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

[Island Time O25]

Unless OP or the skipper appear in this thread to give us more info I'd say we're beating a very dead horse. And the previous post kinda summed it up well.

[sailorboy1]

I got curious as to how this could still be going.

I don't know why so many people seem to feel the OP should post his health "issue". It has nothing really to do with the question he posted. But then the question got answered waaaay back in the thread.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I got curious as to how this could still be going.

I don't know why so many people seem to feel the OP should post his health "issue". It has nothing really to do with the question he posted. But then the question got answered waaaay back in the thread.

It has everything to do with the question. The OP admitted it was due to a health issue but without knowing what the health issue is it's hard to say:
- If he has a bad case of acne and it grosses the Captain out, I think most would side with the OP at least getting his travel costs back.
- If he has a festering case of ebola he didn't bother to mention, I think most could side with the Captain.

Some folks did some internet sluething but even the two issues they found could vary from a minor nuisance to completely debilitating.

The OP has failed to put together a compeling case that he should be reimbursed and the only thing that may sway that is if he provides evidence that it's a minor item that didn't justify being kicked off.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

It has everything to do with the question. The OP admitted it was due to a health issue but without knowing what the health issue is it's hard to say:

It's only an issue to those that want to argue since the OP said in the start that he accepts that the owner could change his mind as that is their choice. If you go to the OP there is nothing about any "health" problem in the question. And later the OP says that it hasn't been a problem for 36 years, yet in that time he has crewed lots of times.

I have a possible theory and if it is correct I would have taken him.

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I got curious as to how this could still be going.

I don't know why so many people seem to feel the OP should post his health "issue". It has nothing really to do with the question he posted. But then the question got answered waaaay back in the thread.

He shouldn't have to post his health issue - but it WAS the OP that posted here, wanting to get support -- or, as he put it, wanting to know who should pay for his expenses.

If you don't want to tell why something happened, you can't really expect an answer to that question. In this case, I don't believe the OP was looking for answers based on all the facts, but was more looking for people to support his believes of being wronged by the skipper. At the very least, he should have included the reason, even if only saying "health issue". (And when doing so, you know people will ask more about it, in order to be able to form an opinion - as asked by the OP.)

As to why this thread is still alive (sort of ): taking on crew or joining a boat as crew isn't as simple as some people may think it is, and this topic raised some good questions. There were many very interesting en informative posts made after the OP left. At least for me, it was worth the read so far

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

And later the OP says that it hasn't been a problem for 36 years, yet in that time he has crewed lots of times.

He said he'd never missed a day of work because of it in 36 years. As someone posted earlier in this thread: neither has Stephen Hawking.

And yes, he's done a lot of sailing but as he said: not off-shore, as this trip was.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

It's only an issue to those that want to argue since the OP said in the being that he accepts that the owner could change his mind as that is their choice. If you go to the OP there is nothing about any "health" problem in the question. And later the OP says that it hasn't been a problem for 36 years, yet in that time he has crewed lots of times.

I have a possible theory and if it is correct I would have taken him.

You are ignoring his question (quotes):
- "What are his obligations to me in this situation?" (1st post)
- "Only after he welched on that did I feel wronged." (9th post in thread)
- "BTW, the "health issue" that the skipper was concerned about..." (22nd post in thread he finally admits it was due to a health issue but fails to provide details about the issue.)

From a legal perspective probably no obligation unless the OP had a written contract but even then not sharing health issues up front could probably get the Captain out of any legal obligation.

From a moral perspective, it comes down to was the health issue that the OP choose not to share with the Captain until he arrived, significant enough that it could reasonably be justification to deny him passage. Hence the nature of his condition is central to answering the original question, "What are his oblications to me in this situation?"

The fact the OP doesn't feel it's an issue is not relevant. We don't know what crewing experience he has. If it's all day sails in easy conditions that doesn't mean much if they are taking off on a multiday passage. The Captain is under no obligation to take the OP at his word that the health condition won't be an issue and hiding it would only make me more leary of trusting his word.

[sailorboy1]

The actual health issue is only of importance to the thread as far as a group moral justification.

[Lizzy Belle]

And now the topic is going around in circles

[rognvald]

"rognvald should correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the "Shall we Dance?" metaphor had to do with the two sides on the extremes of this discussion." Ann Cate


Ann,

There is nothing really enigmatic about my dance reference in post #309. Just an attempt at humor that obviously proved to be misunderstood by most. However, the dance reference meant that similar to an 8th grade dance, some boys ask the girls immediately while others never get the courage. It was a reference to asking the OP what was his ailment. Some ask(ed?), some don't/didn't. However, my sincere apologies to those who did ask the OP's ailment earlier in the discussion (that I obviously missed) as no harm or slander to reputation was intended. And, sorry for the confusion but at, times, I do believe when discoursing in an online discussion without the benefit of personal contact and familiarity with my personality, I'm hopelessly caught in the dream scene in 2001 Space Odyssey. I'm sure many of my fans on this Forum(I'm at present clearing my throat) would certainly agree. Sincerely, Dr. Dave Bowman/Discovery One . . . aka Rognvald the Enigmatic . . . . Is that you Hal???
And, thanks Ann for your sincere reply. Your posts are always the best!

[boatman61]

The skippers 'Obligation' towards his volunteer crew is simple..
Satisfy himself that the person is (to His mind) satisfactorily sound of body and mind to cope with any and all situations that may arise out on open waters before they step on board.. should he accept them as crew following their arrival and visual conformation of claims made by the applicant..
its then his obligation to ensure they know their duties and the workings of essentials for all possible events.. and to get them safely to the destination.
If he decides they are after all unsuitable.. it is Not his obligation to cover any costs.. let alone any expensive 'security blanket' toys the guy has bought..
This sounds like a B&B with travel in exchange for lookout duties deal to me.. with the crew spending money only on himself to date..
That he got anything at all is something he should be grateful for..
Were it for a paid position.. that's a whole different ball game..

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

rognvald should correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the "Shall we Dance?" metaphor had to do with the two sides on the extremes of this discussion. There were those who felt the OP was ill done by, being turned away when he had invested in time off and scheduled airplane flights, and was only handed what the skipper had in his pockets. In the mean time, the skipper turned back the OP, on a medical basis. Whether or not that was a polite knockback for another reason, basically that is what has been reported.

There were some supporters of the OP because at first the knockback seemed without cause, which is very hard for landlubbers to get their heads around, but not so much for ocean passage makers, and professionals, who then chimed in, these people believing that it matters not why the skipper knocks back a possible crew person--if skippy is not comfy, it mattereth not. I am on that side. To me the crew would be coming into my home, and if I don't want s/him, that's it, no questions whatsoever. As a skipper, if there were a trust issue, for sure I would knock him back, again, and again! One cannot have someone aboard a shorthanded boat whom one cannot trust; that's really a recipe for disaster, and one i've seen played out by couples taking on crew who were, let us say, "incompletely disclosing."

There was a hint that the OP's problem was related to or was schizophrenia, which is a condition which renders its sufferers non compos mendi from time to time. In some cases it is kept in control by oral medication, taken by the sufferer, who usually doesn't like the side effets, so that the sufferer is likely to discontinue medications without telling the skipper..

Now, our OP is a bright guy. For whatever reason, upon having a face to face meeting with the skipper, the skipper decided to not take him as crew, despite his credentials.

There must have been some reason for that, but as the skipper has not posted his poiint of view, we do not know what he saw or felt., so it may or may not have been a rational judgement.

Since then, there has been a lot of chat about what the skippers' responsibilities are, and so far, it seems that there is agreement that the skipper should give appropriate safety instructions for aboard his boat, and that the skipper should make a reasonable attempt to solicit information regarding pre-existing medical conditions prior to taking on crew.

I would add that especially when going offshore, but not limited to that, the skipper must hold the welfare of the vessel and the whole crew at the top of his list of responsibilities. Therefore, he must knock back anyone with whom he does not feel comfortable. And for those guys who think this might be unfair, I say, suck it up, 'cause it isn't a game, and the ocean is powerful, and we are weak, and we need to stack the deck in our own favour.

After that, consensus disappears, and chaos reigns.

a.

Ann, I think you completely missed the point of the OP starting this thread.

Nobody, including the OP, disagrees that the captain has final authority over who becomes a crewmember on his boat, that is a fact and I don't recall anyone disputing that.

What the OP asked was - does the captain have any obligation to make him whole after talking to him on the phone for 3 weeks, telling him to fly out, then asking more questions, then deciding to exclude him from the crew?

My position all along has been - yes, the captain has final authority, but at the same time he has a responsibility to make his decision PRIOR to the crewmember spending over $1,000 to prepare and fly there. That's just common courtesy, which appears to be lacking in this day and age.

There was a time way back when, when people were honorable and did the decent thing. That's no longer the case it seems. Now I'm convinced that a written contract between potential crewmembers and potential captains should be drawn up, covering all potential outcomes like boat sinking, not getting along, someone being too ugly, too much flatulence, terrible cooking, political discussions, etc and signed by both parties so that there is no misunderstanding on any issue about any possible outcome.


I understand that many on this thread feel that the OP is just SOL and chalk it up to a learning experience, and that's what I'm taking this as - a lesson to get EVERYTHING in writing if I decide to crew or take on crew.

I'm quite sure that if a guy asked a young lady to go out to dinner and she spent a small fortune getting a Brazilian wax and buying the perfect dress and shoes, then the young man ditched her in the middle of dinner because he didn't like the size of her nose and she got stuck with a sizable dinner bill, all of you (especially the women) would think he was a total cad, and you would be right.

I see no difference in this situation. The captain invited him to fly out; at that point he had an obligation not to stick the other person with the bill just because he wasn't clever enough to ask "Do you have any health, mental or medical issues at all?" As a guy who has met a lot of people in the last 40 yrs, believe me, there are a LOT of crazy people out there.

Come to think of it, the captain was VERY lucky that this rejected crewmember wasn't one of my ex-GFs. We'd all be reading news reports of his boat exploding at the dock.

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

The captain invited him to fly out; at that point he had an obligation not to stick the other person with the bill just because he wasn't clever enough to ask "Do you have any health, mental or medical issues at all?"

First of all - we don't know what was asked and when. Even the OP is vague on that subject, and none of us were there when they spoke / emailed.

Secondly - we don't know what they had agreed on regarding costs. Not unusual for crew to have to pay for their ticket and expenses. The OP declined to answer any questions regarding their agreement, so we'll never know.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

And yes, he's done a lot of sailing but as he said: not off-shore, as this trip was.

Can you please repost where he stated that? I'thought I'd read all 10 of his posts but I must have missed that one.

[Lizzy Belle]

If I remember correctly, in one of the crew wanted responses.
You're going to have to look it up yourself tho

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The skippers 'Obligation' towards his volunteer crew is simple..
Satisfy himself that the person is (to His mind) satisfactorily sound of body and mind to cope with any and all situations that may arise out on open waters before they step on board.. should he accept them as crew following their arrival and visual conformation of claims made by the applicant..
its then his obligation to ensure they know their duties and the workings of essentials for all possible events.. and to get them safely to the destination.
If he decides they are after all unsuitable.. it is Not his obligation to cover any costs.. let alone any expensive 'security blanket' toys the guy has bought..
This sounds like a B&B with travel in exchange for lookout duties deal to me.. with the crew spending money only on himself to date..
That he got anything at all is something he should be grateful for..
Were it for a paid position.. that's a whole different ball game..

Let me see if I understand this.

You charge people to deliver their boats, do you pay the crew on these deliveries, or do you use volunteer crew?