Northwest passage

Many marginal vessels cruise far and wide without much beyond an old chart, a hand-held GPS and an antique VHF and manage to get where they are going, stay out of trouble and don't call for help. The type of capable person, not necessarily daredevil, that can successfully do this year after year accepts that rule #2 kicks in at very inappropriate times but if you follow #1, things usually go as well as possible.
1. Don't be stupid.
2. **** happens.
3. Bring beer.

 

Whatever you say Battan...like the 15 year old girl sailing singlehanded around the world.

Also consider that when you loose you boat in the NW Passage then get rescued at great expense you are also dumping 5 tons of fuel and leaving a huge mess in a pristine, unique environment.

Frankiln attempted the passage as a feat of exploration...not glorification.

As for the original question concerning the boat..no, it doesnt look purpose conceived for arctic work.

This boat is...

http://rowtothepole.com/

http://www.stirlingandson.co.uk/courses/index.php

 

Yes, well designed for its job, get to the pole in a sprint, by hand over and through the ice.
The question, on the other hand, concerned the NW passage, which is something different now and not the place that Franklin and Amundsen knew, and you brought it around to sailing without satellite rescue systems or not, and why, and who does it, and how we're all doomed to disaster on the icy rocks of Mordor and our fuel will poison the cute harp seals.
And do some more research on Franklin not being in it for the glory as I believe you are mistaken.
It was planting the flag of empire that's why they sent Franklin and the Navy.
Amundsen and his crew on the other hand spent two winters making meticulous scientific records of magnetism that kept researchers busy for 20 years after, lived like an Eskimo on their cheap 30 year old wooden fish boat with its 13 hp engine and managed to avoid satellite rescue.
Personally I have an emergency sat gadget that gets tested and checked but I've never called for help in 50 years of going to sea in some very gnarly conditions, because rule #1 puts me in a boat suitable for what I am doing, and not upwind of the rocks, with a fuel system that's been checked and tested etc etc.
--
The boat starting the thread is just a good old-fashioned steel yacht with a protected propeller and rudder and able to go aground, sensible low handy rig with a lot of area, comfort and room for lots of stores below, sufficient displacement to carry the necessary fuel/water/food for a year or more.
It's a navigable waterway of great interest and sure to become crowded soon. What's suitable boat? Whatever boat you have and strengthened/modifed? Or something requiring a huge investment?

 

To understand what kind or boat you need you must study the purpose built Arctic yachts of the past . The Bouvet and Petit designed SeaMaster is classic. It has a rounded reinforced hull which allows her to function as an ice-breaker and allows her to ground out on ice or land . A deep keel is the last thing a boat needs in the NW Passage. SeaMaster sails with a set of retractable centerboards, tunnel mounted propellers and a retractable rudder. Fore and aft ground tackle, round sheer clamp to shed ice....it all there to view.

 

What's not understood is that the arctic isn't as much arctic as it used to be. It's like making long passages with "coastal cruiser" in a warm climate as doing either one of northern passages with a good "steel cruiser". Just to pick up the right weather window.. Not saying that anyone should do that, but it's not so crazy with warming climate anymore..

 

"I wonder why the Canadian authorities even permit these types to navigate the NW Passage."

Yet most folks have no problem with the need for Ice Breakers to escort commercial vessels through?

A quick chopper ride would cost far less than a couple of ships working on station for months on end.

FF

 

I've designed a number of 'high latitude' sailing vessels over the last 25 years. In the beginning, all the focus was on making them as 'robust' as possible as people imagined that even these boats could actually function as an icebreaker. People quickly learnt this approach was ridiculous as they can never have the power or 'heft' to operate in anything more than brash ice. It also became obvious that by focussing on being overly robust, they compromised other important factors such as speed and seaworthiness.

People also realised that although being 'iced in' was always a possibility, it was far better to concentrate on this never happening, than to design a boat to 'survive it'. Whilst it's probably sensible to prepare for an enforced overwintering, it's accepted that this is a high risk event, with a far from certain probability of surviving. Shallow draft/lift keels, encapsulated/retractable props and rudders, flared topsides, aluminium hulls, might all help (in theory), but don't really resolve the futility of getting yourself ice bound in the first place. Twenty years ago Seamaster represented the pinnacle of this 'design to survive' thinking.

However nothing really like that has ever been built since. People realised she represented a false premise. There's probably been more successful high latitude trips done in production Westerlies and Beneteaus than Seamaster has ever done, as people have capitalised on the very different conditions of late, especially in the Arctic. Reading through the RCC archives will show what a real knowledge bank there is now about icy voyages in sailing boats.

They show that by far and away the best way to prepare for a high latitude trip, is to focus on being able to receive the best Met / Ice routeing information and having the speed and agility to act on it. Plus having the patience to build up your experience slowly over time. Nothing in the design of the yacht can compensate for shortcomings in these areas.

 

Crag...The original poster Bataan asked for comment on the suitability of the vessel pictured for arctic work. I see nothing on that vessel which makes it a good choice for sailing in difficult waters. Nothing...

Im sure that many production vessels could , with luck, complete the trip. Im confident that a determined individual....GOD WILLING... wearing floating Styrofoam boots could walk thru. This does not make it a good design study for future arctic vessel design.

 

I don't see any fundamental flaws.. there's more danger's on crowded coastal waters.
Agree with Crag

 

for a moment i thought that Henk de Velde did that northwest passage, but he sails Cris White's old tri now
he did the northeast passage before but got stuck in burocracy and ice and wrote a book on that passage in dutch
http://www.bol.com/nl/p/nederlandse-boeken/een-ijskoude-doorbraak/1001004002134525/index.html


http://www.rerisk.net/2008/09/20/the-new-maritime-arctic/ mentions the nortwest passage as discussed here
is only open for a short time frame: 16 days in 2007, or is that ice now really melting and reason for a cold wet summer here?

 

The Canadian North is so huge with so little population it is fundamentally impossible to regulate anything. And rescue isn't something that happens quickly, if at all. As far as the Eastern approaches go, CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia, Goose Bay/Happy Valley in Labrador and St. Johns in Newfoundland are the major Search and Rescue bases. Given the distances involved you are talking about fixed wing Hercules and Auroras - there is little to no possibility of helicopters (Cormorants) making the trip. Local private carriers our of Iqualuit and Pangnirtung would be the only possibility through much of the NW passage. Going west, any military assistance would come from Cold Lake in Alberta - but fuel is a problem and most of the strips in the North require gravel strip capability. Even if they find you, the most you could expect is an air drop and rescue in days to weeks.

The recent First Air 737 crash in the North got fast response because the Canadian military happened to be conducting an annual Arctic training exercise a few kilometers away - but that was sheer luck.

Anyone expecting to trigger an EPIRB and expecting instant rescue in the Canadian north is crazy. This is not a place to fool around looking for blog fodder and logbook literature. Polar bears actively hunt and will eat humans they have no fear and no sympathy.

Unlike many passages people want to make a notch in their belt, this one should left alone to nuclear submarines, Canadian government icebreakers, narwhals and walruses.

--
CutOnce

 

I completley agree. Pressure the Canadian authorities to close the NW passage or anything north and west of McLelan Strait, to pleasure vessels. Only vessels commercialy endorsed for Arctic work should navigate that area.

 

Ya michael, I agree.Actually,A world body should be formed to ban anything that even hints at any risk what so ever to any life form anywhere anytime for any reason.Than we could be completely safe and not cost a farthing to any government service.We could be in a vat of goo,intraveneously fed and have a vitual experience,have all the thrills we could stand and no one would ever ever have to come and rescue us...wait that was a in a movie already.

 

Deb Shapiro and Rob Bjelke wintered over on the Antarctic Peninsula in a JOSHUA type steel ketch without a lot of mods other than better insulation etc.

David Lewis and party wintered over in Antarctica in a 50' steel schooner.

Man with a 34' steel sloop a few miles from me has been to Antarctica & back.

I spent a lot of time at sea in an icebreaker and anyone who thinks that an underpowered yacht of ANY type or material construction is going to break ice has never been in ice. It isn't going to happen.

Personally I wouldn't want to go in anything less than say 20m, a good heated pilot house and a powerful aux engine with *big* tankage. Sails would be nice for the days when there was a lot of open water, otherwise not much use at all. I'd want a well protected and very strong rudder and something with a small turning circle. I'd probably put some sort of ring or nozzle around the prop and I'd try to have the biggest prop turning at the slowest speed I could. I'd want a CPP so I could go from fwd to reverse without worrying about gears or clutches.

I wouldn't take a wooden boat because wood abrades quite badly even pushing through light open pack. I like steel.

And..... you can get by without all of this if you're prepared to deal with what comes along. Bill Tilman did.

As for going to dangerous places, I think you've the right to go anywhere you want. You don't have the right to get rescued however. I've said it before but frankly I think EPIRB's should be prohibited to small boats operating more than 30 km from a populated coastline UNLESS they also have an insurance policy to cover the cost of rescue. By all means go where you like but have the skills & tools to get back again, have money to pay other people to save your arse, or die quietly.

Michael, how much high latitude sailing have you actually done? None, I'd bet.

PDW

 

Just a side note, here's my "copy" of the clothing they wore on the first year of the expedition from Helm Designs.





I've got the pants & mitts that go with the jacket. Unfortunately they don't fit anymore! :-(