65- by 32-foot catamaran 3200sqft of living space

Larks

New member
25
0
We chartered a 10 metre catamaran for 10 days in the whitsundays recently, and the anchoring equipment on that was a seriously hard lift, especially with the chain hanging straight down. The chain was marked with coloured tags so you didnt let too much out. Once it started to run out, watch your toes... there was no stopping it. You used the depth sounder to calculate how much chain you let out, and you used the motor to head up into the wind, lay the anchor, and drift back gently until the anchor set. A few times, it didnt, and the motor was critical in being able to do it at all. The instruction was that we were to run the motors when retrieving, or operating the capstan because of the load it put on the electricals... Get it wrong and the fuse would trip.

How he is doing it without power, without a capstan or anchor winch, without hulls strong enough to take a bridle and with undersized anchoring gear and chain.....?

Its a disaster waiting to happen...

And when he experiences 20 knots plus, when that pos starts bucking and sailing to its anchor like a thing possessed......

And then he will rig a tiny stabilizing sail on the stern... Just be sure to open the sliding door first though. No way will that sucker slide shut with any rig tension on.

And when something gives and it does seriously jam in the closed position or when the bbq flares up and wont let you out, how the fk do you get out ? No forward hatch... And this thing passed inspection ?

AI KARUMBA...

Please note, letting go your chain and dropping it all in a pile and drifting back hoping it will lay out and set is not actually the general practice for anchoring in Australia......

 

Timmys_Trick_Turkey

Super Anarchist
1,604
2
good grief. Research the term lay anchor. You dont drop the chain in one pile, especially on top of the anchor, or in a reef area. You let out a bit of chain to ensure the anchor is not fouled, and is facing the right direction, then a bit more to help it set, then as much as is required considering the depth of the water as you continue to drift downwind. My point was there comes a stage where you have a lot of chain suspended, and it requires a superhuman effort to let it out slowly. Depending on the length of chain used, and the depth of the water, it is possible for its combined weight to be more than you can retrieve without a capstan, Especially if the wind gets up or if the sucker starts sailing to its anchor..... I cant see the Rod ever successfully anchoring that sucker using chain without a capstan, a seriously good winch, and a whole lot more hull reinforcing. . An anchor fit for purpose might be a good start.

We chartered a 10 metre catamaran for 10 days in the whitsundays recently, and the anchoring equipment on that was a seriously hard lift, especially with the chain hanging straight down. The chain was marked with coloured tags so you didnt let too much out. Once it started to run out, watch your toes... there was no stopping it. You used the depth sounder to calculate how much chain you let out, and you used the motor to head up into the wind, lay the anchor, and drift back gently until the anchor set. A few times, it didnt, and the motor was critical in being able to do it at all. The instruction was that we were to run the motors when retrieving, or operating the capstan because of the load it put on the electricals... Get it wrong and the fuse would trip.
How he is doing it without power, without a capstan or anchor winch, without hulls strong enough to take a bridle and with undersized anchoring gear and chain.....?

Its a disaster waiting to happen...

And when he experiences 20 knots plus, when that pos starts bucking and sailing to its anchor like a thing possessed......

And then he will rig a tiny stabilizing sail on the stern... Just be sure to open the sliding door first though. No way will that sucker slide shut with any rig tension on.

And when something gives and it does seriously jam in the closed position or when the bbq flares up and wont let you out, how the fk do you get out ? No forward hatch... And this thing passed inspection ?

AI KARUMBA...

Please note, letting go your chain and dropping it all in a pile and drifting back hoping it will lay out and set is not actually the general practice for anchoring in Australia......
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bugsy

Super Anarchist
2,550
854
Canada
.... ...

Since when do "Harbor Administrators" help towing and anchoring sailboats?
Answering a question with a question- is the harbormaster's responsibility to keep persons (primarily) and property (secondarily) safe & in good order (ie unlikely to come to harm in the immediate future) in his harbor? If yes, the it may well be the harbormaster's responsibility to tow a vessel that cannot move any other way, and is certain to cause harm and/or injury where it is. Calling Sea Tow or the like would basically have been an exercise in wanking ...
I think that is the root of my concern. If I was the local manager of the SeaTow (or equivalent) operation, and I heard that someone from some level of government was doing for free (paid for by tax dollars) what I depend on for my business, I might be a little upset.

I have seen this a few times where government, sometimes for the best of intents, goes ahead and does something that is part of a competitive business marketplace. That is usually very inappropriate.

An example, I recall a situation where a coast guard ship took a disabled ship under tow. The ship was not in immediate danger and there was no risk to the crew. But the local salvage company, who rightfully should have done this work, was mad as hell that their work was being done by the government.

I think it fair to discuss the roles of government versus private industry in moving boats or ships that are not in danger.

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,867
3,652
.... ...

Since when do "Harbor Administrators" help towing and anchoring sailboats?
Answering a question with a question- is the harbormaster's responsibility to keep persons (primarily) and property (secondarily) safe & in good order (ie unlikely to come to harm in the immediate future) in his harbor? If yes, the it may well be the harbormaster's responsibility to tow a vessel that cannot move any other way, and is certain to cause harm and/or injury where it is. Calling Sea Tow or the like would basically have been an exercise in wanking ...
I think that is the root of my concern. If I was the local manager of the SeaTow (or equivalent) operation, and I heard that someone from some level of government was doing for free (paid for by tax dollars) what I depend on for my business, I might be a little upset.

I have seen this a few times where government, sometimes for the best of intents, goes ahead and does something that is part of a competitive business marketplace. That is usually very inappropriate.

An example, I recall a situation where a coast guard ship took a disabled ship under tow. The ship was not in immediate danger and there was no risk to the crew. But the local salvage company, who rightfully should have done this work, was mad as hell that their work was being done by the government.

I think it fair to discuss the roles of government versus private industry in moving boats or ships that are not in danger.
Really?

Heaven forbid the government should actually do something useful with tax dollars! The CG should refuse to intervene in non-emergent situations and insist that a situation develop into a crisis before offering to lend a hand, and then come down on top of that with heavy handed fines and penalties. Obeying the oldest law of the sea and assisting fellow mariners isn't the purview of the CG and they should leave that sort of Good Samaritan crap to the professionals who are paid to do it.

<<Sarcasm off>>

Go ahead, sue the f'in CG or Harbormaster (or complain loud enough) & force them to develop a policy and reap the rewards when drifting offshore and a federal vessel refuses to lend assistance. Then you can come back to SA and rail about the inefficiency of the gubmint and why cant they get things done and why your tax dollars are wasted on incompetents.

 

HypnoToad

Anarchist
649
117
+1 Philly.

Saying the CG or harbormaster or individual citizen should just sit back and let potentially bad things happen is BS. Sea Tow companies are vultures. There is a place for them, but saying they have "rights" to all in need is wrong.

 
I remember being in Florida on the ICW in the area that had lots of unmarked shifting sand shoals. The Sea Tow guys were just sitting there waiting for you to run aground so they could tow you off. Literally sitting there watching. If you asked them where the shoals were they'd ignore you.

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,345
10,162
Eastern NC
... ... ...

I think it fair to discuss the roles of government versus private industry in moving boats or ships that are not in danger.
I think it's fair to say that if private industry wants to make a profit from preventing bad things from happening, then private industry needs to

1- find customers able to pay which excludes HR/FH and

2- be proactive in prevention rather than playing the part of mafiosi and getting all ass-bent when you -don't- find your profit after all

I remember being in Florida on the ICW in the area that had lots of unmarked shifting sand shoals. The Sea Tow guys were just sitting there waiting for you to run aground so they could tow you off. Literally sitting there watching. If you asked them where the shoals were they'd ignore you.
Well, its not their job to navigate your vessel... however I know of lots of locations where the Sea Tow and Boat US operators are very helpful and not only willing to give good advice on local conditions but to actually act as guide through tough inlets... Hattaras is s good example, the guy there will tell you point-blank that he's just saving you so you can be a future customer rather than losing your boat in a spot where neither he nor God can help.

FB- Doug

 

Oberon5

New member
15
0
DFW
F*** Sea Tow, they will let you sink if you don't give them a credit card. Now for my all-time favorite beauty..

nk.jpg


 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,834
2,001
Punta Gorda FL
Who should pay for towing recreational boats? Taxpayers, most of whom don't even own boats, or the boaters themselves, possibly through buying towing insurance? Or possibly by whining pitifully when charged for a tow for which they could have bought insurance.

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,345
10,162
Eastern NC
Who should pay for towing recreational boats? Taxpayers, most of whom don't even own boats, or the boaters themselves, possibly through buying towing insurance? Or possibly by whining pitifully when charged for a tow for which they could have bought insurance.
I assume this is rhetorical question. HR/FH could not afford insurance and if they could it is very doubtful they would acknowledge the necessity nor be capable of judging the risk. You're trying to push rational thought onto the heads of some people who genuinely believe that life on a boat skimpily-built chipboard box is going to be an aquatic version of The Big Rock Candy Mountain. The only member of the clan who was gainfully employed worked at Wal-Mart.

Probably the fairest way to asses the cost of a job like towing Fly-unn How-why-unn is to get money from every waterfront property owner... no wait, that's not fair because FH threatens other recreational boaters too, and the whole Bay tidal area. How about if the waterfront property owners in the immediate area pay a higher share, then recreation boaters and fishermen chip in enough make sure effective action can be taken, then spread a lower (almost painless) fee among everybody who uses the waters around the Bay...

That'd be fair

.... congratulations, you've just re-invented taxes.

FB- Doug

 

jerryj2me

Super Anarchist
1,758
1
How about a safety inspection requirement for any new design before it gets splashed?

No wait, forget that, this is the USA.

Silly thinking on my part, forgive me.

 
Yes. Seems to me the FH itself is a strong argument in favor of naval building codes.
How about a safety inspection requirement for any new design before it gets splashed?

No wait, forget that, this is the USA.

Silly thinking on my part, forgive me.
HAHAHA! yes it is silly thinking. The cost of the raccoon eating up all the FH's in the USA would cost the taxpayers less than another bureaucratic mess like that.

 

SloopJonB

Super Anarchist
70,055
13,245
Great Wet North
Yes. Seems to me the FH itself is a strong argument in favor of naval building codes.
Ain't it always the way - assholes cause problems resulting in rules the rest of us have to follow.

The latest of those here is the requirement for an operators license - like a drivers license for boats. It was implemented due primarily to the havoc and deaths caused by assholes on jet skis and rented power boats.

Do you think there would be the same pressure to clear out the anchored boats in RB if the assholes with their floating garbage piles weren't there?

 

tls

Anarchist
693
0
I think that is the root of my concern. If I was the local manager of the SeaTow (or equivalent) operation, and I heard that someone from some level of government was doing for free (paid for by tax dollars) what I depend on for my business, I might be a little upset.

I have seen this a few times where government, sometimes for the best of intents, goes ahead and does something that is part of a competitive business marketplace. That is usually very inappropriate.

An example, I recall a situation where a coast guard ship took a disabled ship under tow. The ship was not in immediate danger and there was no risk to the crew. But the local salvage company, who rightfully should have done this work, was mad as hell that their work was being done by the government.

I think it fair to discuss the roles of government versus private industry in moving boats or ships that are not in danger.
I think you are confused here. Sea Tow would never help out FH. It would be foolish to call them. They only help people who either pay in advance or whose boats have significant salvage value.

As a private company, Sea Tow has a right to refuse jobs as fits their whims. This is why, ultimately, they cannot be relied on to keep public waterways clear of hazards to navigation or help boaters in distress. Public employees always have to serve as a backstop. It seems pretty odd to see a communist plot in a harbor master who does not refer a job to a private towing company that he knows they would never take.

 
Yes. Seems to me the FH itself is a strong argument in favor of naval building codes.
Ain't it always the way - assholes cause problems resulting in rules the rest of us have to follow.

The latest of those here is the requirement for an operators license - like a drivers license for boats. It was implemented due primarily to the havoc and deaths caused by assholes on jet skis and rented power boats.

Do you think there would be the same pressure to clear out the anchored boats in RB if the assholes with their floating garbage piles weren't there?
This is why we can't have nice things

 




Top