Another Lovely Old Girl Founders

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Evans. I'm not interested in finding fault , in fact I am defending what I believe was an excellent captain , who in the face of odds he didnt like did the right thing , which was to sacrifice the ship to save the trainees. Has he carried out some risky action and delayed the evacuation, I can just imagine your howls of condemnation.

You on the other hand are in effect faulting the Captain in the guise of offering alternatives in a situation where what was attempted is unclear.

I am going to say this very slowly once more . . . . I wanted to discuss this incident as a vehicle for learning and education and doing better in the future. I am NOT interested in or intending any disguised or implied fault finding or criticism, or praise, of the captain.

You, on the other hand, seem to only want to defend the captain, and to try to squash any discussion about the incident as a learning experience or what might have been done differently with 20/20 hindsight.

I personally don't think the captain needs your defense, and am sorry you are stepping on any attempt to discuss how we might have handled the incident.

If your aim is fault (or praise) finding then you do want/need to wait until you know all the circumstances. However, when using this incident as a discussion vehicle to learn and do better in the future, its not necessary to know everything for sure. We can surely speculate about "what if's" (like "what if" the comment about water in the fuel is true) and what implications they would have on our thought process, orders to crew and course of action. That's how the standard 'simulated emergency drills' work - a 'what if' situation posed to the deck crew.

Finally, I don't see that there is any such trade-off between potential actions we have discussed to save the vessel (like for example dropping an anchor or a turn thru the wind) and saving the crew or delaying the evacuation. That's a false dichotomy.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I've also had instructors who thought if they called out instructions the *students* would automatically follow them well. Sometimes you need the bigger picture to really "get" the instructions you're being given. Those of you who have been sailing since you were six may not have even experienced that, because your parents were well aware of what you did and didn't know. But I have seen skippers call out instructions to crew who didn't completely understand what they were being told to do. I've made that mistake as skipper myself.

You make a very good point . Easy for folks who "know" stuff to over assume what is obvious and / or to see only the easy part in isolation of the bigger picture.

For me the natural reaction is to try and understand WTF I am doing and why rather than to simply jump to orders, no matter how loud they are issued! - would never have been any good in the Army or Navy . I try and avoid getting into situations where that is a possibility.

FWIW, me father was also a shouter as Skipper , took me many years to train him - fortunately he also taught me lots of swear words . With hindsight I can see that often shouting masked ignorance and some concern.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Here's a good account from a reliable newspaper

Video: 30 rescued as Dutch tall ship sinks off Cork coastline - The Irish Times - Thu, Jul 25, 2013

Firstly she had many trainees from several countries. The report states the captain did try to sail out of it.

Evans. I'm not interested in finding fault , in fact I am defending what I believe was an excellent captain , who in the face of odds he didnt like did the right thing , which was to sacrifice the ship to save the trainees. Has he carried out some risky action and delayed the evacuation, I can just imagine your howls of condemnation.



You on the other hand are in effect faulting the Captain in the guise of offering alternatives in a situation where what was attempted is unclear.

No doubt you are aware of AIS reporting durations at slow speeds !

Dave

Wow -- from several countries, yet another language barrier.

I applaud this captain. Everyone got off, uninjured. That had to be a hairy exit for new sailors, too.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by ryon

Rakuflames: My bad! That was someone else "standing on the yardarm". That would be one balancing trick!

To me that would be up there with standing on the wings of those old biplanes -- in other words, great for someone else.

[goboatingnow]

I won't ding dong with Evans on this.

In modern tall ships the loss of any trainees , typically being " nice volunteers from good families etc" is a far bigger issue for sail training then the loss of the ship. The priority is get the trainees off , irrespective of the situation

if certain actions , while carrying risks , might have saved the vessels but potentially could have delayed the rescue or complicated it , the view is to get the trainees off and view the ship as expendable.

This was much the view its seems on the Asgard 2 or the Astrid. It's the diametrical opposite to the view when these vessels dominated the ocean and the ship was more important then loosing a few crew. The tall ship sail training industry suffered severe negative publicity in its early years and continues to draw criticism in this regard when it looses crew due to one issue or another

Modern public opinion simply does not accept that such trainees should ever come into harms way , much less risk death , yet these vessels buy there very nature in their heyday lost crew sometimes on every voyage. This was accepted at the time.

The loss of the vessel is irrelevant on the face of those issues.

The capital did the right thing. All hands are safe , merely wood and metal are on the bottom

PS

Her bell , wheel and compass have already been stolen and the salvors believe she will never sail again


Dave

[boatman61]

You'd be surprised at what us 15yr olds had to do at HMS Ganges in the early 60's on that 142ft mast
There were some sadistic bastards in charge of us..

[estarzinger]

There is an important point here . . . . relevant to typical cruisers.

Abandoning ship can be quite risky. Abandoning ship puts the crew at increased risk. It is always (Well we could probably find some obscure case where it is not but 99.9% of the time) better to save the vessel and NOT put the crew at risk. Every year some cruisers don't realize this and call for rescue putting themselves at increased risk, when they would have been fine but uncomfortable without the rescue.

The "saving the vessel vs putting the trainees at risk" is a false dichotomy. Putting the vessel on the rocks put the trainees at increased risk. If there was a decision or maneuver that saved the vessel, it would also have avoided that increased trainee risk.

Saving the vessel and minimizing crew risk (usually) work together and are not opposed.

Fortunately in this case, it was a nice day, extremely near a harbor with rescue resources, and the crew performed very well. But make no mistake, putting a vessel on the rocks, particularly in a decent swell, increases crew risk over almost any other maneuver/outcome (including probably slow sinking in deeper water).

A crew was just lost this summer in CA, when a boat lost steering and did a very soft landing, but the crew was killed getting off the boat in the swell and rocks.

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=estarzinger;1298795]There is an important point here . . . . relevant to typical cruisers.

Abandoning ship can be quite risky. Abandoning ship puts the crew at increased risk. It is always (Well we could probably find some obscure case where it is not but 99.9% of the time) better to save the vessel and NOT put the crew at risk. Every year some cruisers don't realize this and call for rescue putting themselves at increased risk, when they would have been fine but uncomfortable without the rescue.QUOTE]

+A1
How many believe this is another matter

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I won't ding dong with Evans on this.

In modern tall ships the loss of any trainees , typically being " nice volunteers from good families etc" is a far bigger issue for sail training then the loss of the ship. The priority is get the trainees off , irrespective of the situation

if certain actions , while carrying risks , might have saved the vessels but potentially could have delayed the rescue or complicated it , the view is to get the trainees off and view the ship as expendable.

This was much the view its seems on the Asgard 2 or the Astrid. It's the diametrical opposite to the view when these vessels dominated the ocean and the ship was more important then loosing a few crew. The tall ship sail training industry suffered severe negative publicity in its early years and continues to draw criticism in this regard when it looses crew due to one issue or another

Modern public opinion simply does not accept that such trainees should ever come into harms way , much less risk death , yet these vessels buy there very nature in their heyday lost crew sometimes on every voyage. This was accepted at the time.

The loss of the vessel is irrelevant on the face of those issues.

The capital did the right thing. All hands are safe , merely wood and metal are on the bottom

PS

Her bell , wheel and compass have already been stolen and the salvors believe she will never sail again


Dave

I don't think modern society *should* accept the needless death of anyone over a boat, no matter what their backgrounds. I don't think this was even a hard decision for the captain. He saved all those lives. Unfortunately he couldn't save the boat, but the evidence is very clear that he made the right call.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

There is an important point here . . . . relevant to typical cruisers.

Abandoning ship can be quite risky. Abandoning ship puts the crew at increased risk. It is always (Well we could probably find some obscure case where it is not but 99.9% of the time) better to save the vessel and NOT put the crew at risk. Every year some cruisers don't realize this and call for rescue putting themselves at increased risk, when they would have been fine but uncomfortable without the rescue.

The "saving the vessel vs putting the trainees at risk" is a false dichotomy. Putting the vessel on the rocks put the trainees at increased risk. If there was a decision or maneuver that saved the vessel, it would also have avoided that increased trainee risk.

Saving the vessel and minimizing crew risk (usually) work together and are not opposed.

Fortunately in this case, it was a nice day, extremely near a harbor with rescue resources, and the crew performed very well. But make no mistake, putting a vessel on the rocks, particularly in a decent swell, increases crew risk over almost any other maneuver/outcome (including probably slow sinking in deeper water).

A crew was just lost this summer in CA, when a boat lost steering and did a very soft landing, but the crew was killed getting off the boat in the swell and rocks.

It is a question of risk evaluation , since saving the vessel had a risk factor , clearly , equally there was the available rescue time window and the knowledge of the availability of rescue assets , including a large number of vessels nearby. ( they were in a flotilla ) and the fact that coast and Ireland in general has excellent maritime rescue assets.

" nice day" , f4-f5 with a big on shore swell is not " a nice day "

Therefore the captain weighted the risk of saving the vessel , against the risk of " attempting to save the vessel and failing and thereby greatly increasing their peril" , he made a call and in that regards he was right.

I don't see anything that's suggest he put her on the rocks. , she ended up there.

You see Evans , your proposition is pure hindsight view. , ie pick one that now looks right, then speculate that it had a successful putcome , QED my solution is right.

The fallacy is that you cant see the future when you're in the present.

The "saving the vessel vs putting the trainees at risk" is a false dichotomy. Putting the vessel on the rocks put the trainees at increased risk. If there was a decision or maneuver that saved the vessel, it would also have avoided that increased trainee risk.

Pure hindsight speculation, no one has advanced a credible , executable process that might have saved the vessel. Your not a tall ship expert , either am I, nor do either of us know the capabilities of the vessel. No doubt the accident report will interview the captain and at least may engage in partially informed speculation.

Taking a decision to act to activate the rescue services , given the availability of such assets , shows commendable foresight. No doubt where the captain aware that he was somewhere with slim chance of rescue , he might have weighted the risks differently

Fortune actually doesn't favour the brave in reality. That's just another cliche

Dave


Dave

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

.

" nice day" , f4-f5 with a big on shore swell is not " a nice day "

What? Sure it is. You have surely seen bad days on the Irish coast. I know I have and this was not one of them.

Therefore the captain weighted the risk of saving the vessel , against the risk of " attempting to save the vessel and failing and thereby greatly increasing their peril"

What?! You must have mis-typed something as that makes no sense at all. And I will repeat that the alternatives we have discussed so far don't 'greatly increase their peril'

I don't see anything that's suggest he put her on the rocks. , she ended up there.

He picked a course that was 100% sure to end up on those rocks unless a towboat showed up. Look at the chart and the wind direction. He was never ever going to clear that headland, and he was never ever going to get enough way to tack under sail. That was almost certainly clear at the time. Perhaps there was an alternative, perhaps not, I was interested in discussing that. You are obviously not.

You see Evans , your proposition is pure hindsight view.

I don't have a proposition. I suggested some possibilities. I wanted to discuss people's thoughts on these and other possibilities. I wanted to learn. You are just shutting it all down.

Taking a decision to act to activate the rescue services , given the availability of such assets , shows commendable foresight.

Again, an IMPORTANT POINT applicable to all our sailing that needs to be repeated is that calling for rescue and abandoning ship is not risk free. You are not suddenly safe when you call for rescue, or even when they show up. This outcome showed both good crew work and excellent luck to not have any injury.

Fortune actually doesn't favour the brave in reality. That's just another cliche

hmmm . . . . probably not worth debating with you, but I disagree in many situations . . . . particularity if you replace brave with committed, which sort of run in parallel.

.............

[estarzinger]

^^
Perhaps you meant to write:

Therefore the captain weighted the risk of saving the (cross out Vessel) crew, against the risk of " attempting to save the vessel and failing and thereby greatly increasing their peril"

If so, then you have fallen to the 20/20 hindsight disease. You know now that all the crew were recovered safely from the vessel on the rocks, but the captain certainly did not know they would be when he was making his decisions. There was significant risk to the crew in the course of action taken.

[David_Old_Jersey]

I think the point made earlier that in ye olden days the crew were an expendable resource (whilst nowadays not) would have limited the options for the Skipper when it came to sail handling, even with a fully trained crew (crew is a well oiled machine - not just individuals who know a lot).

and of course in ye olden days no option of rescue services on hand (at least not in same way!), therefore IMO if the Skipper quickly realised that without an engine his vessel was very likely doomed no matter what he did with the sails or anchor that the best option was to plan to save the crew (just because the decks are not awash does not mean you are not doomed!)........by both calling for help (SAR) and not getting them to do things which only had a slight to no chance of making any difference and instead making sure the evacuation went well (with large numbers of varying experience and different languages on an unfamiliar vessel and not yet fully a "crew" would be akin to herding cats and lots of scope for folks to do dumb stuff or get left behind - amazing what some folks will do for their handbag, no gender mentioned ).

My own experiance of a square rigger was in dock on a replica of the Golden Hind (I think) - was a corporate "do" which involved everyone getting paralytic on rum........I think it was the ship's first time in Jersey, likely they learnt not to include unlimited rum on the ticket for other groups......I don't recall climbing the mast, but that likely only because no one suggested it..........or have forgotten.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^
Perhaps you meant to write:

Therefore the captain weighted the risk of saving the (cross out Vessel) crew, against the risk of " attempting to save the vessel and failing and thereby greatly increasing their peril"

If so, then you have fallen to the 20/20 hindsight disease. You know now that all the crew were recovered safely from the vessel on the rocks, but the captain certainly did not know they would be when he was making his decisions. There was significant risk to the crew in the course of action taken.

Peace and love , ill wait for the MAIB report
Dave

[Mary Flower]

From an on-scene observer:
"They were coming out of Oysterhaven in 20 knots of southerly wind, it faces south and is only a few 100 metres wide."

Those circumstances wouldn't seem to be conducive to a square rigger sailing out of that particular spot.

Jim