Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-04-2015, 20:01   #91
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,056
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

I'm ignoring the "steering problem" because the owner did not report or notice any problem. The USCG repair party supposedly found an unspecified steering problem--but there's no indication it couldn't be fixed, or would have been critical. It isn't why the boat had to be sunk and abandoned, it is just one more factor that needs further explanation.
__________________

__________________
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 20:11   #92
smj
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Boat: Searunner 38 catamaran
Posts: 3,654
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellosailor View Post
I'm ignoring the "steering problem" because the owner did not report or notice any problem. The USCG repair party supposedly found an unspecified steering problem--but there's no indication it couldn't be fixed, or would have been critical. It isn't why the boat had to be sunk and abandoned, it is just one more factor that needs further explanation.

Are you sure it wasn't why the boat had to be abandoned or sunk? I guess you were there? I think it would be a prudent decision to ignore your post.
__________________

__________________
smj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 20:25   #93
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,056
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Feel free to ignore every opinion you disagree with.


A catamaran in inherently stable under tow, it will go forward even if the rudders and steering and cut off or locked in the amidships position. There's no indication that the boat had any steering problems, just that it was taking on water due to the open hatches, and that following the USCGs failure to secure the hatches and dewater the boat, it capsized and had to be sunk.


No relevance to steering issues, but feel free to draw your own conclusions. It might very well have been taking on water not because of the hatches, but because a kraken was chewing on the rudders, and two of it's tentacles clogged the engine raw water inlets. Then the kraken started started bleeding, which attracted rogue narwhals, which punctured the hull and caused the flooding. All out of sight and not within the USCGs control.


But as I said, MY OPINION is that there were insufficient facts given and an inquiry is needed. If you'd bothered reading the whole thread, you'd have figured that out.


There's a handy "IGNORE LIST" in the userCP of the forum, please do use it to ignore my posts, if ignoring them is what your real point is.
__________________
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 20:25   #94
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Boat: Morgan, Out Island 36, Ketch
Posts: 123
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Just because one is sailing at 3 kts doesn't mean the boat is safe in any weather. what about the fuel system and engine.... and what about the steering problems?
__________________
Olde Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 20:27   #95
smj
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Boat: Searunner 38 catamaran
Posts: 3,654
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellosailor View Post
Feel free to ignore every opinion you disagree with.


A catamaran in inherently stable under tow, it will go forward even if the rudders and steering and cut off or locked in the amidships position. There's no indication that the boat had any steering problems, just that it was taking on water due to the open hatches, and that following the USCGs failure to secure the hatches and dewater the boat, it capsized and had to be sunk.


No relevance to steering issues, but feel free to draw your own conclusions. It might very well have been taking on water not because of the hatches, but because a kraken was chewing on the rudders, and two of it's tentacles clogged the engine raw water inlets. Then the kraken started started bleeding, which attracted rogue narwhals, which punctured the hull and caused the flooding. All out of sight and not within the USCGs control.


But as I said, MY OPINION is that there were insufficient facts given and an inquiry is needed. If you'd bothered reading the whole thread, you'd have figured that out.


There's a handy "IGNORE LIST" in the userCP of the forum, please do use it to ignore my posts, if ignoring them is what your real point is.

Read the first post carefully, hopefully you will figure it out.
__________________
smj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 20:29   #96
smj
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Boat: Searunner 38 catamaran
Posts: 3,654
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olde Chief View Post
Just because one is sailing at 3 kts doesn't mean the boat is safe in any weather. what about the fuel system and engine.... and what about the steering problems?

Point was the wind was light and that's probably why they had the hatches open
__________________
smj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 20:31   #97
Eternal Member
 
monte's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Boat: Lagoon 400
Posts: 3,650
Images: 1
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Quote:
Originally Posted by smj View Post
If you read the original post they were sailing at 3 kts. then the wind died.

Maybe fine for some. Before sailing all our hatches are shut tight and not opened till at anchor. Different strokes for different folks I guess. No offence meant for the owners. It's a sad tale and woulda shoulda coulda isn't very consoling.
__________________
monte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 20:35   #98
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,056
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Chief, the alleged steering problems, and I say "alleged" because they were not part of the distress call, and they were only incidentally discovered as potential problems to come by the same guys who, you might remember, couldn't fix either engine after three hours of three specialists, had nothing to do with the sinking. The cat was under tow, holding course, and the relevant problem was FLOODING followed by capsizing and sinking.


Unless you wish to make a WAG and speculate that "potential steering problem" means "you've got two broken rudder tubes"...the cat would tow just fine, and be salvaged just fine, without any vague mumblings about future steering problems. There's as much evidence the narwhals holed the hulls, as any steering problems EXISTED at that time, let alone played any role in the FLOODING AND SINKING.


Focus a little here.


1. Engines failed
2. Boat could have been left adrift, as is, happily ever after.
3. USCG and owner failed to secure hatches, boat flooded, boat capsized, boat sunk.


You see anything in the sparse and incomplete facts we were given that indicates a steering problem contributed to the theft of the strawberry ice cream? Neither do I.


And until I do, I'm blaming it on the narwhals whenever someone wants to play the "what if...fantasy" card. If they want to stick to the facts we supposedly KNOW....


People screwed up, the boat flooded, the boat sank. NO other factors, including engine failures, are relevant to the sinking, from what we have been told.
__________________
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 20:55   #99
smj
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Boat: Searunner 38 catamaran
Posts: 3,654
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellosailor View Post
Chief, the alleged steering problems, and I say "alleged" because they were not part of the distress call, and they were only incidentally discovered as potential problems to come by the same guys who, you might remember, couldn't fix either engine after three hours of three specialists, had nothing to do with the sinking. The cat was under tow, holding course, and the relevant problem was FLOODING followed by capsizing and sinking.


Unless you wish to make a WAG and speculate that "potential steering problem" means "you've got two broken rudder tubes"...the cat would tow just fine, and be salvaged just fine, without any vague mumblings about future steering problems. There's as much evidence the narwhals holed the hulls, as any steering problems EXISTED at that time, let alone played any role in the FLOODING AND SINKING.


Focus a little here.


1. Engines failed
2. Boat could have been left adrift, as is, happily ever after.
3. USCG and owner failed to secure hatches, boat flooded, boat capsized, boat sunk.


You see anything in the sparse and incomplete facts we were given that indicates a steering problem contributed to the theft of the strawberry ice cream? Neither do I.


And until I do, I'm blaming it on the narwhals whenever someone wants to play the "what if...fantasy" card. If they want to stick to the facts we supposedly KNOW....


People screwed up, the boat flooded, the boat sank. NO other factors, including engine failures, are relevant to the sinking, from what we have been told.

I agree. The only thing that made the boat take on water was someone not securing the hatches, end of story. The owners did not send out a distress call, they sent out a pan-pan to any vessels that would be able to give them a tow. They then texted their son who notified the CG. Point being, it seems as if the owners never felt the need to issue a distress call. I don't know why they were unable to sail but was told of the steering problem they had. Why did they open the hatches to begin with? Maybe no wind, temps in the upper 80's to low 90's and feeling the need to make the CG as comfortable as they could. I'm doing a lot of guessing here as I wasn't on the scene.
__________________
smj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 22:46   #100
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Boat: Morgan, Out Island 36, Ketch
Posts: 123
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

What ever the problems were with the Sunshine, she was not ready to go to sea. And to say that the CG should have left the Sunshine adrift in those waters to be run into by another vessel is wrong as well. The CG made the correct decision, and protected us all....
__________________
Olde Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2015, 08:44   #101
Registered User
 
Svan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: PDQ Capella 36
Posts: 59
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Apparently the story is true, I withdraw the BS-calling.

I've seen far too many stories to doubt the will of the CG to rescue mariners in trouble, Bill, don't get me wrong.

The owners must be heartbroken. Many lessons here for them.

Yes, PDQs have watertight compartments beginning an arms length under the forward deck storage hatches right to the bows. The diesel engine rooms may be watertight as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forumsx
__________________
Svan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2015, 15:51   #102
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 37
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olde Chief View Post
SMJ, I am willing to bet that 90% or more of those rounds hit the Sunshine hit her above the water line, as for scuttling charges those are not normally used except in movies....
Mostly I think used for sinking vessels for artificial reefs from what I have been reading.

But what if containers on container ships were fitted with timed scuttling charges so that they would not float indefinitely and present an ongoing danger? Could be a legitimate SOLAS issue.
__________________
wgewaldii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2015, 16:50   #103
Senior Cruiser
 
skipmac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 29° 49.16’ N 82° 25.82’ W
Boat: Pearson 422
Posts: 12,387
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Quote:
Originally Posted by wgewaldii View Post
But what if containers on container ships were fitted with timed scuttling charges so that they would not float indefinitely and present an ongoing danger? Could be a legitimate SOLAS issue.
Shipping containers don't float because they need to be scuttled. They are far from air tight and in fact leak like a sieve. The ones that float are because of the cargo inside that has enough buoyancy to float the container.

So a scuttling charge would only disperse the cargo. It might break up the container and let part of it sink but the contents would probably still be floating.
__________________
The water is always bluer on the other side of the ocean.
skipmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2015, 18:18   #104
Moderator
 
JPA Cate's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: aboard, cruising in Australia
Boat: Sayer 46' Solent rig sloop
Posts: 10,711
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipmac View Post
Shipping containers don't float because they need to be scuttled. They are far from air tight and in fact leak like a sieve. The ones that float are because of the cargo inside that has enough buoyancy to float the container.

So a scuttling charge would only disperse the cargo. It might break up the container and let part of it sink but the contents would probably still be floating.

True,Skip, but which would you rather hit: a container full of styrofoam crates with TV sets inside, or an individual floating TV set?

But really, one can't just have serious pyrotechnics like scuttling charges stacked up all over docks and ships decks/holds. The safety issues are kinda dire IMO!

A pity that there is no simple answer...

Jim, using Ann's computer
__________________
Ann, with Jim, aboard US s/v Insatiable II, in Oz, very long term cruisers
JPA Cate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2015, 18:21   #105
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,056
Re: The Sinking of Sunshine

skip-
I'd rather collide with a thousand bags of Doritos or ten thousand rubber duckies, or even a couple of hundred Adidas trainers, that with a steel container.(G)


"But what if containers on container ships were fitted with timed scuttling charges"
Oh yeah, I can just see DHS and their overseas equals doing the ruptured duck, when they find out someone has placed a half million explosive charges uniformly scattered around every port in the world.
What is it the Republicans from Texas say? "That dog ain't gonna hunt."


But you could apply for federal grant money to develop a combination optical and magnetometer scanner to mount on the foredeck (heck, make the boat a robot and DARPA will give you funding too) which fires a fifty megawatt laser at submerged containers, and clears them from the seas.


Troll a seive net and collect a mess of those plastic micro-particles at the same time, and I'll bet you'd have a nice fleet business going!
__________________

__________________
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Cruiser on BC's Sunshine Coast Cloak Meets & Greets 7 31-03-2015 19:40
New to the Forum from Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia multihull1 Meets & Greets 6 24-04-2010 03:24
Jeanneau Sunshine 38 hoppy Monohull Sailboats 2 15-03-2010 09:49
Vancouver > Sunshine Coast or Gulf Islands jcrozier Pacific & South China Sea 28 24-02-2010 00:37
Brisbane / Sunshine Coast to Noumea - Advice Wanted :) kar1 Other 6 17-12-2007 22:20



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 22:01.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.