Seaworthiness

I used to think that the taxes ocean racing yachties paid for their boats and gear could reinforce their right to rescue - okay, they took a disproportionate amount of money from the average taxpayer, but they also paid a disproportionate amount of tax. To me, that seemed to be one factor in this question.

But these days, here in Oz at least, many boats are set up so that they are owned by a company dedicated just to running the boat. The boat is then sponsored. The sponsor claims the sponsorship as a tax deduction; the skipper of the boat makes a loss on the boat and claims that as a tax deduction, offset against his other businesses. For example, one prominent 50 footer was transferred to the skipper's son's name because he had a boating-related business. Stick a couple of stickers on the bow and stern and whacko, suddenly the family gets to claim the running expenses of their grand prix boat as a tax deduction. So no one in this equation pays tax on their sport - in fact while figures are kept quiet, there's word that they make money (not that the tax office finds that out, of course). Of course, charter boats do the same sort of thing.

That means there's rescue money going out of the common wealth, but no tax money going in. Is that moral and ethical?

In this situation, where some boat owners are using the technicalities of tax law to escape paying tax, they seem to have very little moral authority to demand that the ordinary taxpayer should subsidise them.

It's just one factor in the question, of course

 

Or what about an insurance levy built into the price of EPIRBs?
$10,000 EPIRBs again?

Personally I like user pays.
Who ever initiates the rescue, pays the bills.

 

A good example of what's wrong with this world: Very unclear and selfish thinking.

Obviously, this approach never works. It's quite simply unfair.

Some people are fortunate to find themselves in asset rich circumstances. Some by pure luck. Some by right of birth. Some by dint of hard work followed by disproportionate reward. This is a hard fact of life that we all must learn to accept, and one that affects social and governmental policy at all levels.

What might be merely an expensive lesson in risk management to some would be a a terrible lesson in bankruptcy and receivership. Pegging the cost of rescue to one's financial status would mean that only the very rich would be able to engage in such folly.

We can't have that because that's not fair. Folly should be available to all or to none. That's the only way to go about it. Better folly be available to none, because it saves taxes. We must legislate away folly. It's only fair, and it save taxes.

 

Dont call for rescue...die solvent.

 

You've been talking to my kids behind my back again, haven't you?

 

hiracer, they must have eyes on a reasonable inheritance, you big ol' fat cat.

 

The greatest thing about the Internet is you can be who or whatever you want to be. Sadly, my kids know the truth.

And that's not fair.

 

Hummm... My point is why some sailing idiots in this planet still think they have the right to unduly spend other people's money and risk other people's life to help them to fulfill their glory dreams/childhood traumas or simply take care of their irresponsibility. Are human lives (rescuers') also an small price? I suggest a visit to the RNLY.
Cheers.

 

The ocean is the big league

This thread started on seaworthiness which included or should include:

Seaworthy design, and a definition of that: Here’s mine:

A seaworthy design is (a design) that will survive in storm conditions without the help of the crew. In other words; if the crew is exhausted, do they have the option to call it quits, after all efforts made fail , go below , protect themselves and ride it out to the end of the storm and remain upright. We talked a lot about this earlier.

Seaworthy construction:

Speaks for itself. The best design can be held hostage by something as little as a pin which holds the washboards in place, or a port blowing out. Undersized standing and running rigging.

Seaworthy crew:

Storm survival equipment and adequate personnel to deploy it.
No sense having storm sails on board if the crew is a few old geezers.

Preparation:

The equipment, knowledge and practice needed for survival in severe conditions which includes active boat handling (still sailing), defensive boat handling (hove to, drogues. parachute anchor)


Isn’t it amazing how many people who call themselves sailors will go offshore without doing their homework. To them I say good luck, If you sink and drown,
you have received the Darwin award. To those who survive after a rescue, you get the bill. If you can’t pay, There are liens, property confiscations, wage garnishments. And prison. The IRS does this everyday. Just like in the big world of business, you stick your foot out there you may get it stepped on. That’s life. If I am a doctor who decides not to get mal practice insurance or a manufacturer who runs bare with no product liability insurance then God help me , I am a fool.


The ocean is the big league in sailing , go out there, you may get burned , folly, my butt!

 

quick story; the fishing vessel kelpie in the 80s ,hurrican juan was on them ,they abandond the boat for the safty of a oil rig off louisianna,,the boat broke free and was found 30 miles inland ,,still afloat,,moral of the story ,,if it aint sunk ,,dont get off of it ,longliner

 

I expect you to hit such a rogue wave, http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/big/wea00800.jpg
and to be drown, or pay the bill.

The problem is that there are conditions you are expected to handle , and failure to do so is your responsability, and conditions where you simply have bad luck, because it happens less than one in fifty years and it lasts for less than 2 minutes and on a quarter a mile. And you where at the wrong place, wrong time.

 

Do you mean to say that there are conditions that can overwhelm a small boat no matter how well it is built or designed?

That this boat does not exist?

FWIW:

It seems to me that no small boat can be designed that can survive any conditions that the sea might conjure up. Conditions can exist that should be avoided. Just what are "storm conditions"? Does a boat that can survive "storm conditions" have to avoid hurricane conditions? If so, the ability to avoid conditions that are too extreme for a boat to handle becomes a large part of "seaworthiness".

I think "folly" descibes placing faith in a boat's ability to survive without help from the crew. "Folly" also describes "crash proof" cars. Neither vehicle exists. IMO, owners of "crash proof" cars place their faith in the car and don't bother to develop driving skills. Do sailor's of "storm proof" boats place their faith in the boat and not concern themselves with learning seamanship?

How many times have you heard the owner of a "Blue Water Cruiser" state something to the effect of, "I'm not concerned with speed, I'm a cruiser"? How many cruisers have you seen with all manner of crap lashed on deck? With blown out sails poorly trimmed? These boats had better be "storm proof", they don't stand a chance of avoiding them.

On the other hand, a fast cruiser, an aware skipper and a series drouge will probably never see "storm conditions". If they do (by some freak event), they have the proven drouge system to fall back on.

 

I'm pretty sure that all ISAF sanctioned events do require the particpants to be insured. So this guy should have been, in which case the insurer should pay up.
can you imagine the insurance premium though, when you explain what you're trying to do! That might put a few people off.

 

“Do you mean to say that there are conditions that can overwhelm a small boat no matter how well it is built or designed?”

Of course there are! Let’s talk about designs that will statistically do better than others when the crew is incapacitated and can no longer function.

“That this boat does not exist?”

As stated above, some much more capable than others.

“I expect you to hit such a rogue wave,
and to be drown, or pay the bill.”

I have the option to not make the voyage, If I do, I will not expect to be bailed out, therefore I will do my best re:
Boat design, construction preparation.

“It seems to me that no small boat can be designed that can survive any conditions that the sea might conjure up.”

Case in point , the Westsail 32 in the perfect storm (the real one, not the movie) washed up on a beach ,upright, with some minor rigging damage and the owners papers in a leather bag still in the cockpit) Compare that to the picture below.

“ I think "folly" descibes placing faith in a boat's ability to survive without help from the crew.”

The folly I am referring to is the delusional concept that it is not fair for the unprepared lesser people to not enjoy the “fun” things in life that the competent, capable (and therefore wealthy) people enjoy.
I say grow up! Is it unfair that I may be smarter than you, and make more money than you in my life. Is it unfair that my gene pool is superior to yours and I live longer and stronger than you? Should I be penalized through taxes to make everything fair?? Hogwash!

“On the other hand, a fast cruiser, an aware skipper and a series drouge will probably never see "storm conditions". If they do (by some freak event), they have the proven drouge system to fall back on.”


Retro, I keep hearing you talk of fast boats competent crew avoiding trouble. This is what we all want, but it doesn’t happen in the real world. The best crews get tired, have slip and falls, get hit, get worn out, get punchy and have trouble reacting quickly when body temp goes down, can’t see when in a pitch black sky in big seas. All of this has happened to me by just being out there. These things cannot be avoided as there are too many of them which occur in daily sailing. I still go, however, and I do it with knowledge and respect for forces much greater than me . The boat needs to be stronger than the crew is my point.

You will do what you want and learn by your own experience. I have read your theory (which I would love to be true and dependable) but there are things which are out of our control.
Of the tough times I have been in, almost all of them have been from bad weather. The other things have been near collisions with vessels, A blue whale, currents and seawalls, groundings. When you chalk up a lot of miles, problems always will occur. These things can not be avoided. On the same token when the weather deteriorates, lots ok things go wrong. I was whipped in the face with a sheetline, I thought had taken my skin off. I lost a few minutes. Luckily, I could tend to myself. I had to look out of only one eye, and luckily I was not alone, because it happened when things had to be done fast.

You talk of freak events? These are by no means freak. When doing the SORC longer races or most any crossing you are almost guaranteed you will get beat up. When you do, you need a boat which has better chances of survival without you doing anything but curling up down below. This means typically what the boats survival chances are when lying ahull
In breaking seas, typically in the 40 foot range which covers most all gales which are frequent events. No one can predict survivability in a hurricane or an asteroid hit. Yes life is full of chances.

If a sailor purchases an EPIRB is he doing it because he sees it as a substitute for incompetence, lack of preparation, guarantee for the need to prove some ego driven thing. What are that persons thoughts leading up to the purchase. Have they had dinner conversation like “well if anything happens and we are no longer having fun , I’ll just flop this little switch and there will be helicopters on the way” Yep, Isn’t life great !

 

Then lets start with unsinkable as the barest minimum of seaworthiness.

The other side of that coin is a boat that sails better than a Westsnail would not have been such extreme conditions ... unless it's crew made an error in judgement. To me that is part of being prepared.

It does not take much for a boat to be sturdier than those that crew her. The boat may have uncomfortable, even frightening motion, but even "killer boats" in the '79 Fastnet were found more or less intact after their crews lost faith in them.

If we accept that there are things beyond our control, and that no matter how well designed, built, and prepared the boat and crew are, there may arise an emergency situation. This is what the search and rescue system was designed for. If you had the best boat and the best crew and lost them because you could not assist the rescue effort wouldn't that be negligent? An EPIRB is part of preparation of a well found yacht, it is a tool of last resort after the sea overwhelms your well designed, well crewed boat.

It bothers me that there are people that seem to substitute an EPIRB for experience and seamanship. However, who is to judge what boat and what level of seamanship is required to be worthy of emergency assistance? Should there be a requirement for EPIRB usage that the yacht be CE Ocean certified and the skipper hold a yacht-master license? If an incompetent goes to sea in an open skiff and uses a EPIRB to call for help, should they be fined or penalized after the rescue? Could they appeal (to whom?) and if the conditions would have threatened the qualified boat and skipper also they the free rescue? Should the local Coast Guard prevent any voyage that some civil servant feels is unsafe? Where is the line?

I'll give you the asteroid hit. That would be tough to forecast.

I'll also say that the ability to heave-to or lie ahull are not high on the list of what makes a boat seaworthy. The series drogue was specifically developed to protect boats in freak conditions and breaking waves. Boats lying ahull tend to end up beam on to the sea, making them prime candidates for getting rolled. I've not heard any coherent argument against the use of a series drogue or case of boat found dis-masted and abandon with a series drogue deployed. There was a rescue off a boat that was dis-masted after being rolled but the drogue was deployed after the boat was rolled.

I think times have changed, the days of unavoidable bad weather and the need for heavy boats to lie ahull in are gone. There are a growing number of fast cruisers that can choose their weather to a great extent, tools available to aid the sailor with weather routing, and boats with D/L ratios under 100 that are unsinkable. If that 4x6 timber on the hatch of a Westsail makes someone feel warm and safe as they go below to ride out the gale, fine. It will protect them from the sight of a modern boat still sailing in the same conditions. Perhaps the modern fleet will have moved on and the Westsail will find a mooring at the end of their days/weeks longer passage.

One thing is for sure, if you plan to support your cruising lifestyle by writing books about your adventures on the high seas, you are better off in a Spray, Westsail, or some such traditional cruiser. Choosing those boats almost guarantees you will have storm survival stories for your book.

I'm sure "14 days of Hell ahull" will outsell "12 days to get Lei'd in Hawaii"

Just kidding, every sailor should know their own limits and limits of the boat they sail. Operating inside the envelope makes a great number of boats "seaworthy". I just don't want some government committee of NA's moribund opinions deciding for me. Like you, I will take responsibility for my choices.