What's a skipper's obligation to voluntary crew?

[Rustic Charm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic Charm
Follow the logic that the skipper has "All" authority and you would support him fir knicking back someone for their colour or slanted eyes perhaps

Originally Posted by tomfl

While I understand your point I might ask you if you would allow a crew member on your boat who discriminated based on color or slanted eyes.

What about a crew member who favored Bruce anchors over Rocna anchors. What about a crew member who argued longly and loudly that multihulls were superior to monohulls, or vice versa. What about a crew member who did not agree with you about global warming, or the lack there of.

I suspect if the truth be known while the reason the skipper gave was undisclosed medical issues it was more than that alone. On more than one occasion I have seen PhDs have conflicts with folks who may lack higher degrees. It is easy to find real conflict on on the topics I have listed.

Does anyone think it is a good idea to take on a crew member who seems to have conflicts with the skipper?

Firstly, I would not let a known racist on my boat, NO. I have no problem with discriminating against someone because of their 'beliefs' if those beliefs are very likely to cause conflict with either myself or other members of the crew. And a racist is the lowest form of filth as far as I'm concerned. even lower than kiddy molesters.

Secondly, someone who had strong views about anchors or types of boats are 'views' and everyone is entitled to their views (no not racists). However, if they are non relenting in their views, then clearly their might be a high chance of conflict, so I might elect to not have them on my boat.

Having 'conflict' is more than simply expressing a view on anchors or types of vessels. NO, I would not voluntarily let crew on in 'conflict' unless I'm hoping the trip will somehow help to resolve the conflict. But, I think your confusing 'conflict' with 'differences' of opinion and views on things.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

In either case, they should be reassured that all emergency equipment is in good condition and up to date as well as all major repairs and maintenance have been performed.

Even unpaid crew is entitled to a working lifeboat, for example.

I quite agree with this! And I can easily envision a crewperson arriving, checking out the vessel, and bailing due to perceived faults in the boat... faults not disclosed by the skipper in the negotiations. This could leave the skipper short of crew and aggravated, but the crew is exercising his responsibility to evaluate the prospects of a successful voyage.

In both cases, really full disclosure in the early stages of communication between skipper and crew would have avoided the problem. Not a simple feat, even when both parties are acting in good faith. And to be honest, haven't we all encountered skippers who exaggerate the qualities of their boats and sailors who have inflated opinions of their own skill levels? All too common in my experience!

As I have commented before, the two most dangerous acts in sailing are going as crew on an unknown boat or taking on unknown crew for a passage.

Jim

[monte]

Really this discussion has had a lot of assumptions where none are necessary. For whatever reason the Captain didn't want to OP to board or take part in the voyage, that's the end of it...period. It's his boat. He's the Captain. The owner, the guy that pays the bills, the guy that bought the bloody thing. What's his obligation to someone that wants to crew? He is obliged to take all reasonable care that they arrive at the destination safe and well and hopefully better sailors than when they left the dock. For potential crew, a word of warning. All is not always what it seems. Do your homework before spending big bikkies on a potential crewing position. If you can't afford to travel with the possibility that you may not be allowed to board, give it a miss. Around half of the crew we have had aboard Sephina over the last several years have been family and friends, the other half (around 20) have been crew met online, or on the dock or the beach. We have crossed seas and oceans with crew met online, but never felt an obligation to the crew prior to meeting face to face. We have also never not allowed someone to board and join us for the planned passage (but there's always a first time) Of all of these crew bar one, we remain in contact and remain friends.
Im reminded of the skipper in Portugal that lived aboard and advertised for crew on one of the crew listing sites. He had girls come with promises of voyages to exotic locations, but never intended leaving the dock. On arrival the girls would find the boat (and skipper) a filthy mess and unfit for sea, and return home with a sad tale of misadventure. It happens, so be aware if travelling to a boat/skipper sight unseen, you need a backup plan.
Obviously any more commercial/delivery type situations a contingency agreement will be in place to cover expenses.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Cap Erict3

Btw, I am friends with a brain surgeon that I would never ever take on a passage. He has untreatable verbal diarrhea.

Ahh...He must be a member here!

[contrail]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic Charm
Follow the logic that the skipper has "All" authority and you would support him fir knicking back someone for their colour or slanted eyes perhaps



Firstly, I would not let a known racist on my boat, NO. I have no problem with discriminating against someone because of their 'beliefs' if those beliefs are very likely to cause conflict with either myself or other members of the crew. And a racist is the lowest form of filth as far as I'm concerned. even lower than kiddy molesters.

Secondly, someone who had strong views about anchors or types of boats are 'views' and everyone is entitled to their views (no not racists). However, if they are non relenting in their views, then clearly their might be a high chance of conflict, so I might elect to not have them on my boat.

Having 'conflict' is more than simply expressing a view on anchors or types of vessels. NO, I would not voluntarily let crew on in 'conflict' unless I'm hoping the trip will somehow help to resolve the conflict. But, I think your confusing 'conflict' with 'differences' of opinion and views on things.

Agree, completely!

Ironic that we may have discovered a few of our own members who are sufficiently "non relenting" in their views as to disqualify them from sailing with some of the rest of us!

Interesting that just about all of us who actually make trips that need crew, whether on the sea or in the air, absolutely agree with the Captain and think he may have dodged a bullet. Experience, good and bad.

Then there are a tiny few who seem to keep arguing just to argue...I know a few folks like that and I once was able to cure one by pointing out that I was in complete control of his conversation: all I had to do was say something and know that he would say the opposite....he didn't really like that! But I don't think it's going to work here

And finally, the only way to really know you will get to go on a trip is to buy the boat. Non paying and non paid crew are not the owners, and that's that.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by contrail

Then there are a tiny few who seem to keep arguing just to argue...I know a few folks like that and I once was able to cure one by pointing out that I was in complete control of his conversation: all I had to do was say something and know that he would say the opposite....he didn't really like that! But I don't think it's going to work here

In Cruising Rules: Relationships at Sea, Roland S Barth states, "Controversial subjects should only be discussed within swimming distance of shore."

[monte]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In Cruising Rules: Relationships at Sea, Roland S Barth states, "Controversial subjects should only be discussed within swimming distance of shore."

That's great jack 🙉

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That probably depends.

This is a rough guide for me.

Coastal - up to 50 miles from shore / safe harbour

Offshore - up to 150 miles from shore / safe harbour

Ocean - past 150 miles from shore / safe harbour

Other might think otherwise.

You could also use the GMDSS limits

A1 - 20-30 miles
A2 - 150 miles
A3 - past 150 miles

The Government of Canada uses

There really is no right answer.

Thats interesting jack, we just have 'inshore' and 'off shore' for safety equipment, though i think everyone knows whats 'costal'. And to remain 'costal' is generally not beyond 10 miles from the coast. Kind of loosely fits in with marine qualifications (e.g 3 x 10 coxswain).

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

The main difference being, if an airline refuses to let you board, they refund your money.

In this case, the crewmember was told to fly out, spent the money to do so and then left at the dock.

.

Assuming the typical non-refundable ticket (the vast majority sold are non-refundable):

Actually this is false. A 500lb guy shows up and doesn't fit in the seat, he has the choice of paying for a 2nd seat (or 1st class upgrade) but only if they have one available...or he stays and is out of luck.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Assuming the typical non-refundable ticket (the vast majority sold are non-refundable):

Actually this is false. A 500lb guy shows up and doesn't fit in the seat, he has the choice of paying for a 2nd seat (or 1st class upgrade) but only if they have one available...or he stays and is out of luck.

That is so only because the airlines have carved out for themselves a bunch of legal loopholes for ways out of the run of the mill Common Law rules. In any other free market situation that 500lbs guy would have an absolute right to a refund and perhaps even some compensatory damages if say he had to fly with another carrier at a steeper cost. In this example there should be at least a caveat at some point of the ticket buying procedure where the buyer of the ticket is made aware that the seats he's buying will only seat up to a certain size/weight. Then, and only then he should be a fair game for continuing his ticket purchase even though he's made aware of these limitations.

But concerning the OP I do agree that the Captain was fully within his rights in refusing him as a crew.

IMO to avoid situation like that it would probably be best if the unpaid crew ask the captain to provide for at least a one way ticket to the boat and in case of non boarding that would be the end of it. But if the crew is boarded than they would reimburse the captain for that ticket.

The reason I came to the conclusion that this is necessary is that I've been offered unpaid positions with captains I was not very familiar with, other than to know that I had more experience than they had at that point. So I figured I'd be doing them a favor rather than the other way around. They thought otherwise thinking that they are giving me this great opportunity to cross the Atlantic. One actually had to single hand from Azores to Gibraltar because his unpaid crew of 3 bolted at the first opportunity.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

That is so only because the airlines have carved out for themselves a bunch of legal loopholes for ways out of the run of the mill Common Law rules. In any other free market situation that 500lbs guy would have an absolute right to a refund and perhaps even some compensatory damages if say he had to fly with another carrier at a steeper cost. In this example there should be at least a caveat at some point of the ticket buying procedure where the buyer of the ticket is made aware that the seats he's buying will only seat up to a certain size/weight. Then, and only then he should be a fair game for continuing his ticket purchase even though he's made aware of these limitations.

The point was another poster said the 500lb guy would get his money back but that is false for 95% of tickets sold and he was using that as proof the OP should be compensated. Change it to a contagious disease and the airline would take a similar approach of kicking you off the plane if they become aware of it. His point doesn't stand because it's wrong.

Also, it's not a legal loophole. You can buy fully refundable tickets, they just cost so much more that it's usually not worth it. In the context of this discussion, the airlines don't call you a week before the flight to check on your weight and health status. If you have a health issue and don't check with them, it's your problem. They aren't going to ask for blood tests and personal history. If you show up with an issue they consider unsafe, you don't fly. If you are lucky, in the interest of good will, they may give you a voucher for a future flight (similar to the Captain giving the OP $250).

If the OP could have done a paid charter with a contract and he would have had different rights. He choose the cheap route and then didn't do his homework regarding what the Captain would accept...and he paid for his mistake.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The point was another poster said the 500lb guy would get his money back but that is false for 95% of tickets sold and he was using that as proof the OP should be compensated. Change it to a contagious disease and the airline would take a similar approach of kicking you off the plane if they become aware of it. His point doesn't stand because it's wrong.

Also, it's not a legal loophole. You can buy fully refundable tickets, they just cost so much more that it's usually not worth it. In the context of this discussion, the airlines don't call you a week before the flight to check on your weight and health status. If you have a health issue and don't check with them, it's your problem. They aren't going to ask for blood tests and personal history. If you show up with an issue they consider unsafe, you don't fly. If you are lucky, in the interest of good will, they may give you a voucher for a future flight (similar to the Captain giving the OP $250).

If the OP could have done a paid charter with a contract and he would have had different rights. He choose the cheap route and then didn't do his homework regarding what the Captain would accept...and he paid for his mistake.

Don't want to go on a tangent here so I'll just address your last point. They both took, or tried to take, the cheap route. The OP when he expected to get a free sailing education/experience and the skipper when he expected to get a free unpaid yet highly qualified (according to his own definition) crew. So I think this makes them both somewhat culpable. But of course the captain being in control of the boat had a better bargaining position in the end.

Unless one is comfortable sailing solo one has to deal with less than perfect unpaid crew. Or wait at the dock for one. Or hire a real paid crew and then expect the pro level service, etc. Would you expect a stranger to help you paint your house for free under the guise of you "teaching them all about house painting" only to harp on them for not conforming to the image or delivering a work product of a "perfect painter apprentice" you envisaged? Get real.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Unless one is comfortable sailing solo one has to deal with less than perfect unpaid crew. Or wait at the dock for one. Or hire a real paid crew and then expect the pro level service, etc. Would you expect someone to paint your house for free under the guise of you "teaching them all about house painting" only to harp on them for not conforming to the image or delivering a work product of a "perfect painter apprentice" you envisaged? Get real.

Except the Captain didn't come onto a message board and ask for sympathy or if compensation was in order. To the best of our knowledge, he understood the situation he put himself in and made the best choices he could after he found out hte the OP didn't share his health issues before showing up.

Now if the Captain shows up on this thread and starts complaining about unqualified crew with health issues showing up, your point becomes valid. Until then, it's not.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Ahh...He must be a member here!

That would not be untreatable verbal diarrhea, that would be untreatable keyboard diarrhea. A pretty common problem.

[Ribbit]

As somebody that is disabled, I can say that there are disabilities, and there are disabilities.

My pal Chris has a paralysed leg after a broken spine. Ex Parachute Regiment, no matter the challenge, Chris will take it on and beat it/find a way around it. I can't imagine having any issues with Chris as crew, and if something crops up, we will probably be able to sort it between us.

Another pal Tony (passed away now), ex Royal Navy, mainly in a wheelchair, and with frequent use of oxygen, didn't have to crew, he had a few of his own boats (I was crew at times).He could still exit and enter a very tricky estuary single handed, and get to the dock and tie up ok.

Now if somebody appeared before me looking to be crew, had a funny hat on, a patch over his eye, a peg leg, a crutch, and dead parrot nailed to his shoulder, would I take them on?

Well as long as they had a good sense of humour along with the rest of it . . .

I would draw the line at somebody perched on the pulpit and convinced they are a parrot, for sure (I have seen examples of such when having to sort out some equipment at a Mental Hospital, and they tend to get very violent when they don't get their Brazil nuts on time - I saw the efforts it took for about 6 male nurses to get one under control).

It isn't difficult for people to make sure that others don't feel hard done by. The vast majority of people are great, and leaving people happy is a worthwhile effort.