Captain's Log, April 30, 2014 from the Rebel Heart Blog

[sparau]

Originally Posted by tedsherrin

The only sensible criticism that has been raised, is whether the vessel was 'sea worthy' or not. One has 'read' that it was exceptionally unseaworthy prior to the trip? No idea where you read this other than the tabloids and accusations of haters on here, but fair enough if the vessel was unseaworthy then it is a 'maritime cock up'.

On the other giant thread SmackDaddy went through their blogs and found Eric talking about and taking photos of rot in the decks that didn't appear to have been repaired before they left.

I assume Boaty is referring to this in his "wet for weeks" comment.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I also believe they sailed to soon.. took on more than they could chew so to speak.. coast hopping is one thing.. yes its stressful.. but the 'ALONE' of the open ocean is something else.. it needs building up to in steps..

Biggest mistake most people make!

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by sparau

On the other giant thread SmackDaddy went through their blogs and found Eric talking about and taking photos of rot in the decks that didn't appear to have been repaired before they left...

And was reamed for it too.

Others have noted the many very strong posts trying to supress criticism or even inquiry. I don't get the need for apologists circling the wagons so to speak. I didn't read the first coupla thousand pages of this thread after the first coupla thousand threads. These folks have not asked for help that I recall. The story is over, folks. Nothing to see here. Let's move along.

[cheoah]

Hi tedsherrin, I'm sure Eric appreciates your advocacy, but it's not really fostering open discourse and debate. It's clear that it is personal for you, and I can empathize, but the points boatman raised are valid. They are important points for the record, factual or not. Eric hasn't spoken to them, so there is still room to guess. As I see it, there is the parental/crew aspect to this, and then there is the boat.

Some of us just struggle with the concept of scuttling a perfectly good (maybe?) boat, when it could have continued on. Eric would have been at the front of the line, scratching his head at some idiots choice to do such a thing, so don't blow things out of proportion here. They aren't death threats for crying out loud. That's horrid, and hopefully isolated to some random idiot with a "don't tread on me" sticker on their truck, mad about taxpayer dollars.

I still marvel at those that have a habit of calling for threads to be closed, because they are done talking about it, or bored with it, or have their own opinion about it. This was a big event, and there's lots to talk about even still. But then, I think part of why they call for it to be closed is so that some ding dong like me with engage with them. Sucka

Interestingly, some people changed their position over the course of the thread. I'm still right where I was when I discovered rebel heart had been scuttled. Of course they did right by their child, but there are other issues that haven't been discussed and there's plenty to talk about. But there's the book, maybe a pending insurance claim, fear of liability with the rescue. Who knows.

It's nothing personal. One can't have it both ways. Open season on every poor sucker that had to abandon, for reasons Eric surely would have carried on through, but inappropriate and presumptuous once it involves him and his family. They have opened themselves to national and international scrutiny, and I don't envy them. But when someone loses a boat, were gonna talk about it. Til the cows come home, some of us.

Some of us just can't get over the fact that he did not try to carry on. So why? Tired? Lost confidence in the boat? An opportunity to bail on some crappy old boat and start fresh with a different one and some more modest goals? Is there insurance money?

In addition to the sailing stuff, I find this so compelling because we have what appears to be a very prepared guy, with credentials, lots of contributions on an international sailing forum etc, but had to abandon ship on his first major passage. So why? It isn't because of the precious baby, that was a no brainer. Caring for the child and continuing on were
Not mutually exclusive. Were they?? And it is no more inappropriate for someone to be critical of their lifestyle choice, crossing an ocean with such a small baby as it is to question those that are stuck on the treadmill, busting rocks every day and some crappy job so that their kids can have opportunity, and sail for a couple weeks in the summer. I don't take their position as such, just respond in to others comments there.

Here I am thinking I will start to sail with a helmet when I'm singlehanding in a seaway, and their baby is not even stowed securely
Not sure I know what that's about. But has anyone heard, "I underestimated what it would take to keep the baby secure in a typical seaway, and I learned x, and recommend x".


The idea that a skipper could walk away from this and not have a dozen things that he or she would do differently is one of the things that keeps this thread going. None of us are entitled to hear his self reflection, and all I can think is that there is a pending claim or something. If all comms went down, it isn't just bad luck. If the hull and deck separated in moderate conditions, it isn't just bad luck. All if these things happened because of some aspect of planning and prep, and all of them had solutions, had one wanted to see rebel heart into safe harbor.

I'm like most and want to learn from other mistakes. It's ok to make mistakes. We all do it. It's hard to respect someone who can be such a harsh critic of others choices at sea, but could do no wrong as he is rescued at sea and sends his ship to the bottom of the pacific. It's easier to swallow when you consider some of the reasons above that might be why, or chalk it up to being young or a hipster. I just don't get it. But I'm a little slow.

The crew of rebel heart is entitled to all the respect due anyone that has lost their boat with all crew safe, and also all the scrutiny of the sailing community. Just needs to be civil, and in the spirit of learning more about passagemaking or voyaging with infants.

[sharkbait]

Post a breakdown of what happened? Read his previous posts, he spent his money on worthless electronics rather than fixing his deck. Keeping the water out should be job 1.
After that monumentally poor decision, he took to sea with an ill prepared crew.

I made it to Hawaii in an E-27 with an 8hp honda. It seems someone had a crisis of courage.

[sharkbait]

Wasn't Eric at the front of the line slamming Zen when he abandoned? Why is he being defended by the mods?

[Coops]

Originally Posted by sharkbait

Wasn't Eric at the front of the line slamming Zen when he abandoned? Why is he being defended by the mods?

That is a question that has no basis. As moderators we enforce the rules of the forum. We do not defend individuals. If we think the attacks become personal or over the top in the insults, then action is taken. That is it.

Coops.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by sharkbait

Post a breakdown of what happened? Read his previous posts, he spent his money on worthless electronics rather than fixing his deck. Keeping the water out should be job 1.
After that monumentally poor decision, he took to sea with an ill prepared crew.

I made it to Hawaii in an E-27 with an 8hp honda. It seems someone had a crisis of courage.

Where is this coming from all of a sudden? Smackdaddy found posts about how terrible his deck was. They were posted by RH because he was recording how he had fixed it, did he not? Perhaps there were other areas that were a problem or his fix was inadequate, but I'm sure he felt that he had a strong enough deck when he left or he wouldn't have left.

And which electronics were useless? The SSB? The sat phone? The EPIRB? I think that you'd get some people disagreeing with you on all three of those.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by cheoah

...

Some of us just can't get over the fact that he did not try to carry on. So why? Tired? Lost confidence in the boat? An opportunity to bail on some crappy old boat and start fresh with a different one and some more modest goals? Is there insurance money?

In addition to the sailing stuff, I find this so compelling because we have what appears to be a very prepared guy, with credentials, lots of contributions on an international sailing forum etc, but had to abandon ship on his first major passage. So why? It isn't because of the precious baby, that was a no brainer. Caring for the child and continuing on were
Not mutually exclusive. Were they?? ...

There was no insurance. We have not established whether he would have been allowed to continue by the navy. The coast guard may not have let him based on the perfect storm guy's experience. However, the baby and rest of family obviously needed to be evacuated. A lot of fathers would have chosen to be with them. They still didn't know what the baby was even sick with at this point and he would have been at sea for the next 3 weeks on a boat with no comms and a torn apart deck, alone. His electrics were going out quickly so he probably would have been pumping manually for a lot of the day to keep from sinking.

That would have been a very macho trip, to be sure, but maybe not something to be undertaken while the family is in the middle of a medical crisis?

[Scottuk]

succumbed to what we Australian's a very prone to, its called 'tall poppy syndrome'. It's a syndrome that whenever someone does something, good or bad, we have to 'attack' it, knock it, and pretend we are better than that person.

Would agree, you do seem prone to it but don't think it is applicable to most posters here nor to most Aussies

I asked what the 'maritime cockups' were, and I get back essentially differences in sailing and seamanship decisions.

I would think most people would argue 'maritime cockups' are the result of poor 'seamanship decisions'. It would appear you have a unique definition. Perhaps you should have defined it in your question to get the response you were looking for.

[JPA Cate]

Hi, everyone,

What I am remembering now are the pictures of his HC's construction from Rebel Heart's blog, and Minaret's comments following viewing them.

On our first Insatiable, we had a leak by our aft keel boat. We tried a number of things to "fix it". Each time we thought we had done an adequate job. But finally, it had to be done right. And with some professional help, we added two stringers, one floor, and a whole lot of fibreglass and resin. And it was better than new. But the fact is that it took us a lot of trial and error to come to a good fix. And that is a lot how life is: we don't know everything; we have to find out a lot from experience.

Eric had a transition Taiwanese boat, and it had some atypical construction for an HC, in addition to the not uncommon vagaries of Taiwan built boats of the time. He probably was unaware of their reputation, because, mostly, HC's enjoy a good reputation. I think he did his best to fix it, but the construction and his fix did not work well together. The only way he could find it out was to test it. They did sail the boat after he was finished, and it didn't leak. IIRC, it was only after some days at sea that the leak re-manifested. There is no way for any of us to tell if the boat were becoming manifestly unsafe. In his shoes, I would have been wondering if there were structural damage I had not yet uncovered.

Some have suggested that Eric could have singlehanded the boat on to the Marquesas, letting Charlotte leave with their daughters. I think that sort of decision is always an individual one for the people involved. Some women might have said, "let me take Lyra" or "Lyra and Cora", and "you look after the boat", but others would have preferred him to stay with them. Her preferences may have been another factor in the decision.

In truth, with the comms down, the Satphone not responding (the safety net removed), unknown problems with the boat which could worsen, and rescue at hand, I suspect there were many factors leading to the decision to abandon the boat that we'll never know about. And despite the Kaufmans' openness on their blogs, I think it's really their business.

I've said before, and I still think it's true, even open blogs leave *stuff* out; it's inevitable. So, what if all the pillows they had planned to keep Lyra from rolling about got wet? and couldn't be used? What if she left out how she sanitized diapers? Or how about Eric's sleep deprivation? Perhaps it's lack of imagination here, but who among the criticizers has ever spent a 2 week passage sleeping as best they can in a wet sleeping bag? I have. Didn't much like it. I can say it could be really demoralizing if you had then to worry about the boat sinking, to take care of two young children and have responsibility for 3 square meals a day, in addition, and not ever getting a break. Was that a factor? We'll never know, and it's none of our business really.

I really want to ask all of you critics to simply see what, if any, of what you imagine the Kaufman's mistakes to have been, apply to what your plans are. If nothing, then no worries. If some thing or things, then address them.

If you think they should have had more ocean time as a family, provide that for yours. If you think more money should have been spent, spend it if you have it. If you think you need more crew, face up to it. And so on.
It's all there in this thread as it stands. scottuk, re-read Boatman 61's assessment of some of the seamanship issues. That's about it.

You know, Boatie started a thread relative to how the sailing life's changed. And one of the things is that the cruising community prides itself on being reciprocallly supportive of all its members. This is not necessarily a trait of internet forums.

Some of you out there are not yet members of that community; some will never join because life gets in the way of dreams. But what some of you out there call apologists for Eric and Charlotte, are merely people who want to support members of their community, people who have been generous in sharing, I might add. I actually think that's a good thing.

Ann

[Scottuk]

it's none of our business really.

As I said previously I do think the factors leading this situation should be used to make a full determination. The public expended money so I think it deserves scrutiny.

If the determination helps others in their decision making processes that keeps them from peril then I can't think of any argument not to. I think you likely agree given your comment:

I really want to ask all of you critics to simply see what, if any, of what you imagine the Kaufman's mistakes to have been, apply to what your plans are. If nothing, then no worries. If some thing or things, then address them.

Don't know what you really on about concerning the next quote but have re-read Boatman's comment numerous times. Can you explain?

scottuk, re-read Boatman 61's assessment of some of the seamanship issues.

[JPA Cate]

Sorry scottuk,

I fail to understand your great concern for the US taxpayers.

If you go back and read the whole thread (as some of us have done) maybe that'll lend a better understanding.

Cheers.

Ann

[captain58sailin]

If you are truly worried about the little bit, it cost to rescue the crew of RH. Then you must have many sleepless nights over the cost of fighter jets to the tune of 1 billion or more, and that is not counting maintenance and upkeep.

[Scottuk]

Don't think you are fully understanding my sentiment Anne T. Cate. My 'great concern for the US taxpayer' is not due to the money spent as I have stated previously I am okay with the cost of the rescue (something you should note captain58sailin) but would also like to get full value for the money spent. In this instance I have pointed out that value could help save others so it appears you might need to do some re-reading yourself.

As for your assumption I have not read the entire thread - that is not the case. However you referenced Boatman61's post directly but your response to my query failed to make any connection.