RAINMAKER DISMASTED OFF HATTERAS IN GALE

[billy backstay]

There will be lessons to be drawn from my interview with Chris, but this is not an investigation, because frankly I have no interest in 'investigating'. I trust Chris enough to put my life in his hands on a boat, which means I trust what he says to me, period. Whether you do or do not...not my concern at all.

That does not mean I will get the whole story, because Chris can only talk about what his advisors have told him he can, and I am under no illusions about that. So instead of the complete story, I have the most complete story available, which for this incident, is plenty for me. If the USCG or US Sailing starts requiring detailed investigations for non-injury incidents, let me know and I'll pass along what I know (Cue someone screaming about how their tax dollars give them a right to know everything).

So Chris won't say more to you. Have you or your team spoken to GB or its people about this? What do they say? Have they had input on content?

Of course Chris has more to say, are you reading comprehension challenged???

"Stand by for Part 2" was clearly mentioned at the end of the report..!!

 

[JSoup]

Regarding the loss of Moonduster, I realized Clean was referring to the Moonduster Blow-by-Blow article that has been removed/archived from Latitude's site. In case anyone is interested, you can read it at the link below courtesy of the Way back machine. I think Moonduster deserves a lot of credit for sharing his tale in this way and hope it didn't somehow cause him harm. There are probably lessons to learn, just as in the Rainmaker loss:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100117094246/http://www.latitude38.com/features/moonduster.html

 

[bigmarv]

There will be lessons to be drawn from my interview with Chris, but this is not an investigation, because frankly I have no interest in 'investigating'. I trust Chris enough to put my life in his hands on a boat, which means I trust what he says to me, period. Whether you do or do not...not my concern at all.

That does not mean I will get the whole story, because Chris can only talk about what his advisors have told him he can, and I am under no illusions about that. So instead of the complete story, I have the most complete story available, which for this incident, is plenty for me. If the USCG or US Sailing starts requiring detailed investigations for non-injury incidents, let me know and I'll pass along what I know (Cue someone screaming about how their tax dollars give them a right to know everything).

So Chris won't say more to you. Have you or your team spoken to GB or its people about this? What do they say? Have they had input on content?

Of course Chris has more to say, are you reading comprehension challenged???

"Stand by for Part 2" was clearly mentioned at the end of the report..!!

No I'm not, you rude idiot. He said Chris had limits on what he could say based on advice, so there are limits on what he will say, which is what my first sentence was reacting to. The point in my post was the questions. Which I've asked Clean before and he evades. And if you think part one of the sanitised CB account is anything other than a puff piece while questions abound about GB's input (etc), then you really are an idiot.

 

[fastyacht]

Billy you are taking some heat. I thought Clean had that cornered in this thread.

<ducks>

 

[frozenhawaiian]

Billy you are taking some heat. I thought Clean had that cornered in this thread.

<ducks>

even by SA standards this thread is getting ugly

 

[Canal Bottom]

It's impossible for me to imagine that either the crew or the USCG would not have placed a tracking device on the vessel.....just for tracking and safety purposes. A simple AIS so other marine traffic knows it there. Then again, I could see the owner not wanting it found if she was damaged. Lord knows he probably has a sweet insurance policy on the boat.

Anyway.....crazy story for sure!

you can't place one, if you don't bring it...

AIS would only work as long as the boat has power - which might be a while, or might not be...

most consumer devices are only going transmit for a few days to a week

edit - the YB tracker lasts a long time.., but if they didn't have one...

it has been reported here that the USCG does not typically put trackers on abandoned boats

"it has been reported here that the USCG does not typically put trackers on abandoned boats"

The reverse is true. The USCG standard is to demand the vessel be scuddled. Somehow with only aircraft involved RM managed to avoid the scuddle requirements....

 

[RKoch]

It's impossible for me to imagine that either the crew or the USCG would not have placed a tracking device on the vessel.....just for tracking and safety purposes. A simple AIS so other marine traffic knows it there. Then again, I could see the owner not wanting it found if she was damaged. Lord knows he probably has a sweet insurance policy on the boat.

Anyway.....crazy story for sure!

you can't place one, if you don't bring it...

AIS would only work as long as the boat has power - which might be a while, or might not be...

most consumer devices are only going transmit for a few days to a week

edit - the YB tracker lasts a long time.., but if they didn't have one...

it has been reported here that the USCG does not typically put trackers on abandoned boats

"it has been reported here that the USCG does not typically put trackers on abandoned boats"

The reverse is true. The USCG standard is to demand the vessel be scuddled. Somehow with only aircraft involved RM managed to avoid the scuddle requirements....

Shoot it with Scud Missles?

Too disruptive.

 

[Canal Bottom]

Hey fuck face,

I lost one boat. I disabled the EPIRBs (both of them) before leaving it on the beach. There was no mayday. There were three e-mails including one to the USCG informing them of the loss/abandonment and to be sure the authorities knew there was no danger to any crew.

That there was no investigation has nothing to do with me - I'd have been happy to participate. But there was no reason for an investigation as there was no involvement of any public resources at any time in any way. I know the difference between these situations is hard for you to follow - but please do try.

In both situations, risks were taken and loss occurred. In my situation, I took the necessary steps to ensure no substantive danger to those involved would occur. In fact, I sacrificed the boat to ensure that the outcome could not involve injury or death. In the Rainmaker situation, no such steps were taken. And then, when things became a little awkward, those involved elected to draw public resources and public monies into the situation of their own making, adding to the potential for injury and/or death - willfully and recklessly.

Then, in the aftermath, I offered full disclosure and entertained extensive dialog whereas those involved in the Rainmaker incident first chose to beseech the public for prayers, then spurted out a few random, inconsistent, undefended blurbs. And your excuse for an interview is such a whitewash it's laughable - Rodney Dangerfield interviews Captain Ron. It was all chill, man ... I can't wait to read about the awesomeness of the helicopter ride.

Your vitriol and hyperbole don't change the facts. What is clear, is if I'd been a advertiser you'd be sucking my cock rather than making things up. You really are a pathetic excuse of a human being and getting worse with nearly every passing day.

Don't believe me? How about you issue an apology or at least a correction for the inane misstatements (or outright lies) in post 901, above?

Mr. Clean has clearly lost his objectivity recently. Only Clean or someone close to him can explain that away. There is no comparison to a live aboard in the remote pacific losing a boat to a reef and lee shore while aboard fighting a storm when an anchor rode parted. This thread is about a 21st Century boat, with three hired guns, and a seemingly unlimited budget. The weather gets bad as forecasted as known for the area and season. Only to find the crew demand outside assistance and then leap into the sea from the floating 55 footer at the first sign of a USCG helo.... The builder has made multiple claims of the boats being stormproof and unsinkable. Details were promised from multiple sources in writing here on SA and so far they are not made available.

One is the uninsured home of two sailors, the other the insured toy of the owner who hired in this case three "professionals" to maintain, protect and operate the asset and all it's passengers.

What the crew jump into the sea here:

 

[MR.CLEAN]

There will be lessons to be drawn from my interview with Chris, but this is not an investigation, because frankly I have no interest in 'investigating'. I trust Chris enough to put my life in his hands on a boat, which means I trust what he says to me, period. Whether you do or do not...not my concern at all.

That does not mean I will get the whole story, because Chris can only talk about what his advisors have told him he can, and I am under no illusions about that. So instead of the complete story, I have the most complete story available, which for this incident, is plenty for me. If the USCG or US Sailing starts requiring detailed investigations for non-injury incidents, let me know and I'll pass along what I know (Cue someone screaming about how their tax dollars give them a right to know everything).

So Chris won't say more to you. Have you or your team spoken to GB or its people about this? What do they say? Have they had input on content?

Gunboat has had zero input on content, and considering PJ's silence both here and on social, I'm guessing the lawyers have told Gunboat 'no comments from staff please'.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Hey fuck face,

I lost one boat. I disabled the EPIRBs (both of them) before leaving it on the beach. There was no mayday. There were three e-mails including one to the USCG informing them of the loss/abandonment and to be sure the authorities knew there was no danger to any crew.

That there was no investigation has nothing to do with me - I'd have been happy to participate. But there was no reason for an investigation as there was no involvement of any public resources at any time in any way. I know the difference between these situations is hard for you to follow - but please do try.

In both situations, risks were taken and loss occurred. In my situation, I took the necessary steps to ensure no substantive danger to those involved would occur. In fact, I sacrificed the boat to ensure that the outcome could not involve injury or death. In the Rainmaker situation, no such steps were taken. And then, when things became a little awkward, those involved elected to draw public resources and public monies into the situation of their own making, adding to the potential for injury and/or death - willfully and recklessly.

Then, in the aftermath, I offered full disclosure and entertained extensive dialog whereas those involved in the Rainmaker incident first chose to beseech the public for prayers, then spurted out a few random, inconsistent, undefended blurbs. And your excuse for an interview is such a whitewash it's laughable - Rodney Dangerfield interviews Captain Ron. It was all chill, man ... I can't wait to read about the awesomeness of the helicopter ride.

Your vitriol and hyperbole don't change the facts. What is clear, is if I'd been a advertiser you'd be sucking my cock rather than making things up. You really are a pathetic excuse of a human being and getting worse with nearly every passing day.

Don't believe me? How about you issue an apology or at least a correction for the inane misstatements (or outright lies) in post 901, above?

Mr. Clean has clearly lost his objectivity recently

recently? I think it was fall 1988.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Regarding the loss of Moonduster, I realized Clean was referring to the Moonduster Blow-by-Blow article that has been removed/archived from Latitude's site. In case anyone is interested, you can read it at the link below courtesy of the Way back machine. I think Moonduster deserves a lot of credit for sharing his tale in this way and hope it didn't somehow cause him harm. There are probably lessons to learn, just as in the Rainmaker loss:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100117094246/http://www.latitude38.com/features/moonduster.html

I thought it was a good post mortem too, but of course written from the perspective of a narcissist likely to minimize any part of the story that might make him look bad. Not that there is anything wrong with that - every story, including those written by the world's best journalists - suffers from the same characteristic - POV. That's why it's so fascinating to watch people like Moonduster come down on others for seamanship, or transparency, or losing a boat.

 

[adrumm]

After watching the video, it simply does not appear to be that bad out there.....of course video always drowns out the real action. Either way, the real loser here (and I hate to say it) is the insurance company. Three hired guns on a 2.2M dollar boat and you abandon ship so quickly...seems kind of amateurish. Then again, if the owner is ready to bail.......let her go! And I suppose once you call the USCG, it would be tough to have them turn back because you changed your mind. It's now or never girls!

Crazy shit for sure!

 

[Rockett]

Well.

I think some of you dudes and dudettes. Are a bit over the horizon, spitting comments left and right.

Ofcoarse we all want to know it all.

Especially since ther involve people who are well funded. With extravagant yachts.

Yes. Lets dig in to all their faults!

Holy shit if it turns out they have good seamenship and ar good sailors? Maby losing the pole can be

pointed to a faulty detail or material..?

Who knows! Personally i dont care much. Its not my problem. Dont have a Gunboat. Will never have the possibility

to own one. Just glad no one died! Everybody is counted for. No mum has to go to a funeral...

Other stuff. Its just stuff that can ber replaced...

In my book.

They showed good seamenship by pressing the "help" Button. Before some one lost their life. Trying

to save the day. Easily done since there is significant value in those hulls.

What makes me stunned. Is the "argument" that "some" ppl with good funds.

Should pay for their rescue. In case of bad decisions?

So poor or "normal" ppl should get away with bad or stupd decisions?

Where is the line of judgment in that?

So, how about all racingboats that Needs rescue? Pay?

Fisher an that has to work? Although should stay ashore when weather is a bit unsure? Pay if it goes bad?

Predicted fair weather can tur really shit. But ofcoarse one should pay since all forumsailors who know the situation

Better than anyone else! Says it was...

Just going out at Sea for Fun. Is stupid in so many levels.

But freaking fun!

Have fun sailing! And som of u. Use a condom!

Being from Sweden, you shouldn't have a huge problem posting pics of Swedish tits. You need to do this to make up for the crappy Google translation of whatever the fuck you wrote.

No!I want to keep all Swedish tits to my self! Im not a sharing person..sorry!

Maby I should apology for may way of spelling and writing english. (Swedish iPad autocorrect keyboard dosent help ither..

I will, when you are at the same level in Swedish. As Im in English!

P.s

You can have the old ladies tits. If u want..

(Edited autocorrect 3times)

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Billy you are taking some heat. I thought Clean had that cornered in this thread.

<ducks>

even by SA standards this thread is getting ugly

Not the SA standards I grew up with. same old shit with a little bit of information, same players, and plenty of entertainment value.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Three hired guns on a 2.2M dollar boat and you abandon ship so quickly...seems kind of amateurish.

Rope

 

[billy backstay]

There will be lessons to be drawn from my interview with Chris, but this is not an investigation, because frankly I have no interest in 'investigating'. I trust Chris enough to put my life in his hands on a boat, which means I trust what he says to me, period. Whether you do or do not...not my concern at all.

That does not mean I will get the whole story, because Chris can only talk about what his advisors have told him he can, and I am under no illusions about that. So instead of the complete story, I have the most complete story available, which for this incident, is plenty for me. If the USCG or US Sailing starts requiring detailed investigations for non-injury incidents, let me know and I'll pass along what I know (Cue someone screaming about how their tax dollars give them a right to know everything).

So Chris won't say more to you. Have you or your team spoken to GB or its people about this? What do they say? Have they had input on content?

Of course Chris has more to say, are you reading comprehension challenged???

"Stand by for Part 2" was clearly mentioned at the end of the report..!!

No I'm not, you rude idiot. He said Chris had limits on what he could say based on advice, so there are limits on what he will say, which is what my first sentence was reacting to. The point in my post was the questions. Which I've asked Clean before and he evades. And if you think part one of the sanitised CB account is anything other than a puff piece while questions abound about GB's input (etc), then you really are an idiot.

Sorry Large Marvin,I forgot to use the patented SA purple sarcasm font!

 

[billy backstay]

Billy you are taking some heat. I thought Clean had that cornered in this thread.

<ducks>

And you also remember when to use the purple font!! :lol:

 

[joneisberg]

It's impossible for me to imagine that either the crew or the USCG would not have placed a tracking device on the vessel.....just for tracking and safety purposes. A simple AIS so other marine traffic knows it there. Then again, I could see the owner not wanting it found if she was damaged. Lord knows he probably has a sweet insurance policy on the boat.

Anyway.....crazy story for sure!

you can't place one, if you don't bring it...

AIS would only work as long as the boat has power - which might be a while, or might not be...

most consumer devices are only going transmit for a few days to a week

edit - the YB tracker lasts a long time.., but if they didn't have one...

it has been reported here that the USCG does not typically put trackers on abandoned boats

"it has been reported here that the USCG does not typically put trackers on abandoned boats"

The reverse is true. The USCG standard is to demand the vessel be scuddled. Somehow with only aircraft involved RM managed to avoid the scuddle requirements....

If that were true, I would expect abandoned yachts to be "scuddled" with more frequency... In fact, it rarely seems to happen, and when it does - Skip Allan's WILDFLOWER, or REBEL HEART, for instance - it usually seems to be at the skipper's discretion or initiative...

 

[ropetrick]

Three hired guns on a 2.2M dollar boat and you abandon ship so quickly...seems kind of amateurish.

Rope

Are you talkin' to me?

 

[davidprobable]

Billy is blowing Clean now.......