Did the captain deliberately put Bounty in danger?

[avb3]

This is NOT a good article, and if there is any truth to it, it is very, very worrisome.

How captain led HMS Bounty into eye of Hurricane Sandy | Mail Online

[Stumble]

I didn't know about the vessel being up for sale, but there has been a lot of questioning about why the vessel was out there in the storm. Even if he felt the need to leave the harbor to protect the ship, the plan as i understand it was to sail between the hurricane and the coastline. Instead he should have left port and sailed almost due east, trying to put room between the vessel and the eye of the storm, not sail on a parallel track towards it.

Who knows what the investigation would reveal, but there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions about why the vessel was where it was, and why the captain didn't choose a safer path.

[GaryMayo]

The story is off in a few places. One being the CG investigation. On their web site, the investigation is described as not for criminal or civil concerns. They are mainly concerned in the way they themselves conducted the rescue, I would wager. Covering their own butts as two people died. Not saying the CG did anything wrong, but that is all the investigation they are interested in.


If there was any interest in moving the ship for insurance reasons, I would guess a payday of 4.6 million was a bigger motive than saving her new hull paint job. Follow the money. Benefit of the doubt, yes, unless major pieces of the puzzle do not fit. Which they don't.

The mail online story is a disinformation piece made to look like the captain was trying to save his ship. No captain would sail a ship into a storm like that to save such sailboat. The safest place for her, was not sailing south into the largest graveyard for ships in north America, in a hurricane. Preposterous.

[mbianka]

I had thought the Bounty left from somewhere further south than New London Connecticut. Seems nuts to head south to meet the storm which was heading north. On the Saturday before Sandy hit I was sailing in Long Island Sound and noticed a tall ship high tailing it east under motor. I was wondering if it might have been the Bounty but, the AIS confirmed it was the Mystic Whaler which ironically is based out of New London the port where the Bounty left from according to the article. The Mystic Whaler survived Hurricane Sandy in the port that the Captain of the Bounty had concerns about staying in. Strange decision by the Bounty Captain.

[sailorboy1]

I don't feel the article provides any new information about the ship sinking and my feeling is that it is just an article written by some writer looking to sensationalize a story to sell it. Nothing in the written article to me supports the title below and I feel we don't need to reopen the debate that for most of us have already arm chaired that the decision to leave port was wrong:

"Did captain sail HMS Bounty into Hurricane Sandy to stop it being wrecked so it could be sold for $4.6million? How mercurial captain made bizarre decision to lead historic ship into eye of storm"

[Richard5]

Scheduled for Wed Dec 5th, The Weather Channel will have a special documentary on the Bounty.

[Artif]

The Daily Mail is a well known U.K paper for biased sensationalist reporting under the guise of a respectable publication.
Panders to the middle England Paranoia

[xymotic]

Well the Headline & first sentence is just factually wrong, he didn't sail anywhere near the eye of the storm.

[GaryMayo]

Originally Posted by Artif

The Daily Mail is a well known U.K paper for biased sensationalist reporting under the guise of a respectable publication.
Panders to the middle England Paranoia

There are worse UK publications. Some feel it is middle of the road. I do know they are not constantly looking for Royals upskirt pics. They do post some skin (which I am grateful for) but only of the want- to- bees that wish to get exposure. They has better Sandy coverage than many of the USA web sites.

[Auzzee]

The piece, by the Mail, is a speculative, typically tabloid style of fishing trip, designed simply to excite the soap opera set. The essence of a good story is conflict. Good journalism dictates that genuine conflict be highlighted; bad journalism dictates that where no conflict exists, it must be created.

I think any speculation on the ability of the skipper and the judgements he made on the day would be distinctly unhelpful at this stage and could indeed be libelous.

I sincerely hope the Inquiry makes its determinations quickly, without any corporative driven bias and with a definition which, one way or the other, lays the story properly to rest.

[David_Old_Jersey]

A bizarre article (even for the Mail!) - I wonder if they copied it from the Onion?!

[familycruisers]

Ha, yeah buddy posted that article on FB yesterday. Nothing new in it besides the opinion that the Capt did it because it was being sold. My theory has always been because it WASN'T selling in my opinion.

[S/V Alchemy]

Even if I had separate, unbiased, easily verified evidence that the skipper of Bounty was a suicidal puppy-kicking paranoiac with a brain tumour and a fat insurance policy, if I read it first in the Daily Mail, I would immediately discount it as a sensationalist pack of lies.

It's like Fox News or a stopped clock, really.

[w1651]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Even if I had separate, unbiased, easily verified evidence that the skipper of Bounty was a suicidal puppy-kicking paranoiac with a brain tumour and a fat insurance policy, if I read it first in the Daily Mail, I would immediately discount it as a sensationalist pack of lies.

It's like Fox News or a stopped clock, really.

I learned a long time ago never try to figure out anther persons thinking process. Maybe he was trying to save his ship by heading to sea, or maybe he was secure in direction he took. Maybe it was a calculated risk in his mind. Whatever it was he paid for it. The only problem is so did someone else because of his decision..

[Bash]

Wrong question. It's not whether the captain put his ship in danger. It's whether he put his crew in danger.

Yes, he was trying to save his ship. And his command. But his crew didn't seem to be a large concern.