Challenge: What Would You Do ?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by mudbug

You ARE kidding that the probablity of survival storms and needing spare parts are equal, right? Geez, I would not even joke about that and such a statement is, well, simply not true.

Has any boat been lost or anyone died for want of a spare part? While a storm management strategy may not get the regular work-outs that a spare parts cabinet will, I think the price for not having one is a lot steeper. JMO


Kevin

[mudbug]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Has any boat been lost or anyone died for want of a spare part? Kevin

The short answer is YES. Mechanical/engine failures and rig failures have put vessels on reefs. History is repleat with such incidents. SeaTow can probably give you some great big numbers to ponder.

But, that is not the point.

The remarks made about focusing on parts versus a morbid fixation on survival storms was a quote from the book "A Gentleman's Guide to Passages South" by Bruce Van Sant. It is his opinion and HE HAS been in a North Atlantic survival storm and sailed, oh I forget, something like 30,000 miles.

I merely pointed out his learned opinion.

My experiences in a paltry (not being snide -- it is paltry), 15,000 miles in four years in the Caribbean (I actually have a boat and I am cruising) causes me to agree with Van Sant: be smart and avoid storms. . . and make sure you can keep the boat running and avoid breakdowns that leave you in winds and currents that always conspire to put you on reefs and rocks.

I have never said that I, nor Mr. Van Sant suggested that anyone go to sea unprepared for storms, so I think that those who run roughshod over Mr. Van Sant's opinion to come to that conclusion are quite simply not getting the point he wished to convey.

Let's leave it at this: I would love to see a delineation of the it "happens numerous times" incidences of yachts/boats getting caught in 80 knot winds and 30 foot breaking waves while sailing along suggested routes and in the suggested weather seasons in Jimmy Cornell's book World Cruising Routes.

Again, lest confusion set in again, the very low chance of getting into such a situation if you are very careful DOES NOT mean you should ignore survival skills and storm equipment.

On the contrary: "When you go to sea you are entering an environment within which man cannot survive alone." That was the first thing they said at SeaSchool when Melissa and I both went and got our Captains' licenses. We take it very seriously and are fastidious in both safety gear AND repair gear.

Often, those two things go together. Tools like a big crowbar and sizable pieces of plywood and a cordless drill, sheet metal screws and lots of 5200 can mean getting cabinetry effectively ripped out to expose a hole that can then be scabbed over and sealed. We are ready to do that and MUCH MUCH more in the repair department.

The odds of a collision with debris are just as (and in my opinion way more) likely as storm threats.

I really think that is the essence of Van Sant's remarks. People can easily envision the Perfect Storm and are very fearful, but they are less likely to be JUST AS FEARFUL of a mechanical breakdown or a collision with debris having the same end result: loss of the vessel.

So, I say broaden the focus and don't take chances.

All the best and stay safe,

Buddy

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by mudbug

The short answer is YES. Mechanical/engine failures and rig failures have put vessels on reefs. History is repleat with such incidents. SeaTow can probably give you some great big numbers to ponder.

I'm sure it's possible to come up with an example to illustrate any point, but let's be realistic - if you lose your mast or have a catastrophic engine failure, even a well-stocked supply of spare parts isn't going to help you. How many boats have been lost for want of a cotter pin?

But, that is not the point.

The remarks made about focusing on parts versus a morbid fixation on survival storms was a quote from the book "A Gentleman's Guide to Passages South" by Bruce Van Sant. It is his opinion and HE HAS been in a North Atlantic survival storm and sailed, oh I forget, something like 30,000 miles.

No, it's not the point. It's also not one or the other - you can still be prepared for a storm and have plenty of spare parts.

My experiences in a paltry (not being snide -- it is paltry), 15,000 miles in four years in the Caribbean (I actually have a boat and I am cruising) causes me to agree with Van Sant: be smart and avoid storms. . . and make sure you can keep the boat running and avoid breakdowns that leave you in winds and currents that always conspire to put you on reefs and rocks.

I have never said that I, nor Mr. Van Sant suggested that anyone go to sea unprepared for storms, so I think that those who run roughshod over Mr. Van Sant's opinion to come to that conclusion are quite simply not getting the point he wished to convey.

Actually you're the one that used Van Sant's comments to further your point - the one where you essentially implied that anyone caught in a storm shouldn't be sailing. Now you tell us Van Sant has been in an Atlantic storm - should he also sell his boat? To compare any sailor caught at sea in a storm to a drunken pilot of an unsafe, unfuelled plane is contemptuous.

Let's leave it at this: I would love to see a delineation of the it "happens numerous times" incidences of yachts/boats getting caught in 80 knot winds and 30 foot breaking waves while sailing along suggested routes and in the suggested weather seasons in Jimmy Cornell's book World Cruising Routes.

Go ahead and research that. It takes weeks to cross an ocean and it is simply impossible to forecast that far in advance. While routing gives the most favourable weather statistically, it does not guarantee it and certainly does not preclude the occurrence of storms.

Again, lest confusion set in again, the very low chance of getting into such a situation if you are very careful DOES NOT mean you should ignore survival skills and storm equipment.

I don't get it? So you advocate knowing what to do in a storm (making you a good sailor), but suggest that if you actually get in a storm, you're a bad sailor???

So, I say broaden the focus and don't take chances.

OK, so in the original scenario you're fully stocked with parts, have gobs of resin, loads of cloth and enough plywood to open a chandlery; and all your PM is done - you haven't collided with anything and nothing has broken when you're caught in the aforementioned storm. Happy?


Kevin

[mudbug]

"catastrophic engine failure"?????

Hmmm.... I guess I'll hope for a mere simple engine failure ... reefs will clear a path for drifting vessels with those types of simple engine problems.

Hey, I just have a different opinion and you are attacking me for poking a little fun about the 100 miles out and getting caught in 80 knot winds and 30 foot breaking waves.

You are changing the fact pattern to suit your argument. The original post did not indicate a long ocean crossing. The only facts are 100 miles offshore and 80 knot winds and breaking 30 foot seas, so I can envision someone leaving in a terrible weather window. THAT DID happen to a Voyage 440 cat on the Pacific coast just last year. And it was a bad weather call that caused it.

I am still waiting for the facts of the numerous times that cautious sailors have gotten into the precise conditions set forth. Just stating an opinion that it happens all the time does not make it true.

Anyway, lighten up and be nice. My post was not any less or more humorous than the others that poked fun at the thread.

This is merely a hypothetical, not a real situation, so maybe that is why I, and others, poked a little fun at it.

So, why not just say that you are much more concerned about survival storms than I am, and I'll say I am not as concerned as you are.

No need to get all "testy" about it.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Peace, love and happiness,

Buddy

[Talbot]

Originally Posted by mudbug

You ARE kidding that the probablity of survival storms and needing spare parts are equal, right? Geez, I would not even joke about that and such a statement is, well, simply not true.

I certainly did not say that . That is the problem of not understanding risk management. Put simply, there are two elements to risks

1. Effect of risk occuring.
2. Likelihood of risk occurring.

Therefore the risk of not having spare parts is more likely to occur than that of a storm, however, the effect of not having that spare part is likely to be less than the impact of a survival storm. of course there are going to be specific incidences where not having a spare part is going to be a real problem - that is the essence of risk management where you balance the probabilities and the effects, and thus adjust the spend profile.

You need to use the same approach for a decision on what spares to carry, taking into account further elements: cost and difficulty of obtaining that spare in remote places, and weight/storage capability

[mudbug]

Talbot,

We are on exactly the same page. It cannot be stated more precisely or better than you just did.

Happy Thanksgiving, even if it is not a big day in Norway.

Now, I've got to go. . . departing on a passage today and I have work to do. So, I'm out of here. . .

Peace, love and lobsters,

Buddy

[George Raffa]

Sea anchor; 30 ft seas? Bare pole sailing; to weather? Bottle of wine and life raft!

[Cherp]

I'd go to storm sails, beam reach and poke it up into the wind between the worst of the gusts to maintain distance from shore. I'd rather sit under a shady tree though.

[Cherp]

Oh by the way...60k not not that uncommon in my part of the world. Matter of face, we had 80k only a couple of months ago, and a race fleet got caught in that.

[Wotname]

Out of interest, what is your part of the world?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by mudbug

Hey, I just have a different opinion and you are attacking me for poking a little fun about the 100 miles out and getting caught in 80 knot winds and 30 foot breaking waves.

And I have a different opinion and you accuse me of attacking you. I'm not attacking you; I'm disagreeing with you.

You are changing the fact pattern to suit your argument. The original post did not indicate a long ocean crossing. The only facts are 100 miles offshore and 80 knot winds and breaking 30 foot seas, so I can envision someone leaving in a terrible weather window.

Who's changing the "fact pattern"? The question had YOU 100 miles from land - it didn't say how YOU got there, how long YOU were out there, whether YOU were coming, going or following - if you envision yourself leaving in a a terrible weather window, then fair enough - I envision myself exercising prudence and good judgment and despite that, possibly having the misfortune of getting caught in a storm.

I am still waiting for the facts of the numerous times that cautious sailors have gotten into the precise conditions set forth. Just stating an opinion that it happens all the time does not make it true.

Who said "it happens all the time"? Don't expect me to do your homework - go ahead and research it yourself; start with Noonsite.

Anyway, lighten up and be nice. My post was not any less or more humorous than the others that poked fun at the thread.

This is merely a hypothetical, not a real situation, so maybe that is why I, and others, poked a little fun at it.

I wasn't sure if your original post was meant to be funny or serious, hence my response to it was decidedly tongue-in-cheek (how many deaths for want of a spare). To that you responded with a rather lengthy diatribe, which read like lecturing, not humour. So imho your post was less humourous than the others that poked fun at the thread
Now you're telling me to "be nice" after you've insulted any sailor who's been in a storm or has prepared for one - pot, this is the kettle, radio check, over?

So, why not just say that you are much more concerned about survival storms than I am, and I'll say I am not as concerned as you are.

I don't know that this is necessarily the case. I agree with you about one thing - a lot of people worry too much about the improbable events - just look at all the threads about Somali piracy - of the very small percentage of cruisers on these forums that will ever travel that region in any type of vessel, it will be an infinitesimal number that encounter pirates in any way, shape or form. But just because there is a small chance that something could happen, doesn't mean you should give it no consideration at all - the chance of your boat sinking/capsizing is very small, but would you go without a liferaft or EPIRB?

No need to get all "testy" about it.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Again, disagreeing with your point-of-view doesn't make me "testy".
My Thanksgiving was last month, but I hope you had a good one.

Peace, love and happiness,

And to you, Buddy.


Kevin

[Cherp]

Wotname...my part of the world is Hobart Tasmania Australia. Right in the teeth of the roaring forties.

[Wotname]

Ah, I thought it might be as Weyalan did mention something about 80+ kts in the Derwent a little while back.
FWIW, I plan to relocate to Port Huon next summer.

[Cherp]

Wotname. Very nice place Port Huon. We keep our boat at Kettering in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel. I could easily live and keep her in Port Huon. Good access to some fantastic cruising grounds.

[Wotname]

Shh...