RAINMAKER DISMASTED OFF HATTERAS IN GALE

joneisberg

Super Anarchist
5,919
0
Wtf does this mean?

A minor semantic detail, of course, but the interview reads as if what most understand a speed-limiting drogue can be intended to stream off the bow, as well...
Sorry, that was my grammatically convoluted reference to this quote, in which CB seems not to make any distinction between a drogue, and a sea anchor...

We were prepared to use the storm jib as a drogue, but felt that it would either bring the bow into the waves and bury the longeron or bring the stern up and bring water into the boat. We never really needed to stop the boat, as it turned out.

In most discussions of storm tactics, it seems commonly understood that sea anchors are deployed from the bow in an effort to park the boat head to wind, and drogues are a speed limiting device streamed from astern to limit speed running off, and afford some additional measure of control...

Some sort of drag device can be fashioned from almost anything one might have at hand, only question is how effective it might be... But the only reliable sea anchor will be a purpose-built bit of gear, most typically a parachute anchor, many multihull sailors have reported good results lying to para-anchors in heavy weather... However, relying on a storm jib being put to use as an effective sea anchor - with the difficulty of keeping a flat cut triangular sail 'open' and drawing like a parachute - seems to be wishful thinking, in this instance...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

DDW

Super Anarchist
6,951
1,402
... and the fact that the ship hit them. They didn't hit the ship.
This keeps coming up again and again. The decision to abandon had been made before the ship was on the horizon. The ship could have run over the top of RM smashing her to bits, and would still not be responsible for its abandonment. It was already a done deal.

Reading the three parts, it strikes me that time pressure to decide was extreme, and may not have led to a well considered decision. In the immediate aftermath to a disaster, everything looks and feels bleak. I wonder if, had the ship or helo been 12 or 18 hours out, and that time spent cleaning up a bit, recovering mentally, and more carefully accessing the options, if the same decision would have been reached, even in the (otherwise) same circumstances? Of course they did not have the luxury of that extra time, nevertheless I still wonder.

 
2,689
0
... and the fact that the ship hit them. They didn't hit the ship.
This keeps coming up again and again. The decision to abandon had been made before the ship was on the horizon. The ship could have run over the top of RM smashing her to bits, and would still not be responsible for its abandonment. It was already a done deal.
Reading the three parts, it strikes me that time pressure to decide was extreme, and may not have led to a well considered decision. In the immediate aftermath to a disaster, everything looks and feels bleak. I wonder if, had the ship or helo been 12 or 18 hours out, and that time spent cleaning up a bit, recovering mentally, and more carefully accessing the options, if the same decision would have been reached, even in the (otherwise) same circumstances? Of course they did not have the luxury of that extra time, nevertheless I still wonder.
Sometimes facts get in the way of justifications. Must be a dozen people here who agreed the damege caused when the two came together was the final straw

in the abandonment decision, which was obviously made long before!

And yes. According to Capt. kid, a 400 foot ship with 26 foot draft making 10 knots as it was coming upon a rescue seen with its massive spininng prop

occasionally coming completely out of the water as it crested 10-16 foot waves and just missed Cusinarting the Gunboat by a couple of feet,

hit RM. I'm sure of it. I'm sure the guy on the helm stepped on the gas pedal instead of the brake.

 

floater

Super Duper Anarchist
5,463
1,011
quivira regnum
Well - my experience is almost entirely on 5 knot sb - but the simple statement that "the ship hit my bow" is kind of tricky.

Typically, the bow does the hitting.

 

AYACHT

Super Anarchist
1,264
1
HILLSMERE
So Chris Bailet made a bunch of mistakes. First was leaving without a weather window! You better have 3 day window before leaving the East Coast in winter and hope you get half that!

2nd is not having a sea anchor! should come standard with that kind of boat!

3rd no plan to shore up the windows? They will break at some point offshore! Bad design for offshore work.

4th Running the engines with all the broken mast gear in the water.

So now there is a 55' yacht floating around with no lights waiting for someone to come along and hit it! Maybe sinking or killing someone.

Should CB be held liable if that happens? He is "The Professional Captain".

Now did they sail it out of the environment? How much Fuel,Gas,oil etc is going to pollute the environment? Vestas did better ;)

CB seems like he doesn't give a rats ass about anything.

Maybe a desk job for him will be safer for everyone. 200 miles and you destroy a yacht like that! I'll give it this... The design is flawed for offshore work.

 

floater

Super Duper Anarchist
5,463
1,011
quivira regnum
The captain and crew are far more experienced than myself - but it's my understanding that there was no steerage issue.

The rudders were good and the boat was making way.

Why ram the ship?

 

surfsailor

Super Anarchist
1,889
166
Maui
Well - my experience is almost entirely on 5 knot sb - but the simple statement that "the ship hit my bow" is kind of tricky.

Typically, the bow does the hitting.
Not when you are in reverse trying to back away.
Which engine were they 'reversing' with - the one with the fouled prop, or the one that didn't run?
Read part two, it is pretty clear.
Ya - they got the engine started in the last few seconds before bumping, and then the ship 'collided with RM's port bow'. But to me, the reality is that if the ship had hit them rather than the other way round, RM would be toast in an instant.

 
2,689
0
The captain and crew are far more experienced than myself - but it's my understanding that there was no steerage issue.

The rudders were good and the boat was making way.

Why ram the ship?
As soon as it became obvious they were going to hit us, I try a handful of times to get starboard engine on, finally it caught and I threw it into reverse. The starboard side started to turn, exposing our port bow and longeron to the ship, and they collided with our port bow forward of their midships. It was a big blow, and we heard the crunching of the carbon (really getting sick of that sound now), though we didn’t know how much damage we’d sustained as we rolled off their bow wake and slid down their starboard side. But OC was still turning to port, and as we neared their transom, the tanker went bow down on a wave, completely exposing their massive spinning propeller. It missed our port hull by a few feet.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
64,017
2,209
Punta Gorda FL
If I absolutely had to get from a RIB-equipped cruising yacht of any kind onto a ship, I'd use the RIB. Easier to maneuver and less dramatic if you bounce off.

It would not be fun launching it nor riding in it in those conditions, but would beat trying to pull it off with the bigger boat. A large whitecap could fling and flip a RIB but doing the operation in the lee of the ship should mitigate that danger some.

 

slip knot

Anarchist
952
0
Ontario
If I absolutely had to get from a RIB-equipped cruising yacht of any kind onto a ship, I'd use the RIB. Easier to maneuver and less dramatic if you bounce off.

It would not be fun launching it nor riding in it in those conditions, but would beat trying to pull it off with the bigger boat. A large whitecap could fling and flip a RIB but doing the operation in the lee of the ship should mitigate that danger some.
I think there was some talk that the RIB would be destroyed at first contact because of the amount of sharp barnicals on a ship that size.
 
The standard procedure is for the smaller vessel transfers cargo or passengers to come along the leeward or protected side of the larger vessel. The burden if their is one is on the smaller more maneuverable vessel that is making the request to come alongside and transfer passengers or cargo. All these rule and practices were created long before we were born in the days of the Admiralty with sail and oar. In this case RM was partially maneuverable or dead in the water. No sail, one of two engines at times. Think through the options. To transfer crew the vessels must be adjacent or along side. The vessels must be close enough to climb onto a ladder or net hanging over the side of the larger vessels. The BIG SHIP is the dock, the small vessel must come alongside.

You need a very sizable HEAVY RIB to operate in heavy wind, waves, and open water. With enough wind and waves dinghies are more like a plastic bottle or cup on the water. Ship barnacles are not the issue. Wind, waves, seas, and being consumed by the ship are the issue with dinghy transfer in open water.

Until you do it, you will never know.. But, running a small dinghy into any real wind and waves is terrifying starting with going over the top of the first wave. That is if you get there without a wave breaking on top of you.

 

6924

Super Anarchist
1,390
6
I can't believe that people here are actually responding to Clean's "Boy's Own" adventure story as if it has substance. COMPLETE whitewash filtered through a bunch of lawyers and PR pros. This is FICTION folks.

List of complete non sequitors (help me out here):

- disruptive storm evading speed - turns out to be 7 knots

- asleep on autopilot on a multi in 40 knots

- the carbon crunching oil tanker (didn't count on the ship in question posting embarrassing photos - am looking forward to more details from the ship)

- "microburst" - i.e.line squall with higher gusts

- 70 knots - bullshit (look at the weather bouys)

- 25' waves - bullshit (look at the weather bouys and ship pics)

- massive thrashing propeller - bullshit

I actually have sympathy for all involved. What gets me going is when people shamelessly bullshit, which leads OBVIOUSLY to people calling them on bullshit (as many here have done).
plus a zillion

 

Raked Aft\\

Super Anarchist
1,865
85
The North Coast
The standard procedure is for the smaller vessel transfers cargo or passengers to come along the leeward or protected side of the larger vessel. The burden if their is one is on the smaller more maneuverable vessel that is making the request to come alongside and transfer passengers or cargo. All these rule and practices were created long before we were born in the days of the Admiralty with sail and oar. In this case RM was partially maneuverable or dead in the water. No sail, one of two engines at times. Think through the options. To transfer crew the vessels must be adjacent or along side. The vessels must be close enough to climb onto a ladder or net hanging over the side of the larger vessels. The BIG SHIP is the dock, the small vessel must come alongside.

You need a very sizable HEAVY RIB to operate in heavy wind, waves, and open water. With enough wind and waves dinghies are more like a plastic bottle or cup on the water. Ship barnacles are not the issue. Wind, waves, seas, and being consumed by the ship are the issue with dinghy transfer in open water.

Until you do it, you will never know.. But, running a small dinghy into any real wind and waves is terrifying starting with going over the top of the first wave. That is if you get there without a wave breaking on top of you.
You are underestimating the seaworthiness of a good inflatable.

There are many in service as surf rescue vessels. I've spent many hours in small ribs in big wind and waves and they are plenty capable of handling the conditions if you're not an idiot about it.

Given the RM's situation, I would have definitely launched the rib to board the ship. Keep in mind if the ship had a proper rescue net you don't really have to get that close to the ship. The net should be long enough that the bottom splays out onto the water, all you really need to do is jump at it once you're close. I would run at the ship and net bow to, and have the crew jump forward off the bow, way more maneuverable that way.

A good rib driver can make them dance if they have to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

joneisberg

Super Anarchist
5,919
0
The standard procedure is for the smaller vessel transfers cargo or passengers to come along the leeward or protected side of the larger vessel. The burden if their is one is on the smaller more maneuverable vessel that is making the request to come alongside and transfer passengers or cargo. All these rule and practices were created long before we were born in the days of the Admiralty with sail and oar. In this case RM was partially maneuverable or dead in the water. No sail, one of two engines at times. Think through the options. To transfer crew the vessels must be adjacent or along side. The vessels must be close enough to climb onto a ladder or net hanging over the side of the larger vessels. The BIG SHIP is the dock, the small vessel must come alongside.

You need a very sizable HEAVY RIB to operate in heavy wind, waves, and open water. With enough wind and waves dinghies are more like a plastic bottle or cup on the water. Ship barnacles are not the issue. Wind, waves, seas, and being consumed by the ship are the issue with dinghy transfer in open water.

Until you do it, you will never know.. But, running a small dinghy into any real wind and waves is terrifying starting with going over the top of the first wave. That is if you get there without a wave breaking on top of you.

I think the odds were fairly decent that this tender, with 5 people aboard...

3666.jpg


...might have been able to manage this sea state...

crowley2-fdd91cf7.jpeg


these guys off the CG cutter SEQUOIA based in Guam would probably have a more informed opinion, however :)

800px-thumbnail.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:

DryArmour

Super Anarchist
The standard procedure is for the smaller vessel transfers cargo or passengers to come along the leeward or protected side of the larger vessel. The burden if their is one is on the smaller more maneuverable vessel that is making the request to come alongside and transfer passengers or cargo. All these rule and practices were created long before we were born in the days of the Admiralty with sail and oar. In this case RM was partially maneuverable or dead in the water. No sail, one of two engines at times. Think through the options. To transfer crew the vessels must be adjacent or along side. The vessels must be close enough to climb onto a ladder or net hanging over the side of the larger vessels. The BIG SHIP is the dock, the small vessel must come alongside.

You need a very sizable HEAVY RIB to operate in heavy wind, waves, and open water. With enough wind and waves dinghies are more like a plastic bottle or cup on the water. Ship barnacles are not the issue. Wind, waves, seas, and being consumed by the ship are the issue with dinghy transfer in open water.

Until you do it, you will never know.. But, running a small dinghy into any real wind and waves is terrifying starting with going over the top of the first wave. That is if you get there without a wave breaking on top of you.
+1. Having not seen the barnacles it would be a tough call if it were mine to make. If the GB however was not maneuverable due to engine failure/wrapped props I would have opted for the inflatable...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

6924

Super Anarchist
1,390
6
mighty big looking outboard on that RIB - would it have been prudent to use RIB to tow/maneuver/push RM ?

Could RIB have been used as lifeboat as a plan 'D' in event RM did sink ?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top