have to do with Metaphysics though QUOTE]

meta·phys·ics

noun plural but singular in construction \-ˈfi-ziks\ .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; } : the part of philosophy that is concerned with the basic
Cruisers Forum members
causes and nature of things
**** Happens

L O L

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Palarran

What does this have to do with Metaphysics though


Really Phil, I agree with the post 100%. We tend to focus on the last domino that falls and disregard the first that started the chain reaction.

well thank you for getting it.

And I still distance myself from bringing metaphysics into the discussion in the first place......

[weavis]

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The 'accidents' are not rare.. nor the poor state (in hindsight) of the vessel... many broach and recover.. many have failure of systems and/or boat integrity... many are unsafe in the eye's of others... many also have had to call in help for sick crew and.. from what I can make out with the USCG its a policy of 'One off.. All off'..
Did Eric have the option to stay on board if things were as bad as suggested.. (regardless of what he actually chose to do).. or even if they were not..??
From my understanding of past CG rescues and the debates on here that followed them.. I think not
The only rare thing about this event is that there was a young child considered to be at risk of dying..
I doubt anyone here thinks Eric made the wrong call.. if the child was in danger he did good..
I don't even think he did bad taking the kids..
I know folk who've given birth on board.. sailed the world as they raised their kids and only slowing down as they reached school age and felt an education amongst peers was a good idea.
My interest lies in his seamanship and choices made on route selection etc.. not so much as to criticise.. but as to hear/suggest better options... such as Jim Cate's saying a departure from further N is better for steadier winds and reaching a more favourable point to cross the Equator..
These are the things us 'Voyeurs' can learn from.. or assist those looking to learn..
Simple things like.. in theory an ocean voyage should only take 20 days.. carry food and water for forty.. and don't trust what you put in your tanks.. else you'll end up calling up a Container Ship for drinking water.... OOPPPPSSSSSSSSSSS

Certainly agree about doing the analysis to better understand what really went wrong and how it can help cruisers make better decisions on future passages. A good 20 or 30% of this thread has focused on that. Totally disagree on that 'accidents are not rare'. For an individual or couple doing passages, accidents are rare. Passage making is not some high likelihood disaster. Failed passages with loss of the boat or life do occur. You hear about them on the interweb. That doesn't make them common for a passage maker. It makes them news.

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by weavis

well thank you for getting it.

And I still distance myself from bringing metaphysics into the discussion in the first place......

Really don't thank me. I don't get it at all but please don't try to educate me anymore. And being a ringleader then trying to deny it? Come on, you can't post 20 times in a row about this and then say "Well, I didn't start it".