RAINMAKER DISMASTED OFF HATTERAS IN GALE
- Thread starter DryArmour
- Start date
Bostonbowman
Member
If the sea state and conditions were such to bring down the rig, I would think a RIB would be swamped pretty quickly.
The cats I have sailed, while a bit smaller than Rainmaker, could be handled just fine on one engine. You wouldn't want to do any tight docking maneuvers, but driving home would have been no problem. Other things must have been in play. The Alpha 42 had one engine and no rudders - a bit different.
My former boss used to motor his 42' cat on one engine when he needed to conserve fuel. Probably difficult during the storm, but could have been attempted after riding out the storm. Of course, after the storm it also would be possible to clear the fouled prop.
To what end? Motor home? Maneuver alongside a ship? Where are we going?
Given the sea state and the deteriorating forecast, I think putting a sole in a rib along side would have resulted in death.
Not to mention they probably had enough gasoline for what? 4 hours?
I think its a great idea in protected water in flat conditions, but in reality.........
mad
Super Anarchist
The rib would have been torn to shit in minutes, most likely injuring the crew as well.
Moonduster
Super Anarchist
- 4,823
- 231
Sure, in many cases the general public has absolutely no right to know what happened in incidents such as this. However, when you're plucked off a disabled yacht at government expense, there is no justification for no investigation and any investigation is, by definition, public property. This is done beautifully in the UK and also in the US for any aircraft incidents. Why it's not done routinely for small boat incidents is beyond me. But again, the owner, crew and manufacturer lost their rights to privacy in many aspects of this situation when they pushed that button.
That doesn't create an onus on their part to put the details on the table and it likely creates an onus to clam up until official investigations have concluded. But they can't have it both ways and when they try, it speaks volumes about their ethics.
Certainly the principals involved - those on the boat, from Gunboat and from Sailing Anarchy - have demonstrated that they lack principles. They're seeking support, good will and income in the face of catastrophe narrowly averted (at public expense) but they offer nothing in return. It's a poor showing to be sure, one that is all-too-familiar from Sailing Anarchy. Their hypocrisy is only small when compared to the vitriol they use to denounce those who gently ask "what the fuck"?
That said, based on my own experiences of disaster narrowly averted (with neither public expense nor insurance involvement) is that those who participate in such threads are, with few exceptions, a bunch of cunts. They lack reading comprehension, they fail to realize that shit happens irrespective of preparation, foresight and best efforts in the moment, the delight in monday-morning-quarterbacking and they have a self righteousness found only by those who post anonymously on the internet.
But the real story here is yet another wealthy American who sets out to break all the rules, feeling entitled to be disruptive because it's his right and his privilege and it doesn't infringe on anyone. But when the shit hits the fan, said individual doesn't hesitate to draw down public services and resources to save his own ass. Banking, real estate, medicine and yachting - it's no different anywhere one looks. It's this phenomena that's most alarming. The rest of this shit could have happened to anyone.
That doesn't create an onus on their part to put the details on the table and it likely creates an onus to clam up until official investigations have concluded. But they can't have it both ways and when they try, it speaks volumes about their ethics.
Certainly the principals involved - those on the boat, from Gunboat and from Sailing Anarchy - have demonstrated that they lack principles. They're seeking support, good will and income in the face of catastrophe narrowly averted (at public expense) but they offer nothing in return. It's a poor showing to be sure, one that is all-too-familiar from Sailing Anarchy. Their hypocrisy is only small when compared to the vitriol they use to denounce those who gently ask "what the fuck"?
That said, based on my own experiences of disaster narrowly averted (with neither public expense nor insurance involvement) is that those who participate in such threads are, with few exceptions, a bunch of cunts. They lack reading comprehension, they fail to realize that shit happens irrespective of preparation, foresight and best efforts in the moment, the delight in monday-morning-quarterbacking and they have a self righteousness found only by those who post anonymously on the internet.
But the real story here is yet another wealthy American who sets out to break all the rules, feeling entitled to be disruptive because it's his right and his privilege and it doesn't infringe on anyone. But when the shit hits the fan, said individual doesn't hesitate to draw down public services and resources to save his own ass. Banking, real estate, medicine and yachting - it's no different anywhere one looks. It's this phenomena that's most alarming. The rest of this shit could have happened to anyone.
billy backstay
Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
Went over to Scuttlebutt to see if they had anything? Just a blurb 3 weeks ago.
FWIW, while cruising down their front page I couldn't help but notice that they have heaps more REAL stories about sailing all over the world; shitload more good content than found here.............. Now I'll probably get flicked, eh? :wacko:
http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/02/01/us-coast-guard-busy-catastrophes-coasts/
FWIW, while cruising down their front page I couldn't help but notice that they have heaps more REAL stories about sailing all over the world; shitload more good content than found here.............. Now I'll probably get flicked, eh? :wacko:
http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/02/01/us-coast-guard-busy-catastrophes-coasts/
Last edited by a moderator:
jwaldron
Anarchist
Do remember, they had pretty stout seas. And a course to windward. And four, five hours fuel for the OB at most. I don't think they would have made it home by rib even after the wind eased and the seas dropped.
It would be interesting to see a demo of your 65,000 lbs. making 8 Kt against 5-7 foot seas driven by your rib. Should be fun on board; take your wife and grandkids on that run. Just another picnic.
Seems to me, these guys had a good survival strategy available: put out a drogue and wait out the wx and then clear the prop and motor "home." With a multimillion dollar vessel underneath, there would have to be more than a fallen rig and a line around the prop shaft to justify abandonment. Admittedly, a scared and seasick owner could, in fact, amount to a hell of a lot more. The whining of the owner's son might have grown intolerable. Or maybe they were worried about running out of rum.
Even if you give these guys the benefit of the doubt on the decision to go given the forecast, the decision to abandon seems a bit unprofessional unless there is more than has been said. Those who defend the pros on board haven't offered up any explanation for that state of affairs -- even as hearsay or speculation. A defense based on the representation that they are "good guys" is no defense at all. I'll happily concede that they are good guys, but that has nothing to do with the abandonment of RM.
And the fact that the pros are "good guys" has nothing to do with the fact that the rig came down. Even good guys can have occurances of human error. And being good guys can't prevent component failure, whether that stems from poor engineering, poor construction, poor component fabrication or poor boat handling in robust conditions.
Then there's the issue of right to know: we have none. Even the public funds expenditure argument has no teeth, since detailed reporting to the public of the causes of abandonments or the causes of damage that leads to abandonment is not the CG's mandate.
On the other hand, we have legitimate reasons to want to know. Perhaps as wanting to evaluate GB as a candidate builder for our next boat. Perhaps as sailors who are concerned with keeping our rigs standing and hoping to benefit from information about this mode of failure. Perhaps as sailors who are planning a voyage along the NC coast and wanting to know more about this sudden "microburst" that collapsed the rig or those who hope to learn more about "microbursts" and hope to learn enough to avoid them. Hall sticks are standing up quite well all over the world but there have been more than this one come down on a GB. What's up with that? And so on.
At a certain point, the interests of those involved begin to diverge. Some of the parties potentially have a lot to lose and if they have a strong case that none of this mess is on them, they will have a considerable incentive to speak up to defend their interests. I suspect we'll hear something more in time. In the meantime, reputations continue to suffer because of the silence.
I'll say it again: if they were gagged because of legal insurance issues, they would be properly gagged, not selective/pretend gagged. It's been said by people who would know that PJ is talking freely about it to prospective buyers, and to current owners. I wouldn't be surprised if PJ is also talking to SA and other industry persons who are sympathetic (we could be told, and would be if this was responsible media). The crew or some of them have talked to Soma and co.
So all of those people can be asked about what they've been told and while they can stay mum for now, they can be deposed if it goes that way. Their emails discovered. The story Clean has written but not published dug out and read. And so on.
So it's tiresome to say that the silence is reasonable for that reason.
I think GB is silent because the calculation is that openness will hurt more than silence on a PR/commercial level. They're probably wrong, and asking a bunch of atheists to pray and then pissing their pants makes them look like twats, but it's still the most likely explanation.
GB's maths will always be about the bottom line. Even if the guts of the story is less about the boat, and more about the owner, an assessment may have been made that fewer sales will be lost by this bizarre silence than by laying blame on a rich guy. I can imagine that their potential owners might turn back to buying an Outremer or a chopper or pay to get walked up Everest or something if they start seeing that even GB doesn't see them as "special", "discerning", and part of that "family" and more like vain, moneyed suckers, who can't actually sail the boats they buy.
SA's silence is in a different category of course. This isn't a commercial metric it's an existential one about whether it's journalism or not. And it's not even pretending to report, or subscribe to journalism ethics 101. So who can trust it now in any postiive comments about any advertiser on the site? Or potential advertiser?' At least we can still trust it to mock backyarders and poor boaties who have cockups, which is a nice synergy with the awful, elitist vibe of the GB family, where "special" means "rich".
So all of those people can be asked about what they've been told and while they can stay mum for now, they can be deposed if it goes that way. Their emails discovered. The story Clean has written but not published dug out and read. And so on.
So it's tiresome to say that the silence is reasonable for that reason.
I think GB is silent because the calculation is that openness will hurt more than silence on a PR/commercial level. They're probably wrong, and asking a bunch of atheists to pray and then pissing their pants makes them look like twats, but it's still the most likely explanation.
GB's maths will always be about the bottom line. Even if the guts of the story is less about the boat, and more about the owner, an assessment may have been made that fewer sales will be lost by this bizarre silence than by laying blame on a rich guy. I can imagine that their potential owners might turn back to buying an Outremer or a chopper or pay to get walked up Everest or something if they start seeing that even GB doesn't see them as "special", "discerning", and part of that "family" and more like vain, moneyed suckers, who can't actually sail the boats they buy.
SA's silence is in a different category of course. This isn't a commercial metric it's an existential one about whether it's journalism or not. And it's not even pretending to report, or subscribe to journalism ethics 101. So who can trust it now in any postiive comments about any advertiser on the site? Or potential advertiser?' At least we can still trust it to mock backyarders and poor boaties who have cockups, which is a nice synergy with the awful, elitist vibe of the GB family, where "special" means "rich".
Edith Bicknell
Banned
- 2,689
- 0
- Banned
- #772
Heard from a good source everyone is clamming up because there are movie rights deals being discussed. I think they are checking Redfords schedule to see if he can play the disruptive asshole.
Monkey
Super Anarchist
- 11,380
- 3,052
It's not rocket science. Gunboat is a bit of an oddity. The bulk of us that frequent SA aren't, and will never be Gunboat customers. Pissing us off is pretty much harmless, however any story that makes them look bad is a potential bomb on the interwebs to real buyers. Clean and Ed are happy little whores to maintain the status quo their sponsors dictate.
Moonduster
Super Anarchist
- 4,823
- 231
See how that buffed right out?
Agree, but the whole strategy relies upon the GB buyers being so disruptively special that they would never read the forums. It's definitely not their plan to turn up in an anchorage knowing that people on the other boats think they're idiots.
mad
Super Anarchist
NoStrings
Super Anarchist
Well, nothing actually went wrong so there's really nothing to discuss. The wx was great, the crew most excellent, and the boat performed as advertised. Nothing to see here.
βhyde
Super Anarchist
"Disruptive Technology" is just another overused buzzword designed to dupe naive customers into buying shit they don't understand. It's the millennial version of "Paradigm Shift." Both terms have absolutely no meaning and are only used by marketing departments that have no clue what to say about their product or in Dilbert cartoons.
"Our boats incorporate the latest in disruptive technology to bring about a whole paradigm shift in offshore catamaran sailing."
"Our boats incorporate the latest in disruptive technology to bring about a whole paradigm shift in offshore catamaran sailing."
billy backstay
Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
Not sure I agree with that?? But, I could find no credible definition for Disruptive technology. Google pointed me to PopSci.com, but could not find the nugget.
From Dictionary.com:
"paradigm shift
noun
1. a dramatic change in the paradigm of a scientific community, or a change from one scientific paradigm to another.
2. a significant change in the paradigm of any discipline or group: Putting skilled, tenured teachers in failing schools would cause a paradigm shift in teaching and education"
Rasputin22
Rasputin22
- 14,593
- 4,121
I think that it was actually Dogbert that came up with the term.
