Larks
New member
- 25
- 0
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......
65- by 32-foot catamaran 3200sqft of living space
- Thread starter U20guy2
- Start date
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......
DA-WOODY
Super Anarchist
To me the shape of the Rabbit Hole the chain goes down
looks like it was intended for the chain to take that Post in-between to the Right
= Slight extra drag and it should cut the whip action as the Bitter End goes Bye
But I'm sure it's quicker to thread directly instead
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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
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.
Pedal-Force
Member
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
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
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
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
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
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
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
clewis3642
Member
Yes. Seems to me the FH itself is a strong argument in favor of naval building codes.
We are Rimas!
Anarchist
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
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?
DA-WOODY
Super Anarchist
wet nurseWhoaTed said:
MaxHeadroom
Super Anarchist
I just set the forum to Ignore all posts from Woody - At least until some n00b quotes his drivel.CowboyKell said:
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.
