Sad news about the Flying Pig - The Redux

[btrayfors]

Cam,

Thanks for picking up on that. They could certainly improve on the manner of data presentation, if only by putting "m/s" or "kts" at the headings of their tables of historical data.

The speeds in knots conform more closely to what Skip said he was experiencing. While these speeds are not extreme in any sense, one could imagine that with a long fetch (winds from about 50 degrees) they could kick up quite a nasty sea in shallow water. We know about those up here in the Chesapeake area, where the waves are steep and square sometimes.

In Skip's narrative he mentions several times falling off from a beam reach rather than "pinching up", in order to have a better motion. With a building NE wind this could well have resulted in his being west of his intended track to Marathon and, when the winds were by then quite strong, needing to come further into the wind than desired.

Guess we can speculate forever, but only Skip and Lydia know what really happened...at least during the periods they were on watch and alert.

Bill

[Paul Elliott]

I know I keep harping on this point, and this will be my last post on it, but I just don't get it. Perhaps someone can explain it to me?

For example, John of Swagman wrote:
------
Whilst we can all sympathise with any one in trouble, can I suggest it might be best all around to confine the assistance to practical stuff -ie if in the area getting along and helping?

There are a lot of people out there getting buy with less assets than they guys have - and not expecting others to pay their way either.

If anyone got wrecked close to us, sure we'd chip in and help all we could - but the help would be given in man-time, advice, or even shouting them a meal as above, all IMHO more appropriate than refilling a cruising kitty or paying for someone elses repair work.
------

My question is this: Why is a contribution of labor or advice seen as more appropriate than a contribution of money? For some people time is more valuable than money, so a cash donation is less of a hardship. Why is there this strong negative reaction to people giving money? Perhaps the reaction comes from those who have more time than money (and this is probably the case for most people). Still, it seems to be a very deep-seated feeling.

I fail to see the distinction. Is a gift of $5 somehow worth more than a day's labor? Again, for the record I have not given time or money to Flying Pig, and have no plans to do so. I am just mystified by all the reactions.

O.K.- my next posting will be boat-related!

-Paul

[GordMay]

Many cruisers have had to sacrifice income, in favour of the time to cruise. Though precious, time is what cruisers have.

[Starbuck]

Paul, et al,

I believe the idea behind giving "in kind" contributions instead of cash is that a hot meal cannot be mis-spent in the same way cash can, and so make a sucker out of the giver. The same type of rationale goes into decisions people sometimes make concerning panhandlers one encounters in public places: will the money I give this guy go for the meal he says he wants, or for a half-pint of Old Rotgut from the corner store?

Offering to buy him a sandwich with that fiver prevents the latter outcome. Not a fool-proof protection, but some think it a useful one.

I'm not commenting on Skip's character here: I don't know the man and haven't been following the story. I'm just illustrating the psychology of potential givers, and why donations of food & materiel, time, etc. are deemed to be "safer" for the giver.

[FrankZ]

It seems that, sometimes, giving cash is equated with welfare cases (a negitive view) and giving time or food directly is seen as helping out (positive view).

And I also agree with CaptainJeff about the misappropration of funds, from personal experience.

[David_Old_Jersey]

The main problem I have is that I know these folks have money to meet their short term needs until they get back on their feet......cos' no one tries to sail off into the sunset flat broke. (and in due course they will be getting insurance payouts or, shock horror , going to get jobs).

The basic position is that instead of spending their cruising kitty on repairing their boat they would prefer to use someone else's money.

To be honest part of me admires their cheek for trying this on , but what upset me initially (I have calmed down a bit now ) was the implication from the original post that the position was different. And subsequently that not paying for someone else's lifestyle just because we share an interest was somehow ungenerous........

Anyway, my last post also on the subject

[michael201]

Someone said in an earlier post that they didn't have the "crew" needed for this trip. I hope you ment that the crew wasn't experienced enough or that made critically poor decisions. There are plenty of couples out there with the experience necessary to make the trip they were on without additional crew. Obviously I believe that will also depend on the boat they are on and how it's rigged. It seems they had a vessel that a couple could handle, even in the sea conditions they were in. With my limited experience I can still see there were several mistakes made that brought them to where they went aground. All I had to do was read how she was doing during her watch and it seems obvious to me that was the ultimate issue.

[btrayfors]

Michael,

Yes, precisely. Of course there are couples who could have handled these conditions with aplomb. And, there are even singlehanders who could have done it as well.

The issue here, it would seem, was a couple unprepared for the conditions they ultimately faced. From their own narrative, this appeared to have been because:

1. Lydia suffered from incapacitating seasickness;
2. Lydia wasn't really versed in electronic navigation;
3. Skip suffered from a heart condition, which made Lydia very protective of him;
4. Skip was exhausted and sleeping below when the boat neared the treacherous shoals;
5. Neither appeared to have had RECENT sailing experience; they'd spent years working on their boat in a yard;
6. They were trying to meet a schedule in the Bahamas; and
7. It must be said: better planning, even with the 6 strikes against them noted above, could likely have avoided this disaster.

To my mind, "better planning" would have included a hard look at their capabilities and weaknesses, and taking aboard an extra experienced crew member for this trip.

Thank heavens they got out of it with their lives, and their boat nearly intact (even if it's totaled by the insurance company, it's obvious that this boat has many years more sailing to do).

While I'm also appreciative of Skip and Lydia's narratives for bringing their saga to the attention of the cruising world, I think they are risking more than they should by doing this. There are serious insurance and liability issues which are yet to be settled, and IMHO they need to sign off the airwaves, pay 110% attention to their boat and the legal concerns and, when that's all sorted out perhaps get back to the blogging and newsgroups and discussion boards and all that.

JMHO,

Bill