Build yourself a boat and do a lap, crazy or not?

This has been around for a while so apologies if I missed the thread. The guy is taking a beating on the other forums, but there are a few design and build yourself types around here so i though I'd see what you think.

Quick summary

Guy builds 50ft aluminium trimaran with the aim of sailing around the world. Everybody thinks he is crazy and tells him its a bad idea.
Naval Architect bails because the plan is too extreme.
And heres the crazy part, He wants to build in a couple of months
He has a rather tight budget of $25000.

Im usually one to condemn these nutters that try crazy plans, but I think this guy is in with a fair chance for three reasons. He has built a large boat before, he is an experienced sailor and the boat is designed by a reputable naval architect.

The southern ocean is a scary patch of ocean where you cant cut corners, some of the more extreme elements of his plan could easily kill him. What do you think, does he have a death wish or will he make it?

Here are the links
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/blog/tincan - Blog of Build Progress
http://www.esquire.com/features/sailing1207 - I do not have a death wish - Article detailing his plans

 

Anyone attempting a rush job on such an undertaking is asking to die or at least wishing for it. These are things that are detailed out to the last degree, for obvious reasons.

If the NA bailed, there is clearly more going on then the builder is suggesting, has anyone word of what he thinks and why he found it necessary to toss his commission in the drink?

Frankly, without hearing both sides and the limited bit I have about the builder, he's a nut case and is looking for "suicide by southern ocean" (as the ME will put it) if you ask me. This issue apparently runs in the family.

 

Best of luck to the guy, get the wreaths ready! The thing that scares me is the poor bloody seamen / women that will put their lives at risk to rescue the b******. If that's what he wants get on with it - just somebody confiscate any form of communiction so he can't put others at risk!!

(I thought you wern't allowed to ditch rubbish at sea anymore?)

 

I don't have a problem with others going out and dragging his soggy butt back to shore. They live for it, get paid for it and want to do it, so who's to ***** about that. I do think they should be required to purchase a bond, so that some of the costs associated with these types of "no braining themselves into a hole" kind of things can be partly paid for, up front. Possibly with a sliding scale on responsibility, more on the initial bond, based on the level of risk the adventure's insurance company suggest they'll be exposed to.

 

tramerans and cats really arent for going around the world ,,sure you can ,,if the conditions are right ,,but so can the guy that went from cali to hawwai in a jon boat,,this guy is figgan nuts,,,longliner

 

Mught do in your country PAR but in mine it's all volunteers, and anyway they have wifes, husbands, children, parents and friends - "OOH he just died rescuing some fool, but he was paid for it" 'That's OK then!' I thought better of you PAR. And what about the other seamen who have to divert from their journeys and put their lives at risk, or is that OK too because they are only profesional seamen and don't count? Remember your yachtsman puts his butt on the line to help others too!

 

How can this type of endeavour not cost - how about a "do not rescue or help" declaration. Perhaps the government of the initial country of departure put out an "ADVISORY" and that would obligate every following country he/she/they landed/visited/passed through issue a similar declaration

The respective idiots then have their moments of fame & no obligation of any to rescue. EPIRB and other long range communications facilities prohibited.

Then they would know where they stand before departure - at their own risk....

 

same goes for all those who leave thier boats at the dock ,,when a hurricane ,,,is approaching ,,only to be paid off by the insurance co,,,if you know a storm is coming ,,move your boat,,so I dont have to pay high primiums,,to cover thier stuipid asses,,,longliner

 

It isn't a privlage to be rescued, it is the obligation of every seaman, every person that has the ability, is in the general area and can be of some assistance. I expect this when I put out, in fact rely on it. Why shouldn't everyone, even if they are bone headed? Are all boneheads to sign a waver so we "normal" folk can feel more comfortable when we reply to a May Day?

I have answered and responded to several distress calls over the years, in a few occasions was the unfortunate yachts only hope. Should I have checked a current list of idiots, speculating they can do more then they can with their lives first. It would be a hell of a thing if you where making the May Day call and drowned, because the rescue nearest you hesitated because it was running through the seemly endless pages of newly added names to the buttheads list, to see it your call was on the roster.

Hell no, we can't declare anyone at sea less eligible for rescue for any reason. It just serves to force change to take a back seat to complacency and adventure a distant second to a Club Med cruise.

I was an EMT after the army and I just wanted to help. It turned out for me, that type of helping wasn't for me, but how dare anyone place limitations or qualifications on anyone else's ideas, dreams or plans, regardless of the hair brained nature they might appear.

Yep, it sucks when a loved one has harm come. It's no less palatable when it comes in the attempt to service a fellow in need, but having lost friends in just such an endeavor, an easier burden, knowing what they were attempting and the noble nature it was. I can think of nothing more honorable, then offering your life, so that others may benefit. I should be so lucky as to provide this for someone someday. Which is much preferred over having a greeting card for the grim reaper resting in my lap as I await his arrival, withering away in a rocking chair, useless.

 

my piont paul ,,why should I offer my life and my crews life ,,to cover some ******* who dont make provisions,,and yes I will be there for them when they call,,, and continue to pay high priemiums,,,,,,,,,because thats the way I am ,,,longliner

 

I hope I was not misinterpreted, All I was suggesting, that, if someone desired to try self-murder, is there not a way to avoid forcing caring people to risk their lives unnecessarily, because the fool was only seeking death (or glory).?

Hell, it is such a difficult thing, to put in words, & not create a 1000 times more issues.... I was involved as a volunteer in sea rescue, moved away, and on returning and becoming a "grumpy old *******" - disinclined to participate in delivering fuel to or towing some idiot in (for free!!!!) because he cannot think, plan or maintain his boat...

Possibly I need more red wine in my daily intake? to mellow out somewhat....

 

The basic problem is how or who will create the "list" or "rules" that govern who is declared incompliant is some fashion. If this was the case, Slocum wouldn't have been able to take is worn down old sloop around the world, he'd have been branded a fool, worth no effort to save. With this train of thought I guess we should let those Cubans and Haitians die at sea in their obviously not ocean capable craft, rather then pick their soggy asses out of the drink.

Why? We're all people and those who are in danger or suffering, self imposed or not, don't deserve the fate that awaits, even if they are the dumbest on the planet. It is human nature to preserve life, not let it drown. Making an effort and acts of this type of unselfishness are the hallmarks of being human. It not a flaw, it's the very virtue that separates us from the animals, which when faced with similar situations will let one of their own young drown, rather the face the wrath of mother nature themselves. Survival of the fittest is fine for them, but we've grown well beyond that need, which unfortunately also means the genetic propensity to no brain ourselves into a big holes is much higher amongst humans then animals.

We have no choice but to protect fools and heroes alike, in their endeavors at sea. It's a universally accepted law and one that needs to remain. The moment we attempt to change this, regardless of the initial intent, we diminish our abilities as people to picture ourselves in a similar situation, with a similar hope of rescue.

It's never necessary to risk your life, it's a choice, always made willingly by those involved. We can't tell what people are thinking. We can impose some minimum requirements for ocean going craft, but this is another can of worms. If someone is hell bent on a spectacular death then I'll be happy to film it and send it into America's Funniest Videos, but we have a choice to not endanger ourselves and crews. In fact it is the requirement of the skipper to do just this, even if involved in a rescue. You are required to make a "reasonable attempt", but not to endanger your vessel or crew. If you do, then you as skipper are responsible, possibly negligent in some regard. In other words if you, during a rescue attempt, slip and crack your head open, then die. It's not the fault of the may day caller, it's yours for not taking better care.

 

that's the PAR I thought I knew and respected! Your absolutly right it is the unwritten law of the sea that if somebody is in distress you must go tho their aid (even nations at war once they have destroyed the war fighting capabilities of the opposition then attempt to save the sailors, normally).

Having said the above their should be some way to prevent the unwary and unwise from putting others at risk! I do not advocate preventing people from making risky trips - it's just that they should in the first instance look at the risk and act accordingly -and if they won't they should either be prevented or helped, not only for the sake of others but themselves as well.

Look at another way - most of you drive cars I'm sure (I don't)! Would you go out without a license and no knowledge of how to drive - I haven't a clue but I'll have a go, up the down lane of some busy interstate highway, bloody great trucks rusing past and at you. Stop get out and go for a stroll? Of course you wouldn't the police would rightly drop on you like a ton of bricks, before you got somebody killed...........I can hear you all now "but that's different" the hell it is lack of knowledge would cause a lot of deaths, whats the difference?

 

Okay Safe, how do you decide who is qualified and what is acceptable? A political decision? Of course, that's what will happen and we all know what happens when a bunch of profession liars get together and make a law that we have to live with.

There isn't licensing in most parts of the world because there aren't that many boats in the big picture of things. On a highway, you'll run into another car pretty quickly, without some training, but a boat, possibly not in a life time of fumbling around in your yacht. What happens if the person is licensed and still takes a fools journey and requires rescue? Do you save him because "he got proper papers" (sounds a lot like Germany in the 1930's don't it) and shoot the ones that don't?

No one for any reason should be held back, though it would seem at quick glance that a few should. Upon further examination those that seem foolhardy may indeed be on the verge of a break though or revelation. Who are we to stifle this? Yes, it a sin that some have to suffer at the expensive of boneheads, but this has always been the case.

If you could come up with a fair butthead qualifier or vessel exam that effectively weeded out the fools, we be eternally grateful.

The basic problem still exists. We can't predict the future.

 

PAR, I get your point, but if each country ensures that any of its citizens that go afloat have a rudimentary knowledge (driving test) it's a start! So on rescue we ask the country / rescuee are you qualified? is your boat capable of doing the trip? The professional will of course say yes (?) and no doubt will be able to furnish proof! or his country will. If he says what? or has no proof then send a bill for his rescue (the cost only, no profit) to his embassy! His country will then pay for his shortcomings - up to them how THEY recover their money!!

The seaman, as now, will carry on doing the right thing and carrying out his obligations (most would anyway, no matter the consequences)