Another rescue in USA-Trio

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

One report said they had a drogue out and the bridle parted. That's when they pushed the button.

Also that conditions had calmed at the time of rescue. They were surfing done wind at high teens under bare pole.

Not so, if the historical weather data from the Frying Pan buoy is to be believed...

Here is the data for the 14th and 15th... They pushed the Eject Button at around 1800, and taken off by the helo crew around 2 hours later...

At 1800, the breeze at Frying Pan was in the 30 knot range. By midnight, it has built to a steady 40. By noon the following day, it had diminished to 20...

If it had been their intent to be 60 NM off Cape Fear at PRECISELY the time of the passage of the frontal boundary of one of the most powerful winter storms to develop in the Atlantic waters off the Eastern seaboard over those waters, they could not possibly have timed it any better...

Unfathomable... at least, in hindsight... ;-)

[Wrong]

As y'all know it's not the wind that gets ya, it's the waves. Furthermore, if you're on a bike or in a car racing downhill with busted brakes, there's gonna be more than a fair middlin amount of fear in ya. Even if the wind has abated somewhat it don't mean the waves ain't still up... So, you're on a multi hull considered a rocket ship when compared to most, likely pretty hard to control without sails. Yer exhausted and the brakes (drogue) are gone. A 14 year old your responsible for is aboard. I'm no multi fan and my total knowledge about them is almost nil, but I understand even with sails heaving to like a mono is is not recommended. If the conditions off Pan Cake were as described earlier, and safety of the vessel and crew could not be guaranteed, then considering everything else, bailing may have been the best choice from where the skipper sat. His call.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Not so, if the historical weather data from the Frying Pan buoy is to be believed...

Here is the data for the 14th and 15th... They pushed the Eject Button at around 1800, and taken off by the helo crew around 2 hours later...

At 1800, the breeze at Frying Pan was in the 30 knot range. By midnight, it has built to a steady 40. By noon the following day, it had diminished to 20...

If it had been their intent to be 60 NM off Cape Fear at PRECISELY the time of the passage of the frontal boundary of one of the most powerful winter storms to develop in the Atlantic waters off the Eastern seaboard over those waters, they could not possibly have timed it any better...

Unfathomable... at least, in hindsight... ;-)

You can't quote 'data' reliably, yet alone over the reports of someone that is actually on scene. Anyone who sails knows that weather data and expectations can be as much as 40% off at any given time. If they said they were surfing down wind at high teens under bare poles then I have no reason to doubt them. . what you are doing is typical definition of an 'armchair sailor'.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You can't quote 'data' reliably, yet alone over the reports of someone that is actually on scene. Anyone who sails knows that weather data and expectations can be as much as 40% off at any given time. If they said they were surfing down wind at high teens under bare poles then I have no reason to doubt them. . what you are doing is typical definition of an 'armchair sailor'.

Huh?

I was responding to the comment that conditions had "calmed" by the time of the rescue... The information from the NOAA data buoy indicates otherwise... The reports from the Frying Pan station have always seemed pretty accurate to me, and matched the conditions in that area, in my experience...

Where are these "reports from someone on scene" that cast doubt upon the accuracy of the data buoy, anyway?

And, if you look at the CG video of the rescue, the boat is under bare poles, drifting downwind... There's no way she is moving away from the crew jumping into the water at a rate of remotely approaching double-digit speeds...

:-)

[LEOCAT66]

Today my wife and I had the pleasure and good fortune to meet and speak in person to Mr. Frank Rawley at length. My impression of him is totally positive and I found him to be experienced, competent, credible and easy to talk with. We met by accident while purchasing marine hardware.

I will not share in great detail his description of the events, but his explanation of the happenings aboard the Condor lead me to believe that he made the correct decision that day.

Apparently the boat had lost power, a backstay had parted, he expected to lose his mast, sails were compromised, the droug had parted, and the air was in the 20's with huge breaking waves, and water was coming aboard and was accumulating in the interior. He could not head west due to the N/W wind an building sea with the sails in poor condition. He was trailing 200' of warps and had managed to slow the speed from 18 to 11 knots but had calculated that before too long at his speed he would be out of reach of the helos and no way to bring down the speed more. Still staying at the helm was essential to prevent broaching and turning turtle, fearing to do so would cause the loss of the entire crew, including the 14 year old, due to the elements. He remained at the helm until all others had been hoisted holding the Condor on course.

He apparently left on this voyage with a reasonable weather window allowing ample time for passage around the cape before it was to hit the fan. The forecast was off a little and the wind went too light too soon thus leaving them exposed in the worst possible place with the worst possible weather.

I am some what fimilar with the performance of the Condor and he did have the boat speed to avoid and make it south and to the ditch had the wind not died.

A friend from Turner Marine had a Condor which he purchased and sailed from Islamajaris, Mexico to Mobile Bay in three days.

I would not have gone out there at that time, but then I am used to 5 or 6 kts., not 15 and up.

This encounter reminded me not to forget, Walk A Mile In My Shoes.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You can't quote 'data' reliably, yet alone over the reports of someone that is actually on scene. Anyone who sails knows that weather data and expectations can be as much as 40% off at any given time. If they said they were surfing down wind at high teens under bare poles then I have no reason to doubt them. . what you are doing is typical definition of an 'armchair sailor'.

Well, we'd better notify NOAA immediately and let them know that their instrumentation that they use to gather data and build their weather predictions on is off by 40%.

I'm sure they'd be very interested to know of this huge margin of error.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

Well, we'd better notify NOAA immediately and let them know that their instrumentation that they use to gather data and build their weather predictions on is off by 40%.

I'm sure they'd be very interested to know of this huge margin of error.

There's always some sarcastic fool who knows better.

YES weather forecasting is advertised as much as %40 variation which every mariner and aviator should know about. Here's a link to our Gov warning on it which during the 1998 Sydney to Hobart disaster the coronal inquest recommended being much wider acknowledged.

I doubt that your weather forecasting is any more accurate. Hense, I doubt they need you to call them.

Marine Wind Forecast

[Dauntlessny]

Originally Posted by LEOCAT66

...

He apparently left on this voyage with a reasonable weather window allowing ample time for passage around the cape before it was to hit the fan. The forecast was off a little and the wind went too light too soon thus leaving them exposed in the worst possible place with the worst possible weather...
.

So, if you ever wonder what I mean when i say, you should never put yourself at risk based on a weather forecast, this is the poster child for what not to do.

To be in the North Atlantic in February, off one of the most dangerous coasts, is a bit mind boggling. The fact that in the long run, we (Americans) end up paying for such nonsense just makes it more annoying.

Sooner or later, somebody will decide, that we (US) will go to the more European system of sending the bill to those rescued.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

Well, we'd better notify NOAA immediately and let them know that their instrumentation that they use to gather data and build their weather predictions on is off by 40%.

I'm sure they'd be very interested to know of this huge margin of error.

Dont waste your dime. They, like every meteorological agency around the world and every sailor who has sailed out of sight on a dark night , already know.

From their Website:

Be aware that wave forecasts are an average. The height of some individual waves can be expected to be as much as two times greater. Reports of "rogue" waves of even greater heights are not uncommon. See FAQ question #14.

[LEOCAT66]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

So, if you ever wonder what I mean when i say, you should never put yourself at risk based on a weather forecast, this is the poster child for what not to do.

To be in the North Atlantic in February, off one of the most dangerous coasts, is a bit mind boggling. The fact that in the long run, we (Americans) end up paying for such nonsense just makes it more annoying.

Sooner or later, somebody will decide, that we (US) will go to the more European system of sending the bill to those rescued.

The cost is a non issue in my opinion as it is already in the budget and it will remain there and increase even if no rescues are ever on their plate. Be they on a mission or sitting at the ready, we are already paying. It is called taxes, from which we are now bleeding. The concern which I have is the exposure to the rescuers even though these missions provide unique and necessary OJT under the most extreme conditions.

No one else does it anywhere, any time, like the USCG, simply the best at what they do.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

There's always some sarcastic fool who knows better.

YES weather forecasting is advertised as much as %40 variation which every mariner and aviator should know about. Here's a link to our Gov warning on it which during the 1998 Sydney to Hobart disaster the coronal inquest recommended being much wider acknowledged.

I doubt that your weather forecasting is any more accurate. Hense, I doubt they need you to call them.

Marine Wind Forecast

You missed the point entirely. I said nothing about the accuracy of their forecasts, anywhere in my post.

The original poster posted actual SENSOR data, and you took him to task over weather prediction accuracy. I'm not talking about predictions, I'm talking about actual sensor accuracy. He was comparing the rescuee's recollection of wind speed and wave size to actual sensor data, which should be pretty accurate, or why bother to use it?

If NOAA gets sensor accuracy down to 4 or 5% (just a random, relatively low number) and their predictions can be off by 40%, can you imagine if their sensor data that they input to the models was off by 40%??

ARES Payload
PARAMETER RANGE FREQ. AVG. PERIOD RESOLUTION ACCURACY
Wind Dir. 0 to 360 1.71 Hz 2/8 min * 1.0 deg +/- 10.0 deg
Wind Speed 0 to 62 m/s 1.71 Hz 2/8 min * 0.1 m/s +/- 1.0 m/s or 10% ***
Wind Gust 0 to 82 m/s 1.71 Hz 3 & 5 sec 0.1 m/s +/- 1.0 m/s or 10% ***
Air Temp. -40 to +60 C 1.71 Hz 2/8 min * 0.1 C +/- 1.0 C
Pressure 800 to 1100 hPa 1.71 Hz 2/8 min * 0.1 hPa +/- 1.0 hPa
Sea Surface Temp. -5 to +40 C 1.71 Hz 2/8 min * 0.1 C +/- 1.0 C
Rel. Humidity 0 to 100% 1.71 Hz 2/8 min * 0.1% +/- 3%
Wave Height 0 to 35 m 1.71 Hz 40/20 min § 0.1 m +/- 0.2 m
Wave Period 0 to 30 SEC 1.71 Hz 40/20 min § 1.0 sec +/- 1 sec


So it appears the accuracy of the following sensors is:
wind direction is +/- 10*,
wind speed is +/- 10%,
wave height is +/-.2m
wave period is +/- 1 sec.

That's not too bad.

Now why do you insist on reverting to childish name calling when the problem apparently revolves around your lack of reading comprehension?

[socaldmax]

[QUOTE=Factor;1798779]Dont waste your dime. They, like every meteorological agency around the world and every sailor who has sailed out of sight on a dark night , already know.

From their Website:

Be aware that wave forecasts are an average. The height of some individual waves can be expected to be as much as two times greater. Reports of "rogue" waves of even greater heights are not uncommon. See FAQ question #14.

I'm not talking about weather forecasts or predictions, but raw sensor data. See my post above.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

You missed the point entirely. I said nothing about the accuracy of their forecasts, anywhere in my post


" Well, we'd better notify NOAA immediately and let them know that their instrumentation that they use to gather data and build their weather predictions on is off by 40%."

I'm sure they'd be very interested to know of this huge margin of error.

Now why do you insist on reverting to childish name calling when the problem apparently revolves around your lack of reading comprehension?

Your the one who responded with 'sarcasm', which I view as pretty damn childish. Clearly I was not the only one who misread what you were responding to. Perhaps you should consider the way you write so as to be better understood. Now if you can get off your high horse, perhaps you could explain the difference in meaning between 'weather predictions and forecasts", because you use both, which is why it's a little confusing.