Couples Co-Captains?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by David M

Lets put it another way. Would you want to be on an airplane where the pilot and the other pilot had to hold a committee meeting and then take a vote in order to make a decision?

Interesting analogy, David. Put another way - there is an aircraft commander (captain) and a co-pilot; it doesn't matter if the co-pilot is more experienced, older or even higher-paid, he will respect the authority of the captain. Any other day, their roles could be reversed and sole authority still rests with the one occupying the captain's seat. No committees needed - but they both need to know when to lead and when to follow.

[Whispering Star]

Co-Captains: Hmmm, I think we should train for worst case senerio, let the most knowledgeable, level headed be the captain and the other, improve all their skills as there maybe a day "The Captain" may not be able to command, I pray I will have all the skills to make port safely. It all comes down to Confindence in your mate. I can tell you if I don't feel confident in my Captain and he didn't have confindence in me, we wouldn't be going nowhere accept the back porch.
Love this forum, James and I beena talking. Getting this worked out, it greats

That's all she wrote...

[captain58sailin]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If you consider commercial shipping to have started when early humans hopped on tree trunks and used their hands to paddle across rivers, then you would be correct in your statement. However, once you realize that the true beginnings of international shipping started with armed ships sailing under the flags of kings and emperors, then you will also realize how wrong you are. The modern world was shaped by the exploration and empire-building of the European monarchies, during the Age of Discovery. I don't know how you could see these exploring fleets as being anything other than Navies. Even before them, Chinese men-of-war charted vast expanses of the Pacific and Vikings landed in Greenland and North America - the first ships were filled with warriors, not farmers; the settlers followed. Early traders and early navies were one and the same.

The Dhows in the Persian gulf, traded with all of the middle east, and eastern Africa, were exploring and trading long before the advent of Navies. The Native Americans and indigenous peoples of the far north never had a Navy. Even as late as Columbus's day, the explorations were done by traders. Saint Brendan made it to North America long before any Navies touched the shores. I don't believe the Vikings had an organized Navy exploring. Navies were used for local defense and abroad conquests after the traders brought the news back of far away lands.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Interesting analogy, David. Put another way - there is an aircraft commander (captain) and a co-pilot; it doesn't matter if the co-pilot is more experienced, older or even higher-paid, he will respect the authority of the captain. Any other day, their roles could be reversed and sole authority still rests with the one occupying the captain's seat. No committees needed - but they both need to know when to lead and when to follow.

At the risk of more serious thread drift - Commrecial shipping and commercial aviation are very similar in the application of the relative rules and regulations.

However for our purposes we are talking about non-commercial sailing.

There are scores of aviation incident write ups where the the person flying the plane (the "captain") was not given the violation for a procedures violation.

The FAA has held on many occasions that the most experienced pilot, especially if he is an instructor pilot, is culpable in many cases. There is even one case I know of where a professional pilot (ATP) was given a violation while riding in the back seat!

So just to poke the hornets nest - What if admiralty courts held that the guy with the 300-ton license was actually the skipper of your boat regardless of your opinion in the matter simply because on paper he was more qualified.

Then with those findings on record, whenever a more experienced skipper got on board and demanded to be "Captain" of your vessel, how would you respond.

In aviation there is "supposed" to be agreement between the pilots who are on-board who is acting as "Pilot in Command" and yes there is a formal definition for PIC.

Sailing is a lot simpler and while this thread is interesting I think we have apples and oranges mixed up in terms of commercial transportation and private/pleasure transportation.

[Ocean Girl]

I was thinking (I know, you don't even need to say it ) Anyways, I was thinking about the captain and co captian discussion. I think there should be one captain period. For me it has always been a no brainer b/c I've never really wanted to be a captain. There were times I wished the Cap would make a different decision but if he/she didn't, well that is life. For others who have a natural desire to lead it must not be that simple.

Erika

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

IFor others who have a natural desire to lead it must not be that simple.

Erika

LOL.

I think there is a key word there.

My wife does not have any wish to make the "choices", but she is an excellent Admiral and a good captain will always listen.

There is another great word HEHE!.......

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

The Dhows in the Persian gulf, traded with all of the middle east, and eastern Africa, were exploring and trading long before the advent of Navies. The Native Americans and indigenous peoples of the far north never had a Navy. Even as late as Columbus's day, the explorations were done by traders. Saint Brendan made it to North America long before any Navies touched the shores. I don't believe the Vikings had an organized Navy exploring. Navies were used for local defense and abroad conquests after the traders brought the news back of far away lands.

The Nabateans (Arab traders) had established overland trade routes long before they took to the sea. The periods of peaceful trading were interspersed with periods of warring and conquest back to the beginnings of civilization - which came first is the proverbial chicken or egg question. When they started using ships to trade, these were small and only followed coastal routes. Their shipments were mostly seasonal, and interestingly these traders spent the off-season engaged in piracy, preying on other traders or fishermen and marauding villages. This piracy actually suppressed the development of further trading by ship. It was only when the Ptolemies of Egypt created ports and warships to move their armies North via the Red Sea, did the situation change. The presence of warships in the region kept the pirates at bay and allowed trade to flourish - the experience gained in sailing across the Red Sea trickled down to the traders who then ventured farther off-shore in larger vessels, eventually bee-lining across the Indian Ocean between Africa and India, and onwards to China - offering massive transport advantages over the pre-existing land-routes.

Native Americans and the Innu, while using boats for transport, never traded overseas. Again trade between tribes was balanced by warfare between the tribes.

Brendan's Immram was folklore - nothing more. There has never been any evidence that he reached Greenland, let alone the Americas.

Longboats filled with armed Vikings invading and pillaging from the sea may not meet your definition of "navy" but they sure as heck weren't traders, were they?

Columbus was an entrepreneur - but he lacked the financial means to conduct his enterprise. He knocked on a lot of doors and was repeatedly turned down. Isabella and Ferdinand had also turned him down - they already had established trade routes to the Orient around the Horn, and their leading scientific advisors knew that Columbus had grossly underestimated the westward distance to the Orient. So why did they finance his trip? - They were hedging their bets - they didn't want Columbus to possibly succeed in his venture under the flag of one of their enemies; better to risk the loss of a few ships (an outcome they fully expected; why else would they promise Columbus such generous terms, on which of course they later welched). And if he found anything, then they would make it part of the Spanish empire - conquest before trade. Like all of his contemporaries, the exploration was driven by the imperialist expansion of the major European nations - conquer first, then profit from any trade that might ensue.

Navy by definition means "fleet of ships." That is why fleets of ships used in exploration and expansion came to be known as navies - the modern usage of the term is a more recent development.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[Randy]

I appreciate the thread drift - can never have enough history (personal problem) Without being knowledgeable I felt that while commercial trading may have led the way, armed force soon followed to protect various interests.

[captain58sailin]

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. Making raids with armed ships does not make a navy. They were actually able to retrace Saint Brendan's voyage in the same kind of vessel that he might have used in the day, making it a very real possibility, not merely folk lore. And the Indigenous peoples of Alaska, have often traveled across the Bering straight to trade with their cousins in Russia, after the land bridge submerged between the Seward peninsula, and Cape Dezhnev, aptly that piece of water is named after a Russian explorer of Vitus Bering. And let's not forget the Dutch traveling to the far east. And the Explorers that came from England to establish trading in the China & Japan. The early whalers also traded in the south pacific, and the Polynesians themselves undertook vast ocean voyages.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. Making raids with armed ships does not make a navy.

Wasn't this your point:

commercial shipping has been around long before any Navies even existed. Traders always arrive before civilization, they are the explorers of new worlds, not the Navy

Your points that traders were always the explorers, and commercial shipping came long before navies are incorrect. Fleets of armed ships commissioned by a government to act as diplomats, wage war as necessary, build forts and negotiate trade agreements is the very definition of "navy". They may not have done all the exploring or been used to establish all trade, but they surely did a significant amount of it over the course of human history.

They were actually able to retrace Saint Brendan's voyage in the same kind of vessel that he might have used in the day, making it a very real possibility, not merely folk lore.

Severin's trip proved that it could be done, not that it was done. Remember he had the benefit of knowing that N. America was there and how far he would have to travel. AFAIK, he only made the trip one way, whereas Brendan needed to make a return voyage. Archaeologists found proof at L'Anse Aux Meadows that Vikings landed - they have no proof at all that Brendan did. Brendan's tale talks of a lush green island - doesn't sound like Newfoundland, aka "The Rock". Nor does he mention the notoriously unfriendly Beothuks. Even if he did land in the New World, it does not help your cause - Brendan did not establish trade.

And the Indigenous peoples of Alaska, have often traveled across the Bering straight to trade with their cousins in Russia, after the land bridge submerged

Let's not forget that the indigenous peoples of Alaska came from Russia - so the relationship between these peoples was established already - there was no exploration involved. These peoples came to Alaska by following the migratory patterns of their four-legged food. As with their contemporaries, the trade wasn't always peaceful and lean times led to raiding.

And let's not forget the Dutch traveling to the far east. And the Explorers that came from England to establish trading in the China & Japan.

You so eloquently prove my point - the various European East India Companies were in essence, navies. They were given exclusive charters from their respective governments to send fleets of armed ships to act as diplomats, wage war as necessary, establish forts and negotiate trade agreements.

The early whalers also traded in the south pacific, and the Polynesians themselves undertook vast ocean voyages

The early whalers traded in known ports - they didn't typically explore. And the Polynesians migrated as they outgrew the limited resources of their islands - so more often than not, their interaction with other peoples was war and conquest, not trade.

[stuartcnz]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The early whalers traded in known ports - they didn't typically explore.

It's not my intention to continue the subversion of this topic, but: If the early whalers did not explore; who discovered their whaling grounds? I would have thought that the whalers would have had the highest level of interest of discovering which waters where the most productive for whaling and it is my understanding that they did extensive exploration for new grounds.

[kavw]

I have given first mates the duty of celestial navigation from Portugal to the BVI, and crews the duties of maintenance, entrusted yards to do emergency repairs. But there's only one person the owner holds responsible. I have been fined and under port arrest until cleared to leave the harbour when a vessel wasn't properly equipped, the crew were free to fly home, when I job goes wrong, it is me who has to fine a new one. There is only one Captain, who hopefully has an extremely competent and trusting first mate. Be it he or she.

[Ocean Girl]

Well said

[svBeBe]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Just make whoever is on watch the captain. If one defaults to the other often in times of stress, then he/she becomes the admiral....

Absolutely! That is our practice. Whoever is on watch is the responsible party at that time. If we are both awake, then whoever is at the helm is the responsible party. The other person takes orders from the person at the helm (or who is supposed to be at the helm).

My husband and I are each licensed captains, although I usually am listed as captain when clearing into/out of a country for a simple reason: the captain is legally liable for any problems incurred and my husband would be more creative in getting me out of jail than I would be in getting him out. You just never know when problems might arise, especially in some of the third-world countries we visit.

As for some people listing themselves as "co-captains" -- there is no such thing and most countries will not allow this on clearance papers. There might be 10 captains on a boat, but only the one person indicated as the captain in charge of the vessel is really the captain.

Judy
S/V BeBe
Amel SM2 #387

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by stuartcnz

It's not my intention to continue the subversion of this topic, but: If the early whalers did not explore; who discovered their whaling grounds? I would have thought that the whalers would have had the highest level of interest of discovering which waters where the most productive for whaling and it is my understanding that they did extensive exploration for new grounds.

Whaling was mainly littoral until the mid-17th century. By then a great deal of the exploring had already been done. While I agree the pelagic whalers may have sailed uncharted waters looking for whales, I don't see why they would engage in exploration of uncharted lands. You don't find whales inland. And whale oil needs a market. What pray tell would be the economic benefit to the whalers, in exploring? I'm not saying that no whaling ship ever landed on an undiscovered shore - no doubt there were occasions when they needed to put ashore to get timbers for repairs, or search for fresh water; they may have on occasion rendered blubber on the nearest beach. But exploration and trade with the natives was not something they would have typically engaged in. Blubber or oil sitting in their holds didn't earn them profit; they would need to take it to established ports to sell it.