Nicholson 38 sunk on Baja Ha-Ha

[requiem]

Originally Posted by massnspace

As someone who has it in their plans to potentially do the haha in the next few years, I have to ask: With a chartplotter, is it NOT safe to enter that harbor at night? Isn’t there at least a half mile swath of safe, deep water?

Keeping in mind that I haven't been there and am just a spectator, but there don't appear to be specific hazards beyond the normal reasons to avoid entering unfamiliar harbors at night.

Regarding your plotter, I don't know what charts it has, whether they are small-scale overview charts or larger scale harbor charts, or what survey data they're based on. Things like the positions of coastlines can jump about when changing chart scale. If you don't know the answers to those questions, then that should be part of your passage planning, along with verifying key features align with satellite imagery.

En route you'd want to use radar or visual fixes to ensure the charts continue to align with the coast, and if doing a night entry I'd particularly want radar. As a general rule I'd prefer to avoid entering at night for reasons Bycrick has well-illustrated. If doing so I'd take a direct line from offshore, passing midway between Punta Kelp and Roca Entrada.

[sv_pelagia]

Really, the only problem with entering Turtle Bay at night (when calm) are lobster trap floats.

As we entered under calm weather (~10kn from behind, nice gentle sail, calm seas) and full moon, we first radioed friends, already anchored inside earlier in the day, who said "all clear, no traps". Entrance went smoothly.

When we left 3 days later, we were shocked to see the entrance full of traps. Maybe they weren't there when we entered.... Glad we sailed in.

[svmobert]

One note to add here, without amplifying or discounting any other comments, From information I have seen directly from Ray, for this journey on Boatbumgal, Ray was NOT a paid captain, he was crew on a boat with other crew and the boats owner.

Originally Posted by BlueH2Obound

I can't state with certainty what the boat under discussion encountered, but according to my anemometer, for us, at anchor approximately 1.5 miles from the accident site the max wind gust observed that night in our location was 21 kts.
I have no way of knowing what the sustained winds were. If he did not feel that the rigging could handle the 22kts he reported encountering, IMHO, he should have never agreed to make the journey, and once again, IMHO, he never should have been hugging that coast as close as he did, not in daytime, and especially not in darkness. That fact alone, regardless of accuracy of navigation instruments, reliability of the autopilot, condition of standing and running rigging, etc was an action that I personally feel to be totally foolhardy.

Given his self proclaimed distrust of the above navigation instruments, autopilot, rigging, charging system, etc), his actions, in my personal opinion were totally irresponsible.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by massnspace

Nothing about my question indicates following a contour line.

My question is about attempting to enter the bay at night….

No, you did not, but Ray was intentionally following the 30' depth contour when he hit the rocks. Under moonlight with no chartplotter you can enter that bay safely. The entrance is huge, and the middle of the entrance is deep. There is nothing special you need to be worried about.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by Sea-TechSystems

One note to add here, without amplifying or discounting any other comments, From information I have seen directly from Ray, for this journey on Boatbumgal, Ray was NOT a paid captain, he was crew on a boat with other crew and the boats owner.

That is a pretty difficult (impossible) argument. Ray is a professional captain, and was brought aboard to assist and he has stated that. All of his expenses were paid for, and that legally counts as payment. In order for a licensed captain to "not be paid" all expenses need to be divided, meaning that short of Ray paying the owner, Ray was paid under the law. A free ride is a form of payment.

And, it is also a fact that Ray was the person on board making decisions, brought his own laptop for navigation, he made the decision to go close to shore, and was in the cockpit when the boat hit the rocks.

There isn't a chance in hell the argument that he was only crew would hold up.

[JPA Cate]

@ massnspace:

Your dependence on the chart plotter might or might not get you into trouble, but the old methods of planning such an entry, without even the assist of radar (which is a great way to tell how far off you are) would be to head parallel to the coastline, at least a mile out, and wait till you could see the lead lights. Using your binoculars, line them up and follow them in. There is still some risk at night, but where the lead lights are functioning, if the entry is clear, it can be done.

However, waiting till daylight, where you can use the "Mark 1 Eyeball" is safest of all, because if you look into the water, the discoloration shows you where rocks and bommies are, that otherwise, you have to trust the GPS for their location, and it may be out by ~65 ft in any direction.

And, Ray, if he were any kind of decent experienced crew should have proposed the old fashioned way of getting safely and not even been on the 10 m. line, but a mile off till he could see the lead lights. Maybe even VHF contact to one of the boats anchored in there, when they could see the masthead light, and a magnetic heading for getting in, if there were no other crew member to do that little bit of chart work.

The magnetic heading can be worked out with a short time on the chart. Plot the position by triangulation. Use the hockey puck [hand bearing compass] if the ship's compass is malfunctioning. Or even the compass in the binoculars, if that's what you have.

Massnspace, it is good to have backups that do not require electricity to function. Note that hand bearing compasses from the Northern Hemisphere are balanced for there, and may hang up in the Southern, so you may want two, plan to get a southern balanced one in Papeete or NZ, if you're westward bound.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

The magnetic heading can be worked out with a short time on the chart. Plot the position by triangulation. Use the hockey puck [hand bearing compass] if the ship's compass is malfunctioning. Or even the compass in the binoculars, if that's what you have.

One brief comment: if you're not in the habit of using your ship's compass, it'd be wise to take the time to swing ship and make sure you there isn't any significant deviation. (I've seen some compasses badly in need of adjustment.)

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by requiem

(I've seen some compasses badly in need of adjustment.)

"I don't need an adjusted compass with a deviation card, I've got all these electronic gizmos".
You're quite right, having a swung compass with a deviation card is the beginning of navigation.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by massnspace

As someone who has it in their plans to potentially do the haha in the next few years, I have to ask: With a chartplotter, is it NOT safe to enter that harbor at night? Isn’t there at least a half mile swath of safe, deep water?

I suppose that depends upon:

1) Whether you think the data in the chartplotter accurately reflects the hazards;

2) Whether you think that any harbor is safe to enter at night;

3) Whether you have radar and know how to use it;

4) Whether the moon is out;

5) Whether you've been there before; and,

6) Other factors like whether you're wide awake and totally on the ball.

I have entered Duluth harbor in winds gusting to 20 knots, at night, and had to circle around into the waves and wait for one of the 13 to leave first. The channel is only 300' wide. Even though there are no tides as such there can be current. But it is also clearly marked with lights and radar reflectors. Chartplotter data is accurate and I have marked emergent obstructions as waypoints. I know the harbor entrance like the back of my hand because I've been through there so many times that the bridge tender recognizes my voice. I know my boat and what it can and cannot do. I know my radar. But not everyone makes it, and at times even one of the 13 has managed to run aground.

Looking at the charts, it is hard for me to see Turtle Bay as the sort of harbor entrance that poses much of a hazard. The fact that it was a moonless night complicates matters however, and the subject vessel was apparently neither familiar to the skipper nor, at that particular moment, at the height of seaworthiness.

It is easy to be conservative on the forums and spend other people's cruising kitty on safety gear and other people's time waiting for better conditions. In the moment it is harder. If I were on a boat with a bunch of tired, grumpy crew being rolled around just outside Turtle Bay, I might very well sail inside in the middle of the night.

But if I did, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would set an initial approach waypoint that kept me a mile clear of shore before turning northeast into the harbor. I would visually confirm the presence and location of the three lights before proceeding to the mouth of the bay. I would chart a course to stay on 50 foot soundings until past the entrance to the bay. Given the offshore wind I would be motoring to eliminate the need to tack through the harbor entrance, but would have sails ready should anything go wrong with the engine. I would proceed at the slowest speed where I could comfortably maintain steerage, probably around 3 knots. I would be scanning between the depth sounder, the radar, and the horizon in front of me for trouble. Because that is how I do things when I am in a place that has rocks, that I only know through charts and the wisdom of other sailors.

But what do I know. I'm just someone with a boat who won't let people call me "captain."

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Your dependence on the chart plotter might or might not get you into trouble, but the old methods of planning such an entry, [...] would be [...]

I learned map-based navigation starting on land, in an Orienteering club in the late 1970s, in my Misspent Youth (tm), and was brought up learning a chartless/buoyless approach to lake navigation through the 1980s (based on extrapolating shoreline features into the water, reading the waves, and memorizing landmarks and hazards), because there weren't charts for the places we took our boats. An interest in aviation brought more chart reading skills in the mid 1980s. GPS was usable but less accurate than today starting in the mid 1990s and I had one of the first handheld receivers, that gave you lat/long and could store 100 waypoints and figure out bearing to waypoint and crosstrack error.

I've ended up in a middle ground in my approach to navigation where I use the GPS and chartplotter as a primary means of navigation but am constantly crosschecking them against landmarks, radar, and depth. So instead of planning a turn once a range lines up, I'll set a waypoint for the turn on the plotter, and then look at the range as the waypoint approaches and wonder what's going on if it doesn't line up.

I just think it's interesting because I wouldn't ordinarily plan a harbor approach based on lining up the leading light, but I would sure check (approximate at least) bearings to the lights from my chosen waypoint.

To this day I explore inland waters where there are no charts and no cell phone service in my smaller boats. There are topgraphic maps and GPS but no indication of depths or underwater hazards. In some places other boaters have placed solar lawn lights, taped to plastic pipe, as channel markers (see photo).

The prudent mariner utilizes all available sources of navigational data....

[Night_Sailor]

I don't see any justification for hugging the coast so close. I can't see any reason to be closer than 1 or 2 nautical miles.

I've sailed the coast of California some. I have a strict rule to avoid kelp. It can grow "to the surface" in over 200' depths. No one has mentioned this. The whole west coast is a kelp forest. Hell, the point where they sank is Kelp Point! It was crazy to go anywhere near it. That should be enough to suggest the widest possible separation from shore.

A light on-shore breeze, swell, and kelp has sunk more than a few boats run by captains trying to impress crew and guests with views of the rugged coastline. A very bad idea. A lee shore, light breeze. Everything is fine until the kelp slows them down, if it can't sail upwind dragging kelp, engines are n started, intakes get clogged. They get pushed on the rocks. Bye bye.

Still, I would have had someone on the helm on the approach. It should have been easy to turn away to avoid obstacles if the auto pilot was not engaged. It should not have been used.

As for entering a harbor at night. I have entered many "new to me" harbors at night, with every bit of caution. I slow the boat down enough such that if I do hit something it won't matter. In any event, I have hove to many times at night. For some reason most people avoid doing that? Why? It is so easy, relaxing, and restful. It is never prudent to be in a rush. Some people like to brag about how fast a passage them made. That inevitably leads to problems of one sort or another.

However, my immediate conclusion was I would not have left the dock with the boat is such poor condition. Not even if the crew was the entire Swedish Bikini Team eager to please.

I have a three strikes rule, and treat boats like airplanes. Boats need to be inspected thoroughly before departure, and it was obviously not done, or the corrosion issue would have been corrected before departing, not prior to the second departure. I have worked decades as a delivery captain, and I spend time looking at everything onboard before committing to moving a boat. I follow this routine, even on boats I have previously inspected. There is always something that needs to be fixed.

Wiring Issues: Strike one.
Cheesy generator/charging issue: Strike two
Dry rot in the rigging: Strike three
Sailing offshore with these problems? Strike four

Now if I wanted to sink a boat. I would not follow these safety rules.

[donradcliffe]

While you all were busy slagging Ray to boost your egos, I was on a 400 mile delivery of a 2021 Beneteau 46.1 from Richmond (SFO) to Alamitos Bay (LA) for the new owner.

Got to the boat, get the engine started, turned on the nav electronics, checked the battery voltage, and headed to Sausalito for fuel. Tried the B&G autopilot, which couldn't hold a course.

Got fuel while there was still enough tide to access the fuel dock, then went out into deeper water to check out the pilot. Swung the boat, and compared boat heading to COG and a useless magnetic compass situated between the two helms. The COG and compass were within 5 degrees, but the heading was way off. For example at 150 degrees the heading read 37, at 50 degrees the heading read 15, at 000 degrees the heading read 0, at 210 degrees the heading read 315. Notified the owner there was an autopilot problem. Got a call 5 minutes later from the broker, who said "it worked just fine 2 weeks ago". If I was the autopilot, I wouldn't work with that heading sensor either.

Downloaded the boat manual because there was none aboard, located the heading Precision 9 compass and verified there was nothing new and magnetic around it, turned off the engine which didn't change things, then went into compass recalibration mode. The compass calibration timed out after 3 circles, so did it again. Still no change in headings. Repeated 3 times with no success.

Reviewed my weather window and decided it was better to hand steer than wait a day and beat into southerly winds. Another issue was the AIS, which did not show us on Marine Traffic, but picked up other targets. It looked like no one had correctly programmed the MMSI in the B&G.

Decided to leave without the modern stuff. It wasn't much fun, but we made it. My point is, if we had waited to fix the boat, it would still be in Richmond.

[BlueH2Obound]

donradcliffe,
was there a point to your post except to criticize members pointing out the obvious poor decisions leading to the loss of the BBG?
Good on you for completing a successful delivery. Just not sure it's relevance to the current thread.

[psk125]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

...Decided to leave without the modern stuff. It wasn't much fun, but we made it. My point is, if we had waited to fix the boat, it would still be in Richmond.

If they had waited to fix the boat, BBG would still be afloat. If they had sailed carefully, piloting without using the modern stuff -- autopilot, chart plotter & depth sounder to follow the 30' contour -- BBG would still be afloat. If the most experienced person aboard wasn't fixated on autopilot issues and was instead watching where they were going, BBG would still be afloat.

[CarinaPDX]

Originally Posted by BlueH2Obound

donradcliffe,
was there a point to your post except to criticize members pointing out the obvious poor decisions leading to the loss of the BBG?

Yes, not getting this. Don had a boat to deliver which had a failed autopilot which he was unable to repair; he judged that he didn't require it so left and made a safe passage. Seems right to me.

The skipper in question wrote:

We mutually agreed that I would not be paid, but that she would pay for my expenses. We also discussed about the condition of the boat, and my position on the boat as being the most experienced individual on board out of the three of us.

This means that he was paid (for the travel) and asserted primacy in decision-making due to his experience. I.e. he owns this.

Further:

after arriving to the boat I could see that this late 1970’s boat had marginal maintenance. Just as an example the tricolor light was wired into the running lights, the led deck lights where wired into the steaming light, and the AC charger on board had a 110 male plug that was plugged into a 110 plug box and was not on any breaker.

So he knew that there were multiple existing problems before discovering that the boat's 12V system was not functioning correctly. His repair of the 12V problem turned out to be inadequate, as other 12V problems showed up when starting out again. And he also learned that the autopilot was unreliable, with sudden 30 degree turns and a 20 second delay on turning off - in other words it should never have been used. But he carried on anyway. The point I make is that you don't take a boat to sea that is not ready for that passage: no excuses. This boat was not ready, and leaving with these known problems was bad judgment. And using a misbehaving autopilot, especially close to shore, was reckless - hand steering was both possible and the safe approach.

I figured that with traveling the baja ha ha fleet there is safety in numbers.

This is what I expect from a noob, not a USCG Master. If you are not ready for the passage such that you are confident that you will not need assistance then you are not ready for that passage. You cannot count on anyone else bailing your ass out of a situation that you could reasonably have anticipated. Thinking that it's OK to take a boat with serious issues out on a significant passage because there are other boats to help out is an abdication of responsibility. FWIW this thinking is common among noobs around many rallies and it is flat out wrong and dangerous. If you aren't ready to do it then you have no right to to go anyway and assume you can lean on others to save you from your foolishness.

Ultimately the accident happened because of a series of bad judgments. They should never have left in the first place. Because there was doubt about the rig they tried to keep out of the wind by staying dangerously close to the coast. They used the autopilot close to shore even knowing that it could turn suddenly. He failed to update his waypoints for the new, and dangerous, track. While trying to mitigate the power problem the crew got distracted from the task of course following. It seems that there was a single source of nav data, his laptop presumably located below decks. And there was no indication in his telling of the story that he was aware of the likelihood for high, compressed wind at the point (and which may well have played a part even if he was unaware of it).

Don is critical of the comments. That is a mistake. We should be commenting about these mistakes so that others don't do the same thing in the future. The "captain" seems to want to move on and leave this in the past. I appreciate that this is not his proudest moment, and not something that is going to help with future business. But not confronting and fully understanding the mistakes of the past just dooms him, and us, to repeat these mistakes. On a personal level I have sympathy for all involved, but sympathy doesn't make us better skippers.

Greg