Maybe it is because I am experiencing that universal election fatigue; where as a nation we are bashing the ideas and opinions of those differing from our own on Facebook and media forums. (Admittedly, I am guilty of the same).
Perhaps it is because with the build up of accusations focused on the HMS Bounty's captain, I am reminded of the wooden boat forums and bloggers who all had to weigh in on the actions of Zodiac's crew and captain when we were dismasted several years ago. All of them certain that we had made some critical error in judgement on that day--else why would it have happened?
The greater the drama and tragedy, the more the speculation of course... this is human nature.
I look back on the events of that day now and vividly recall the heroic actions of Zodiac's captain Tim Mehrer and my fellow crew-members. I applaud the courage of the children and chaperones onboard at the time and have an abiding, deep admiration for the crew of USCG Terrapin who came to our aid. I am also grateful that we all survived to tell the tale. (...and correct the misinformation).
There is a video circulating online of an interview with Bounty's captain from August this year. I've seen it twice now. It is a nice homage to a beautiful ship and a captain whom, it is apparent, loves his vessel. The incredibly annoying host asks all the typical questions, "Is it a pirate ship?... What was Johnny Depp like in person? ... How fast does she go?"... yada yada yada...
The YouTube video that I refer to has recently been posted on several sites, it comes with the editorial prompt to check out minute ten, where they discuss heavy-weather sailing. I choose not to post this on my page mainly because I feel it would have been more appropriate seen by the USCG first, not put out in circulation for the arm chair quarter backs to blast away with their condemnations. The family of the crew and deceased should be given that courtesy. Besides, anybody can easily Google it should they wish to see the interview.
My initial reaction (as a crew member on a tall ship that makes appearances at shows), was that Captain Walbridge was doing a rather good job at fielding all of the questions the somewhat flamboyant reporter hoisted his way. It was readily apparent to someone (who on numerous occasions, has had to repeat the "boat-show patter"), which of his answers were given by rote and which ones he invested himself in answering. The next things I noticed were how patient the captain appeared with what became a rather extensive interview. Aside from the jealousy that tugged at my sub-conscious (as the marketing guru on Zodiac, I'd kill for a lengthy opportunity to wax poetic about my ship)!... I wondered whether his responses were off the cuff or if he'd been briefed prior to the shoot. (I also wished that the camera man would have informed the reporter that his fly was unzipped, but that is a rather irrelevant, annoying detail).
 | |
| Crowds gather to tour Zodiac at a festival. |
What if I'd been recorded at some point making an off-hand comment about our sails, our mast or something that could have been used against the Zodiac upon her dismasting episode? What if during an early morning interview, with my crew down below eating breakfast, (perhaps I was hungover--wouldn't have been the first time mind you), I made a flippant joke about loving to push the ship beyond her capabilities, or sarcastically implying that we don't bother with checking our rig... what if that was pulled out of context by a small town cable station hoping to capitalize on our catastrophe? What if (knock on wood), I had been killed when the mast fell onto the deck and was no longer around to defend my actions or comments?
I do not wish to sound as if I have any inside information as to this captain's frame of mind during this interview. Maybe he was tossing out false bravado to impress his audience, maybe not. Maybe he actually was the thrill-seeking sort of character that would hunt down a storm. The point is, that I am fully aware that I am not qualified, here in my seat at dock, to weigh in on the matter.
I confess that the comments regarding hurricanes could be interpreted as very damning--certainly ironic given the tragedy that has befallen the ship last week. It was indeed eerie to hear him say, as he knocked on wood in a very sailor-like tradition, that they'd never lost a crew member overboard. However, in the policy of innocent until proven guilty, I will not pass judgement on this individual based solely on an early morning talk show interview. Might I add right now, "Shame on Belfast Community Media and Insight Productions for their inappropriate release of this tape and insensitivity they have exhibited towards the family of Captain Robin Walbridge."
There but for the grace of God go so many others....
And once again, I say "Bless the crew and the good ship Bounty"... and whisper a silent prayer to Poseidon/ Neptune/ Ægir/ Almighty, to keep us safe when underway.
A correction to this post: I have been informed that the Halifax Herald should be mentioned as the organization who posted this YouTube video immediately after the sinking of HMS Bounty.
ReplyDeleteWhich is all very well, but Walbridge took the Bounty out from harbour to sea into the path of a hurricane.
ReplyDeleteIt is all to easy to make this sound like such a black and white decision. Hogwash ! Several factors would have entererd into the decision by an experienced mariner, such as Captain Walbridge. What was the forecast ? How accurate do you believe the forecast to be ? Any doubts or concerns with the accuracy would be taken into a worst case scenario. Could you get past the center of the hurricanes path and just get a good blow on the far side? I am very confident that if Captain Walbridge had any concerns about his rig or equipment they would have been addresses. I have observed Bounty on several occasions over the past 15 years. When I first saw her I thought she was a joke. Plywood used as patches, poor workmanshiip, etc. Then she was properly repaired and updated. The last times I was aboard her (Great Lakes Tall ships in 2010 and 2006 ) she was first rate. in A 1 condition. And her crew was not a collection of over 60 out of shape sailors and unskilled youthful adventurers, but a professional group of individuals. Sure she had some newbies aboard, that is how the industry sustains itself. For each of us there was a time when we took our first voyage.
DeleteAs to her condition I just think back to the incident a few years back when the Pride of Baltimore II was dismasted. This is one of the finest run, first rate programs. Equipment is maintained, crew is trained, all regulations are met or exceeded. Yet the failure of one item of rigging led to a catostrophic failure.
It will be interesting to sit back and await for the facts to be shifted out of the rumors, inuendos, and speculations. The crew will present the facts that they observed, and from that information will be pieced together the story. There is much more to the truth than an insinuation that there was neglegence in he took the Bounty out from harbor to sea in the path of a hurricane.
God bless those who go down to the sea in ships and those who strive to keep them safe from harm.
Alvin R. Kempf, Jr.
You've already answered the question - knowing that even on the best maintained vessels there is the possibility that important equipment will break, isn't it incumbent on the prudent mariner to ensure that he doesn't put his vessel in a situation where that failure could be catastrophic? Knowing that a hurricane passage would require that all the parts of the Bounty function as designed, didn't he put the vessel and the crew at risk knowing that any failure could lead to other failures?
DeleteKnowing that even on the best maintained vessels there is the possibility that equipment may break it is incumbent on the prudent mariner to do his job. You check everything, you plan what may happen. But you can't stop sailing just because something my break. I believe that the captain made the best possible decision he could make given the information he had. You don't have that information, or that experience, so why do you feel you can weigh in and judge this man's actions. Let the Coast Guard do their jobs now and stop thinking you know what is still unknown.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Chris. I totally agree.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/02/coast-guard-to-investigate-sinking-of-hms-bounty
ReplyDelete@ Alvin R. Kempf Jr.~ Thoughtfully put.
ReplyDeleteI too am eager to learn what the USCG investigation shows us. As mariners, we can all learn some sort of lesson from tragic episodes such as these.
Like you, I firmly believe that the most constructive way to gain anything positive from another's loss is to squelch those reactionary impulses and wait for the facts.
Here's hoping that level heads prevail. ;-)
-CW
While the desire to 'wait for an investigation' is noble, there seems to be a huge issue of Sail vessels: Training, natural education, tour, daysail, etc types that apparently are in need of more extensive professional oversight. Knowing the howl of protest by the SVA about how 'No One' knows how to regulate the sailing vessels better than themselves will sound, but obviously it (the self overseeing of physical and professional competence) is not quite up to professional standards. Howl all you want. How many more founderings, sprung garboards, and dismastings are acceptable until something is done?
ReplyDeleteYou will never get away from equipment failure on boats. The sea is a harsh environment. Things break no matter how much you keep up with them. That is the nature of the business. We love a dangerous occupation, just as firefighters and cops and motor cross drivers and bull riders do. You can prepare and train and triple check everything all you want, but that doesn't guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong again. Just not how boats are. We all know that every time we leave the dock, even if its just for a two hour sunset sail, something could happen and when things happen on boats they happen fast and they happen big. This is probably off the point and has little to do with setting sail under a hurricane warning, but I'm addressing the issue brought up of more oversight and regulation needed. That simply won't stop things from breaking on boats . . .
DeleteCertainly, but then the Costa Concordia immediately comes to mind.... :-)
ReplyDeleteThank you for this post. Well written and it helps right the course.
ReplyDeleteEvery action leading to this tragedy falls on one person, the Captain. The Captain risked 16 other souls when all he had to do is make a port and get off the ship. Lives are more important than one man's personal quest for the mighty greed of money (contract for arrival in St. Petersburg,FL). The victims lawyers are going to sue the owners, all while you have a "fund" set up for them. Just nasty all the way around and your not helping AT ALL!
ReplyDelete"11:07 AM Anonymous": You prove my points exactly from this essay on many levels.
ReplyDelete"Any port in a storm...." comes readily to mind in this case. The best one, of course, was Halifax, where they were safely tied up. They should have never left.
ReplyDeleteA good captain uses his superior judgment in a superior way so that he does not have to use his superior skills.
All of you which like to judge others action while you are sitting in your couch doing nothing go watch the movie "White Squall"...
ReplyDeleteGood morning,
ReplyDeleteWhile I respect and heck envy your lifestyle and fleet. I really wish you would not make me an arm chair sailor after the fact. Concernng the Bounty,
For the record, I am 42 years on the water not including Navy time, so enuff with the back & forth.. The last time I looked at Bounty;s schedule,
yes I followed it and was amazed that any body, especially a Captain of Robin's exp. would make the insane decission to leave safe harbor into the Path of a known hurricane, Period, done, does the term Prudent come to mind..The USCG uses that word a lot in our Rules of the Road...There was plenty of notice for this storm up to 2 weeks worth,, The old adage that a Ship s safer at sea is BS, go thru the US NAVY records in World II about how many ships and lives were lost then... NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON he left port, it was wrong, he put the lives of the crew in danger and his ship.. Look close at Bounty's Face Book postings on when he left port, and you will find out he had time even after putting to sea to change course and make for safe heaven.... Oh I forgot to mention my 32 years as a licensed Master and another 12 thrown in allows me to state my opinion, and not as an arm chair sailor, those people never go to sea... Oh and one more tidbit, I know the owner of the Bounty... M Gibson. oceans3@comcast.net Thank you...
If the the power plant had not failed chances none of this would have happened and no one would be questioning the captains judgment. The crew and captain knew the risks of life at sea. Life is dangerous and no one gets out alive. Also if they would have been safer in port why did the Navy put any thing bigger a row boat out to sea.
ReplyDeleteAges ago I happened to witness a US Navy ship that was wrecked on an island in Hong Kong harbor by Typhoon Rose. The captain was court martialed as he was the only captain to NOT put out to sea when the Typhoon drew near.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Osprey, a tall ship of almost identical size to the HMS Bounty, sank in Typhoon Ellen in 1983, somewhere in the vicinity of Sanmen Island, when it put out to sea rather than staying in port during a typhoon. Your point?
DeleteYou're comparing apples and oranges.
I completely get your point, and understand better now than a few days ago. I had a long conversation last night with someone who has been captaining sailing vessels for decades. His view was that "some" ships are safer at sea, but the crew is always safer on land. So whether or not you set sail depends on the type of ship, the storm, and which asset you are trying to protect: the crew or the ship. Point well taken.
DeleteA mistake is always a mistake, even when you get away with it. Had the Bounty been successful in skirting the storm and arrived in St. Pete, the Captain's decision would still have been as wrong as it is now. Given all the other unknowns (particularly why the Bounty was overwhelmed and sank in wind and seas she should have survived) that one truth--that he made the wrong decision in needlessly risking ship and crew--is about the only thing of which I am sure. BTW, I doubt the Navy put everything "bigger than a rowboat" out to sea. I suspect there were plenty of ships tied up in Norfolk, but it's irrelevant: comparing any of them to the Bounty is just plain ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteChris - Thank you for being the voice of reason. And like you said, so many of the replies to this only confirm your position! Alas, this is the world we live in. Many people just don't want to know the facts. After all, a fact might not agree with what they "believe".
ReplyDeleteI'm looking forward to understanding all the facts that come out regarding this unfortunate incident. Only then will I entertain having an educated opinion on the subject. Thanks again for your post.
It is a fine line between jumping to conclusions and attempting to learn from accidents, but your point is well taken.
ReplyDeleteI too look forward to seeing what a careful investigation of the decision making will turn up. An experienced captain is not going to simply be driven by a show date; there is more here than meets the sound bite.
One contributing factor worth investigating is his estimate of the forecast accuracy. The ability of the weather professionals to forecast has improved more rapidly than most people realize. People may also not realize they can get to the expert information via the web now, bypassing the media hype and misinterpretation.
On the 'safer in or out of the harbor' business, ships at anchor in a harbor are not only at risk from their own gear failure but that of everyone around them. There is at least one study of a hurricane where some vessels dragging anchor or suffering rode failures brought others aground, where riding it out in open water could have been better. A point worth investigating is whether her home port dock would have been secure. The photos of marinas after Sandy or any other hurricane make clear this is not a given.
But as you said, these are all questions for a careful review from which we can all learn.
I am a friend of both Robin and Claudene, and have volunteered on the ship. Thank you for this article. He was incredibly patient with that "reporter" and an unfortunate choice of words has been singled out and pounced upon by many who were not there and are just looking to assign blame. Yes, we have questions. We all have questions. But let the crew and the Coast Guard answer them.
ReplyDeleteRobin was a humble, kind man and not the foolhardy daredevil he is made out to be by some. He was a sailor who knew how to use the weather in a way that was not available back in the age of sail. I have seen him use weatherfax maps, GPS, forecasts etc. to find low-pressure systems to carry the ship along when in need of a wind. He might have been having a little fun with this landlubber reporter. If he had said something a little more serious like "sometimes we chase weather systems" or "we like to ride lows" and explained that, then probably few people would have noticed.
Sorry, there is no justification for his actions. Even if the boat was in top shape it would have been a poor choice. Matthew Gibson is absolutely right. It was wrong. Even if you do choose to go to sea when a storm is coming, you do not sail directly into it. I'll remind you that this was no well built schooner, but a 50 year old movie prop, built to burn. Regardless of where she was built, shipwrights do not control the scantlings. I crawled all over the Bounty after the 2007 refit. She was in no shape to take on hurricanes. There are plenty of facts out there for any person who understands the ocean and boats to make a fair judgement. I've already mentioned the obvious. The fact he left shelter and endangered his crew by sailing directly into an extremely broad hurricane WHILE ATTEMPTING TO ROUND HATTERAS!! Some of the west coasters may not be familiar with that, but they don't call it the graveyard of the Atlantic for nothing. If you want to get into the "details", there are many. Much of this can be found in CG reports, articles, sales brochures (yes, she was for sale), and other documents. There is a long record of her generator and pump problems. Her machinery was a mess and she was completely reliant on it. Another issue is her ballast modifications (removed internal lead, replaced with steel shoe). I'd guess the wooden boat buffs here understand the necessary structural changes you'd need for that. Likely cause of plank separation. The wiring, well... I could go on for some time, but all this is unnecessary as the first point is the most important one. This is not said to bash Robin. I knew him, too. He was kind, quiet man, great with volunteers, but that's beside the point. I say this because this incident is likely to highly affect all those who work on tall ships in the future. If we are more worried about being political and are not truthful about what happened, the CG will step in and regulate the industry further. I believe this is unnecessary, will not save lives, and likely make some of these programs impossible due to cost. Somebody will still find a way to make a stupid choice. If we call this for what it was, maybe the CG will see this as an isolated event and not suspect the industry has a bunch of captains just waiting to chase hurricanes. You may not want to judge, and that's OK, but I believe the professionals in the industry have some obligation to let our voices be heard. BTW, this is no comparison to rig loss in light wind. This was a premeditated choice with full awareness of both the hurricane and of the reliability of his dewatering system.
ReplyDeleteWell said.
Delete+1000
Perhaps someone could change the white-print-on-dark-background... wading through all these "comments", it gets pretty hard on the eyes.
ReplyDeleteThank you so, so much for writing this. It's very well put, and well reasoned; much better than I could articulate.
ReplyDeleteSifting through the accusations while looking online for any concrete information has made me just sick to my stomach. I'm a sailor, I've lost friends to the sea, Claudene is the latest, and have spent a long time contemplating maritime disasters. Pinning blame, without a full account of the facts, while Captain Robin is still floating somewhere alone, is completely despicable. Please be thankful for the lives saved and have some respect for those lost.
Yes we must wait for the investigation to conclude but one thing is known for certain - it was a mistake to sail. This is proven beyond all question by the tragic loss of life and ship. Who can possibly claim otherwise with a straight face?
ReplyDeleteWhat must be investigated is whether it was, at the time, a logical, rational, and wise decision given what was known about the storm, the equipment, and most importantly the crew - most of whom were tour guides not hardened mariners as some reports imply.
The survivors will defend their beloved captain and return to their lives; meanwhile Claudene's family will forever have a gaping hole in their hearts that can never be filled. No one in their right mind could possibly look them in the eyes and claim the captain made the right decision. Not now, not next year, not 50 years from now. Never.
Wow. It simply boggles my mind that he took her out knowing the weather facts and the multitude of genset and other electro-mechanical deficiencies, and did not run off ESE well past the Gulf Stream. Me, I would have rounded Bermuda before setting sail for Florida. Truthfully, I have too much respect for the sea, and love of life to sail in such weather, To do so and accept responsibility for 15 other souls reeks of poor judgement at minimum. I don't know how anyone could defend or minimize the "hurricane chasing and eye comments." yet it is being done.
ReplyDeleteNo petrol pumps onboard, and recision of the original Mayday on Sunday sealed her fate, as surely as her location. Hatteras Crushes ships. Period. It is totally unforgiving. It has been stated that this "replica" took on so much water that the pumps ran 24/7 even when at the dock. The backup genset either did not work, or did so intermittently. It goes on and on. I watched the crew interview on Good Morning America, and there seems to be a mindset at work I find hard to fathom. It is one thing to live for adventure and excitement; it is quite another to do so blindly. Kool aid drinkers of the world unite.
Incredible. Scarey even. Like a lynch mob mentality. IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT THE OWNER, STAFF, CREW (AND THEIR FAMILIES ) OF THE BOUNTY. What the heck makes anybody else think it's any of their business ?
ReplyDeleteAre you serious, Franky? ignorant maybe? Coast Guard regulations are almost all written due to marine casualties. The more severe, generally the more rules. This was about as extreme and high profile as you get. There will be fallout from this that has a huge affect on the industry, especially if we do not shout loud and clear that this was not the normal mentality of those of us in that work on these boats. If you are not involved in the building, maintaining, or operation of these vessels, feel free to keep your mouth shut.
DeleteTo Frankly: I can make you feel, but I can't make you think, Too bad.
DeleteFranky: It is most certainly the BUSINESS of the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD. Remember, they risked their lives to save these poor souls. As a sailor, I am going to make it my business, whether you like it or not. There are lessons to be learned here. I don't know what your seamanship skills are, so you may have very little knowledge or respect for the sea.
ReplyDeleteThe sea is unforgiving. Period. UNFORGIVING. Read some of these incident reports, and maybe, just maybe, you will come to understand the sheer madness of sailing off into Sandy.
http://www.usps.org/seattle/images/links/105-mob-cases.pdf
Anonymous from post above ... you can dive right in with your thoughts, that is your right.
ReplyDeleteI will remind you that you've only suceeded to underscore the points in my opinion essay, (which appently, in your haste to weigh in, you did not read).
Not only have I stated that I make no excuses for or against the decisions that were made, I have reiterated that we all want to learn from this tradgedy, if only to prevent another mistake in the future.
Questioning is correct.
Your need to upstage the investigation and "scoop" the coasties with your pronouncements is, (or would be), amusing if it wasn't so counterproductive and disrespectful.
Why is it that those so eager to pass their judgment are so quick to slam others with negative names and slurs.
Re-examine your motives here gang.
Motives should be examined, but honest discussion should not be crushed. Prevention of more deaths in the future is obviously the most important reason. Survival of the industry is important as well. We love these boats and generally the people who work on them, regardless of their knowledge or skill set. It is extremely important to their survival that they are not regulated or priced out of existence by either the insurance companies or the Coast Guard. I have watched this happen before. I think we'll all agree that the insurance companies don't have our best interest at heart, so I won't need to argue that one. I would say the Coast Guard would like to believe they do, but may not understand the industry well enough to do so. They often do not realize the far reached repercussions of their regulations. Time and again spilled blood due to negligence has caused rule making that involves more unnecessary engineering, equipment, and expense largely because of the lack of desire to affix responsibility on an individual or organization that may legally challenge it. It also doesn't help that the average admiral or mso officer has little if any experience in sailing, let alone tall ship sailing. I'd much prefer people who don't understand the boats not make more regulations. I would have to side with those who call this for what it is, and let the Coast Guard know that this is not the standard mentality of the industry.
ReplyDeleteIt's worth noting that the USS Constitution, MUCH older than the Bounty, and delicate enough at her age that she only sailed with a team full of scientists on board, rode out the storm with no problems in Boston.
ReplyDeletewell we all know what came out in the uscg hearings. the ship was rotten, the captain was terrified, and he had the rot painted over and then took 15 people to sea. it is one thing to have no respect for your own life; it is quite another when you are responsible for 15 others and simply don't give a damn. there is no defending this person and the armchair quarterbacks and the pointy stick people were spot on from the very beginning. period. end of subject.
ReplyDeleteWell March 2nd Anonymous, I'll publish your comment mainly because you so perfectly exemplify the type of internet troll of which I refer to in several of these posts.
ReplyDeleteYou seem pretty darn smug that you can say "I told you so". ...Congratulations, I'm so happy for you. Now go find somewhere else to post your meaningless rants.
The USCG has done a professional job of holding an objective, thoughtful inquiry into a maritime tragedy that took two lives. Intelligent and pragmatic people have patiently waited and watched the testimonies, regardless of what their opinions about the incident were.
Who really cares if you puffed up, self-righteous, self-promoting and ultimately insignificant individuals were right. Seriously. Did you save a life with your condemnations? Did you affect the way anyone thinks about safety and regulations with your I-told-you-sos? Have other mariners learned from your predictions? Has anyone really paid any attention to you people at all?
No.
However, the CG investigations that transpired recently have taught many people some incredibly valuable lessons. The manner in which they were carried out was objective and well-reasoned. By allowing the officials who have the experience, training and FACTS, the time needed to weigh all of the evidence, the findings have become irrefutable. The end result will ultimately be that incidents lie this will not occur needlessly again.
The process to uncover the FACTS was what mattered, and it has happened.
Period. End of this subject.
Thank you for this article. I've been trying to convey this point after tall ship tragedies for years, usually getting shot down by tons of 'experienced' sailors with 20/20 hindsight (I'm not saying I have more or less experience than them, but usually at least more experience on tall ships, including square riggers). Thank you especially for defending the actions (at least initially) of people who are no longer there to defend themselves, as well as to remind people that going to sea, especially in sailing vessels (most of the tall ship fleet constitutes OLD sailing vessels) is a dangerous activity, regardless of how many safety measures are taken. Accidents happen all the time, though tall ship disasters tend to make news a bit more. Even experts can make mistakes that lead to disaster, but it is not right to condemn them BEFORE a professional investigation is conducted and they have a chance, if possible, to explain their decisions. Even decisions made for the right reasons can lead to tragedy, but might be considered correct based on the information available at the time and the perceived greater risks. I just like giving my fellow professional mariners the benefit of the doubt before they are crucified by the media prior to all of the facts coming out.
ReplyDelete