Visit our Popular Forums

barnakiel · 28-10-2017, 07:40

I have fixed a broken spreader in a gale between Tonga and NZ on a 26' boat. Some adrenaline yes but no brainer otherwise. Think they had 5 months to think it over and fix up. Must be some good reason why they did not.

A boat with a broken spreader may still be able to hoist lowered sails.

It is a sailing boat, they did not need that engine anyways. Hawaii to Tahiti is not Norwegian fjods. There is plenty of water, enough wind and very few rocks.

Today the Guardian says they could not sail. But this is just more poor journalism as then they swiftly go on to say one of them had adequate experience.

The 'kooks' argument does not hold water either. Many of my sailing friends are pure kooks and I am one likely too. This fact does not seem to stop us from doing sailing. In fact there may be a surprising percentage of kooks among those sailors who have sailed far and did so more than once.

The book / movie scenario looks more and more compelling ;-)

Cheers,
b.

Tetepare · 28-10-2017, 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by hzcruiser

If you're referring to other comments in this thread, I'd agree with you!

These ladies were certainly well prepared, Jenny worked for two years on the boat to get it ready. They had not one, but even two watermakers on board! They didn't just drift for 6 months. They sailed to Kiribati which turned out to be too shallow for their draught, then headed for the Cook Islands but couldn't make enough headway against the prevailing current. Hence they decided to go back north (maybe back to Hawai'i?). A rather prudent decision.

One spreader had come loose and my assumption is they had to sail predominantly on the other tack or in very light winds only in order to avoid a dismasting.

The rudder was fine but a squall flooded the cockpit and spilled into the cabin, damaging some electrics and the starter motor. Who is going to blame them for that?

If you guys bother to hear it from them, watch the interview on the USS Ashland before bagging them.

They called themselves "... being the landlubbers and greenhornes they were", I'd say yes, you can only learn to swim when in the water, and that's what they did.

Also, neither of them is "big" or seems to be "short a brick", either. They're not malnourished as they had 10% of their food left at the time.

And no, they might not have been "perfectly prepared" for the trip, but then again, who is, ever?

So yes, dixiedawg, it is sad to read so-called "fellow cruisers" to jump to conclusions time and again.

Since Kiribati comprises a third of the pacific they could get into Kiribati. Where in Kiribati ? They should have had a clue where they were going. If they couldn’t make Cooks (also a big area)bearing off either way would land them somewhere. There is a big difference between north to Hawaii and north to japan.

I vote they were clueless.

Valmika · 28-10-2017, 08:53

[QUOTE=mikedefieslife;2507666]Not sure what the deal is with this. All the news outlets here are focusing on the on that have never sailed. Guess it makes good headlines, but the other was a veteran of 10 years sailing.

I have taken people out on a charter that claimed to have sailed for 20 years but looked at me quizzically when I told the we were going to throw in a reef on the mainsail. (They didn't know what I meant)

Someone said earlier in this thread that he knew them and this woman was a few bricks short or something like that. I am not sure if he actually knew them but watching the interview. (yes the whole painful 10+ minutes) I am inclined to agree

barnakiel · 28-10-2017, 09:08

I doubt we have any right to assume they were clueless. The press clearly states one of them had adequate experience. Also, the boat looks well prepared and THEY DID MAKE 5 months at sea - mind many an ARC crew pressed all the right red buttons, at times only a week into their crossings ...

So, who's clueless.

I am a pro navigator. My partner does not even have any sailing certification. still, she is a highly rated social sciences practitioner. Does it make us a clueless or a pro crew?

Sailing in a team of two is a team work. Skills may overlap or less so, the point is to have complementary skills so that the crew, as a whole, works out the existing challenges.

These two sailors (plus their dogs) had challenges but they came out on top. The top priority is safety of the crew. Then only comes getting the ship from A to B. They are alive and may take another chance. Lessons learned and boats are just perishable goods, like cars.

Or should be bash as clueless every driver who had an accident and wrote off their car???

So, who is clueless.

Off course, this is one odd sailing story. Funny a bit too and tempting for anecdotes. But that's another thing. This is what makes it a good story. Eh?

Cheers,
b.

**newhaul** · 28-10-2017, 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I doubt we have any right to assume they were clueless. The press clearly states one of them had adequate experience. Also, the boat looks well prepared and THEY DID MAKE 5 months at sea - mind many an ARC crew pressed all the right red buttons, at times only a week into their crossings ...

So, who's clueless.

I am a pro navigator. My partner does not even have any sailing certification. still, she is a highly rated social sciences practitioner. Does it make us a clueless or a pro crew?

Sailing in a team of two is a team work. Skills may overlap or less so, the point is to have complementary skills so that the crew, as a whole, works out the existing challenges.

These two sailors (plus their dogs) had challenges but they came out on top. The top priority is safety of the crew. Then only comes getting the ship from A to B. They are alive and may take another chance. Lessons learned and boats are just perishable goods, like cars.

Or should be bash as clueless every driver who had an accident and wrote off their car???

So, who is clueless.

Off course, this is one odd sailing story. Funny a bit too and tempting for anecdotes. But that's another thing. This is what makes it a good story. Eh?

Cheers,
b.

all true but even you have to admit all the inconsistencies do make this story rather unbelievable. Even if it proves to be real. ( I have my doubts about that)

**Don C L** · 28-10-2017, 10:16

Yeah I am still thinking it was sensory deprivation thing. Clearly their sailing and nav skills may need improving too but I am sure many of us have stories of strange things we have seen and heard after a few monotonous days especially with some sleep deprivation thrown in. 3 or 4 months of just blue sky and blue seas can be a form of torture to some. Well, a week of it can be torture for some!
BBC - Future - How extreme isolation warps the mind

**a64pilot** · 28-10-2017, 10:24

From just the protein comment.
I believe that beans are an excellent source of protein, there is even a theory that cultivation of beans is what brought about the end of the dark ages. Beans can keep for a very long time.
I don’t know what their supplies were, whether they were Vegan or not, but protein is easily obtained. Surely if someone really were Vegan they would know this?
Article said one years worth of food, not five months. I can’t understand provisioning for a year, wouldn’t even know where to start. How much food is one years worth for two adults and two large dogs? I assume a dog that size eats as much as an adult human?

**Don C L** · 28-10-2017, 10:31

I think she said they had gone through 90% of their year's supply of food already, so I guess they were also looking at running out of food. Not such a good idea bringing two large dogs on a boat IMO.

Cadence · 28-10-2017, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxingout

This gives Mariners a bad name. My wife sailed around the world and she does not believe the story.

Yep, if it smells like fish it is probably fishy.

DenverSailors · 28-10-2017, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadence

Sounds as if they were not sailors. At least they didn't have to eat the dogs.

My interpretation was that the dogs WERE the year’s worth of food! Ha!

DenverSailors · 28-10-2017, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautitrix

To debase an entire gender because of the actions of two people is to debase those of us who feel that many women are more than capable of circumnavigating and maintaining their vessels.

It is unfortunate that some men cannot allow themselves to see women as intelligent, competent, capable gender equals.

BobV.

My wife just said, “No. What’s unfortunate is that so many women work so hard to prove they aren’t [intelligent, competent, capable gender equals]. It just continues to provide apparent support for the misogyny many men harbor.” Like anything, it’s the extremes that get the headlines. Having three daughters moderately trained in, “The Art of the Sail,” you’d never hear about them because they’d rig something up and take care of the problem. Hell, they’d have avoided it in the first place.

barnakiel · 28-10-2017, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

all true but even you have to admit all the inconsistencies do make this story rather unbelievable. Even if it proves to be real. ( I have my doubts about that)

Yep. But these are inconsistencies in the JOURNALISTS' stories.

Or else link me to the crew's first hand narrative and point at inconsistencies there.

Nonsense reporting of otherwise regular events by journalists (or rather "journalists") today is a fact.

I am 100% with you there are inconsistencies just the way I see this the inconsistencies have been introduced by the press.

We are yet to hear the story first hand though.

Cheers,
b.

Navicula · 28-10-2017, 12:17

you will hear all about it on Ellen.....lol

Tetepare · 28-10-2017, 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Or should be bash as clueless every driver who had an accident and wrote off their car???

b.

Ah you’ve picked my pet peeve. You’re talking about collisions of which fewer than 2% are accidents. The rest are pisspoor driving or failure to properly maintain the vehicle. Writing off the incompetent as “accidents” alleviates responsibly.