Raw Faith "Points East" Article

[Roger Long]

I finally had a chance to read the article. This passage struck me:


"It is important to note that the Coast Guard had reviewed his mast modifications before the second ill-fated trip. That does not absolve McKay, or any skipper for the matter, of responsibility for the integrity of his or her ship, but underscores the oft-overlooked contexte of this second event, which was that other qualified individuals had reviewed the setup and believed its scantlings adequate."

I have no conclusive knowledge that that the Coast Guard did not provide naval architectural and engineering services for the vessel. However, having been dealing with USCG inspected vessels and interacting professionally with the Coast Guard since 1973, served on USCG / Industry task force developing new sailing vessel regulations, put numerous vessels through the USCG certification process, had meetings at MTH and MSC (their technical and inspection branches) numerous times, and worked as founding Chairman of the ASTA Technical Committee on rigging standards for sailing school vessels, I would be absolutely astounded if there were any interaction with the Coast Guard about the rig that failed which could have been relied on in any way to form an opinion about its adequacy. The Coast Guard simply does not work that way; especially in the absence of a formal certification and inspection process.

I would be just as amazed to learn that this paragraph is accurate as if I learned that the local DEA had decided to set up a Meals-on-Wheels type program to deliver medical pot to patients. Even if the Coast Guard looked at the masts and rigging, without plans and calculations, they could have offered no better opinion than they might about repair of an aircraft wing spar while looking in from the hanger door. They just don't have people with that kind of experience. I know, I beat my head against the wall talking to their top naval architects about traditional sailing vessel rigging.

Disclosure: I am a masthead listed contributor who has written frequently for the magazine. I had no advance knowledge of its publication, however.

[Steve Paskey]

This just confirms that the author of the piece, Gregory Roscoe, isn't a journalist and wasn't doing journalism. He simply took McKay at his word and made no attempt whatsoever to verify McKay's claims.

Note the way the quoted segment begins: the article simply asserts the Coast Guard's review as a known fact without giving any source.

It's a travesty that Points East published the piece as written. Any self-respecting editor would have asked Roscoe how he knows what the Coast Guard did or didn't do.

I say that, incidentally, as someone who once worked for over two years as the production manager of a weekly newspaper, a position in which I had a close working relationship with real journalists and self-respecting editors.

[elf]

Take it up with Nim.

[Roger Long]

It's a travesty that Points East published the piece as written. Any self-respecting editor would have asked Roscoe how he knows what the Coast Guard did or didn't do.

You're talking about my editor and friend here. "Points East" is primarily devoted to humor and stories about cruising. It would be nice if we, the readers and subscribers, and the advertisers were willing to pay enough for them to have the staff and time to do extensive fact checking but, we don't.

USCG certification and inspection is a rather esoteric area. I only would have expected the editor of, maybe, "Workboat" magazine to have spotted and questioned that statement.

[Harbormaster]

Obviously interpreting the Coast Guard's "okay to go sailing" as if it really was "okay to go sailing" is a grave mistake, but they did in fact approve his mast repair for the second of his ill fated voyages. It was sleeved with a pipe about a quarter of the way down so the gaff wore just below the metal, but it made a hard spot right where it ended. And oddly that's exactly were it broke. surprise, surprise.

These are after the first fiasco, but before the second. You can see from the new pictures how much he's improved the sail plan.
http://www.rocklandharbor.info/PICT0025.JPG

http://www.rocklandharbor.info/PICT0018.JPG

[Harbormaster]

I also get a kick out of part of the paragraph just before what you posted,

"He also has developed a greater appreciation for gaining experience through sea trials and has learned much about the performance of the boat..."

You mean, one can learn stuff about sailing by actually sailing? Maybe if he had actually been on a boat before building the RawFaith he might've avoided many of his mistakes? It's a little late now, but as they say, better late than never.

[Roger Long]

but they did in fact approve his mast repair for the second of his ill fated voyages.

What do you mean by "approve"? "Approval" is a very serious word in Coast Guard inspections. They get upset when people refer to inspected vessels as "certified". They don't certify anything. They issue CERTIFICATES stating that various aspects of the vessel's design, construction, and equipment conform to regulations. Inspected vessel are "certificated"; not "certified".

People in blue jumpsuits may have come aboard and concluded that they did not see anything in the mast or rig that presented such a clear and obvious hazard that they would be justified in preventing a private yacht that is not included in their inspection regime from sailing. That's about a light year from expressing an opinion that the rig was sound or suitable for being taken to sea.

The bar for the Coast Guard stopping operation of a private vessel is very, very high and I'm glad that it is. However, their not declaring that they see a hazard of that level is not an approval of any kind.

If they did offer anything formal containing the word "approval" or "approved" about the rig of this vessel, it would be the only time in four decades that I've heard of anything like it. If they did, they must have really wanted to see that thing out of their jurisdiction.

[Roger Long]

Here is a very important point that I think McKay (according to statements I heard at a Harbor Commissioners Meeting) and the author of the article are missing:

When the Coast Guard comes aboard your vessel on one of the random inspections most of us have had and go down their check list of flares, lifejackets, etc., it does not mean that your boat has been inspected or approved. What does it mean when they give you the yellow sheet or the USCG Aux, which does the same inspections gives you a sticker? It means you have flares, lifejackets, etc. Period. It does not mean that your hull is strong enough, your rig won't fall down, or that your boat is seaworthy or even safe. It just means that you have the things on the list.

It's not necessarily a blind checklist run. If they see that your fuel tank is an open bucket of gasoline with a hose stuck in it and an ashtray next to it, they will probably take you off the boat and have it towed in. However, unless they see fuel in the bilge, their departure with a smile does not mean that your fuel system is safe and leak free.

I assume that McKay is simply mistaken and not being disingenuous when he has referred to his vessel as "inspected and approved" but that is simply one of many areas where he has revealed his ignorance of important aspects of the serious business he is about.

Since the time of these statements and the writing of the article, it has been reported that McKay has passed the written portion of a 100 to USCG master's test. I think we can assume that he is now much better informed and a much safer mariner. I'm not quite sure how that fits in with saying that he may be taking this vessel south offshore at the height of hurricane season but we'll see what develops.

[Harbormaster]

What I mean is fairly simple, and "approved" may be too strong a word - after the first time he was towed in, the USCG would not let him leave Rockland under his own power until acceptable repairs were made to his sailing rig, since the foremast had broken. Once he sleeved the mast they came aboard and gave him permission to leave under his own power, so he hightailed it to Eastport. So, in a non-technical use of the language he could not leave until they were satisfied, and they agreed his sailing rig was acceptable. Until it broke the second time....

[huisjen]

http://www.rocklandharbor.info/PICT0025.JPG

Considering the multi-leveled deck, does that picture make her look a bit down by the stern?

Also, I think I remember a set of drapes, complete with the pleats where they hang from the curtain rod, which look just like those sails, which my mother threw away when I was a kid. Has anyone suggested better fitting mast hoops?

Dan

[Roger Long]

What I mean is fairly simple, and "approved" may be too strong a word

Exactly. You might be towed in because you were taking on water and the Coast Guard require that you stay in port until the leak is fixed. They are very procedural. Show them a dry bilge and you'll be free to go. That is nothing like having a hull survey and does not imply that your boat is suddenly "inspected and approved".

The part of the rig that broke was stronger after having a piece of pipe put around it than it was before. That's good enough for the Coast Guard. Everything else was exactly the same strength except for the mast right next to the pipe that was subject to the stress concentration as you point out. Note that the boys (and, maybe, gals) in blue Gumby suits didn't figure that out.

[duck builder]

Hi folks,

Greg Roscoe here. So, how to begin. I am profoundly saddened that some have felt it necessary to denigrate me as author of the Points East Article. My hope in writing it was to offer up something interesting as both a topic and a read. I stand by the article, I understand that some may not embrace the slant, but this is still America right? We can still think and say different things and have different opinions and still be a good person.

I am not "in hiding". In fact anyone who is interested in a beer or a coke, wants to look at the pile of wood I am attempting to fashion into a boat or talk about RawFaith, look me up. I'm in the book as they say.

Its interesting that some who find it acceptable to engage in their own faux logic, isolate facts and fill in the gaps with their own inferences also take such exception to the piece. This goes with the turf.

There are lots of folks who also find RawFaith and her story truly fascinating. A fishing trawler went by yesterday and the captain yelled out "I love that boat". I was there and have the quote on film for those who doubt my credibility. My point, as I said in the lead off paragraph of the article. You can't wrap this story up in a bow...no matter how badly you want to.


Peace!

Greg R.

[Roger Long]

I am profoundly saddened that some have felt it necessary to denigrate me as author of the Points East Article.

I certainly hope that neither you nor anyone else thinks I was denigrating you. As an author myself, I know how hard it is to get everything right. My last piece for the same magazine was about a "discovery" that turned out to be well covered in the "Cruising Guide to the Maine Coast". Oops. If there is any denigrating to be done....


There are lots of folks who also find RawFaith and her story truly fascinating.

And I am obviously one of them:) Having seen "Ice Blink", I am eagerly awaiting your film and expect to enjoy it immensely. I also thought the article was very good. However, having heard the vessel referred to inappropriately in other places as being "inspected" by the Coast Guard, I thought the article a good springboard to bring up the issue here where such nautical arcania are often discussed.

My apologies for any unintended offense.

[duck builder]

Hi Roger,

Thank you for your gentle thoughts. I didn't have you selectively in mind when weighing in and no offense taken. Over the years, I have seen a school yard pack mentality when it comes to RawFaith, and felt some of that same undeserved venom from members of the forum for daring to have a different perspective. I embrace well intended and fair spirited discourse on RawFaith and the article, but you will have to admit, that's not usually what we have here. Mean spirited definitely comes to mind.

To be clear, the article did not say that Raw Faith was inspected and certified by the CG. I said it was involved in review of the subsequent repair and you are right to clarify that distinction from other assertions.

Glad you got to see Ice Blink and will be sure to let everyone know when the RawFaith doc is on the streets (smile).

Enough said. Just wanted to let folks know I'm here and a member too.

Greg

[James McMullen]

I freely admit I find Raw Faith fascinating. I'll also happily go on record stating that I think only a fool would build an 80 foot sailing ship without learning how to sail or how to build things first. McKay's craftsmanship is abysmal, his lack of judgement is appalling, and his lack of seamanship has proven to be a hazard and a burden to others, no matter how noble and pure his motives were. A less prideful and stubborn man who took the time to learn before leaping could have turned the same stack of money into a working and useful program without bankrupting and alienating even his own family in the process.

Yes, I find Raw Faith and her story to be fascinating. I think anyone else who believes God has inspired him to build a "Galleon" after checking out some books from the library should study this case very closely. There are some very important lessons that can be learned here.

But at this point I reserve my sympathies more for McKay's former wife whom he bankrupted, for his neighbors who have had to contend with his repeated rescues, his scofflaw evasion of mooring regulations and fees, his continuing unseamanlike and un-neighborly use of a floating anchor line, and for his young, ignorant crew that he may yet gravely endanger than I do for the "Captain".

I do not believe it is mean-spirited to single out the source of the problem when so many others have been deleteriously affected by this man's actions. I also don't think it is mean spirited to point out when a boat is built poorly or incorrectly. That particular topic is a large part of what this forum is about, so that all of us can learn from each other's errors and do better in the future.

[peter radclyffe]

id like to know if the trawler captain would swap
we are not mean spirited
we are concerned about people dying
it would be a good idea mr roscoe if you study ship construction & safety at sea
then comment

this is not a joke

[StevenBauer]

I cringe when I see in print that Raw Faith is a Galleon. She might be inspired by George's idea of a Galleon but that doesn't make Raw Faith a Galleon any more than the "Ferrari" I made from a crate and some skateboard wheels when I was 10 was a Ferrari.
And the whole handicapped accessible thing is a crock. If being accessible to the handicapped was the goal from the start why is it still not handicapped accessible? After all these years?

I did like the article, though, besides using the term Galleon.

This is a Galleon:
http://en.wikivisual.com/images/0/08/Spanish_Galleon.jpg

This:
http://www.rocklandharbor.info/PICT0025.JPG

Not so much.


So while we have you here how's the Duck coming, Greg?


Steven

[wizbang 13]

Funky boat mon, funky.

[duck builder]

Duck status for Steven:

Hi Steve,

The word I would use is slow. FYI for others, I started a Buehler designed Diesel Duck-48 project several years ago. Keel is layed though I plan to put a steel shoe and rudder mount on the bottom later this summer. Still working frames. Goal is to cut rabbet, mount floor timbers, cut deck beams, get the stem standing and add knees fore and aft before the snow flies. Have been sniffing around engines too being concerned about getting stuck with an electronically controlled diesel if I wait too long. Hope to get the hull and deck on next season.

Greg

[Michael D. Storey]

http://www.rocklandharbor.info/PICT0025.JPG

Considering the multi-leveled deck, does that picture make her look a bit down by the stern?

Dan

Proof that history repeats itself:

Just last night someone sed to me, 'does this picture make my ass look saggy?'

[duck builder]

"it would be a good idea mr roscoe if you study ship construction & safety at sea
then comment"

Gosh Peter, I don't think we have ever met yet its uncanny what you know about me. Did "Points East" make it all the way to Italy already? Have you ever seen or been aboard RawFaith? Oh.

Well, the integrity of your comments aside, I am sure you are a very well intentioned person. I respect that.

Greg

[huisjen]

Greg, you aren't the only thing out there that people here read. The weight of evidence, from the pictures we see, the reports of McKay's refusal to accept knowledgeable input, the news of the Coast Guard hauling her back into port, the repeated breakages, the lack of forethought regarding virtually everything associated with that "vessel"... Everything makes anyone with even a passing familiarity with things afloat cringe with horror.

You can write and publish what you want. As you say, it's still America, land of the free, home of the brave. And somebody, somewhere, probably well inland, will read it and say "Awwww. Ain't that Cunnin'". Meanwhile, we have the freedom to write and speak the truth as we see it. Many will continue to do so.

In short, I agree with James McMullen.

You have written a piece which supports what I perceive to be unsupportable, making out what is a clear hazard to be a wonderful human interest story, in order to "generate content". I see no good in your actions or intentions. I approach people with an assumption that they deserve respect until their actions prove otherwise. I do not respect you.

Dan

[peter radclyffe]

no Greg, i have never seen or been aboard r f

[duck builder]

Dan says "I do not respect you."

Why Dan, why??

Seriously folks this has been fun. Signing off this thread. I have decided that adding RawFaith to the politics and religion list of banned conversation topics should be considered. Some of you really need another hobby. My offer of a beer, a coke and scintillating conversation still stands for anyone swinging through Falmouth, Maine and I know George welcomes all well behaved guests too.

p.s. Dan, I think you are off my holiday card list for at least this year

[Vince Brennan]

I very much doubt this will have any good effect, but I feel constrained to try, nonetheless:

I don't think anyone here denigrates Mr. McKay for his perseverance, vision, commitment or ability. These are all proven in the fact that the vessel is in the water and floating.

The consensus of this and the other threads is that what he has created is NOT a safe vessel for the stated purpose (handicapped seagoing adventures), it is NOT at present handicapped-accessible (as opposed to the website blurbs), it is NOT (to my knowledge) approved in any way to carry passengers by ANY competent authority and that your article, while well-written and entertaining, is in those points, essentially misleading and incorrect.

We do not simply condemn the vessel out-of-hand as "not being one of the club", but from a very real and professionally-informed opinion as to the hazards it presents to passengers and crew.

The fact that it IS floating and has not sunk as yet is a victory for Mr. McKay, but I can get a bathtub to float and stay afloat for quite some period of time: this does not make it a safe vessel.

Dan is simply expressing (IMO) an opinion that the article does not take these points into consideration, rather concentrating on the "romantic" aspects of RF. I expect that we, who have followed the vessel thru its many, many mishaps and mis-adventures are perhaps a bit too close to the matter to admire the story of it, being all too concentrated on the basic lack of safety and shipbuilding skills exhibited as well as the continued refusal of the owner to accept any advice or to acknowledge the shortcomings of the vessel.

You should not interpret any of the above as an attack on yourself: I have read many of your articles and found them written far better than ever I could have done: rather, our cavil is with the content of this one piece.

Of course, your opinion will vary from this and I expect it should, but rather than departing the forum, I personally would like to have you stay and continue to contribute your thoughts on the matter.

Call it "defending" if you wish, but I would hope that a colloquy might either enlighten us as to why we are incorrect or show you that we might have a few valid points on the subject.

In either case, you proved my earlier comment incorrect by showing up to have a discussion, for which, my thanks.

[Roger Long]

I have decided that adding RawFaith to the politics and religion list of banned conversation topics should be considered.

I hope Scott doesn't agree with you. There is far too much to learn here. When you consider how many very experienced masters and crews have lost well found vessels I would hope to see in your upcoming film some recognition that your subject is at the opposite end of the spectrum from your previous film.

If you don't recognize the sheer folly demonstrated last fall, you seriously need to get some background and education that will also be very useful to you as you finish building your own vessel and begin cruising in her.

[Steve Paskey]

"Points East" is primarily devoted to humor and stories about cruising. It would be nice if we, the readers and subscribers, and the advertisers were willing to pay enough for them to have the staff and time to do extensive fact checking but, we don't.

If that's the case, then the magazine should stick with what they know and avoid publishing articles that haven't been fact-checked when they should be. I agree with Vince and Dan on most points. The publication of the article, as written, was a disservice to the public.