A lesson learned about ****ty boats

[Noah]

No, not my own lesson, but I figure this should be a warning to all the duffers out there that think they can buy or build a "salty" boat that does all and everything including the kitchen sink.

Look at this piece of 110,000lb, Jay Benford designed, Home Depot window having, more of a condo than a boat, POS that sank in pretty common conditions:

http://mizzen.org/coasters/yachts/steel_away/steelaway01.jpg

They call them "Coasters" and apparently the only thing they are good at doing is coasting to the bottom of what ever body of water they are temporarily floating on.

There have been a bunch of them built by dreamers and they all name them stupid puns like "Steel Away", "Irony", "Sails" and "Steel Magnolia"...jesus about the only thing they are good for is seeing how fast you can sink them.

Here is the fleet:
http://mizzen.org/coasters/yachts/yachts.htm

And here is the POS that sank in medium conditions:
http://mizzen.org/coasters/yachts/steel_away/steelaway.htm

If some turkey ever came up to me and said there was "all-heck" conditions out there they deserve a good boot where it counts...
http://mizzen.org/coasters/yachts/sails/rappahannock02.jpg

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2008/09_03-31/TOP

It was an "all-heck afternoon" just outside the mouth of the Magothy River in late July, and the waves that were crashing over the stern of Mitchell Raup's 45-foot recreational trawler had reached 8 feet.

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/photos/0903boat.jpg


Before he knew it, Mr. Raup, his wife Marian and a 12-year-old passenger were standing ankle-deep in water, said Sgt. Ken Turner, a state Natural Resources Police spokesman. It was too late for the bilge pump to be of any use.

"Basically, it was at the point of no return," Sgt. Turner said. "The boat was quickly sinking."

As the boat sunk, Mr. Raup, his wife and the boy clung to a dinghy that served as the Steel Away's lifeboat.

A Good Samaritan on a sailboat plucked the three out of the water and took them safely to shore without injury, Sgt. Turner said.

On Thursday afternoon, more than a month later, crews from Curtis Bay-based Smith's Shipyard and Deckelman's Boat Yard of Essex, pulled Steel Away, a two-deck green and white pleasure boat, from 36 feet of water just north of the Sandy Point State Park lighthouse.

It took crews 10 days to locate the boat using side-scan sonar underwater searching equipment, said Kevin Smith, supervisor of Smith's Shipyard. Searchers had scanned 500 linear feet of the bay by Aug. 25, eventually detecting what looked like the bow of a large boat on the screen.

"We sent divers in the water to check," Mr. Smith said. "She (a diver) asked, 'Is the name of the boat Steel Away?' and we said, 'Yep. That's it.' "

Police said Mr. Raup, 49, and his wife, 50, both of Washington, D.C., and a boy - whose relationship to the couple is unknown - were traveling south in the channel of the Chesapeake Bay at 7 knots at 2:30 p.m. July 27 when a severe thunderstorm swept in.

"All heck broke loose at that moment," Sgt. Turner said.

The sudden thunderstorm caused winds of at least 25 mph and waves 6 to 8 feet high, he said.

Waves plummeted the stern of Steel Away, eventually pouring in.

"They didn't notice until the last minute they're in water up to their ankles," Sgt. Turner said.

Mr. Raup did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Because the boat sank in deep water, it was not a navigational hazard and there was no rush to pull it from the bottom, Sgt. Turner said.

Mr. Raup's insurance provider called Natural Resources Police the following day and asked for the coordinates to salvage the trawler.

The map coordinates police gave to the insurance company were based on where the couple and boy were rescued, and where debris - including an upside-down hot tub - was found floating in the water.

"So basically, we had to go by where the owner was picked up by a sailboat," to find the Steel Away, Mr. Smith said. "Those were the only coordinates we had. It was confusing because eyewitnesses had said the boat drifted. We had some other coordinates of debris that was found. We found a dinghy and a hot tub. It was definitely frustrating."

Things got even more difficult Aug. 10, when a tractor-trailer careened off the Bay Bridge and into the bay, killing the driver. The crews were pulled for about a week to help with that salvage operation.

Mr. Smith said once searching resumed, crews realized they'd twice gone over the spot where the Steel Away sat sunk into the mud, but the waves and wind prevented the sonar equipment from picking up an image of the trawler.

"You'd figure something that big you'd be able to find," he said. "But it wasn't showing up."

On Aug. 25, the crew finally discovered the boat.

After locating the Steel Away, Smith's Shipyard sent a dive team from Maritime Technologies last Tuesday to the bottom of the bay to hook straps under the boat.

"It was kind of a chore," Mr. Smith said. "It was sitting in so much mud, and at that depth of the water."

Bad weather caused the crew to stop short that day and to not continue working until Thursday, Mr. Smith said.

First thing that morning, the crew brought a heavy crane into the bay to remove the boat from the water. The boat was lifted to the surface at 1 p.m., and loaded onto the deck of a barge by 4:30 p.m.

The incident was a hot topic on www.tidalfish.com message boards, with members posting and asking for details of the sinking and wondering whether the boat had been salvaged.

"Anyone know the GPS coordinates or any more info on the story," one member posted. "Love to find that the owner decides to leave the boat down there. … might be a fun dive."

[Saltiguy]

One of these Bedford designs visited our marina recently and I was absolutely impressed with her. Do they have a poor reputation? Sounds to me that this particular vessel was taking on water from a thru-hull(?) or....?
This can happen to any vessel - best reason to have a bilge alarm

[S B]

Now would be a nice time for some professional opinion, what was wrong with the boat? Besides taking your house with you for a run arround the bay.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Some of the smaller ones are designed for wood as well as steel.

In the sinking example, I suspect the boat has so much windage in the topsides that it wasn't possible to turn it bow to wind and waves.

[seanz]

Seeing as being a passenger on the Cook Strait ferry isn't really offshore experience, I'd have to say I'm not the most experienced of sailors. I often post threads about marine accidents or yacht sinkings because I want the feedback of the more experienced formites. I might get to do some deepwater sailing oneday and I'd like to learn as much as I can from other peoples mistakes.
So......if I had of posted about the loss of the Steelaway I wouldn't be commenting about the quality of the design because the design seems just fine to me....for a houseboat.
So what we have is;
a houseboat on Chesapeake Bay
a boat that took on water for an unknown (as yet) reason
a thunderstorm that came out of nowhere
It's the last thing that bothers me.
Do thunderstorms come out of nowhere in that part of the world?
Or does the barometer drop before hand just like everywhere else?

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Here is a discussion of the event by Chesapeake locals

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=78126

Consensus seems to be that no one has seen the size wave claimed to swamp that boat.

These things are good as marina liveaboards, but the designer Jay Benford is cautious about their seakeeping ability. They weren't designed as passagemakers. They are also a bit short on horsepower as well.

[Tom Lathrop]

Anyone who drives a cruising powerboat downwind in waves knows that is the most dangerous situation for them. Even good ones need to be handled with smart seamanship to avoid broaching.

How correct was the seamanship on this boat? I would be very dubious about running down wind with this boat in waves anywhere near 8 feet. Trying to turn it up wind in such conditions would be no small matter either with all that weight and windage up high.

I've met and talked boat with Jay Benford and he seems to know his boat design well enough. That said, it's my thought that these boats are limited in the conditions they should to be out in. Really good boats sink in this area if they are not handled or maintained properly.

Thunderstorms can appear suddenly, especially if you are not watching for them.

[Grizz_]

Boats only sink if you let water inside them. Eight foot waves are interesting but not uncommon if you leave moorings often enough. The description says seas coming over the bow. This should not affect the watertight integrity of a steel boat until the window get taken out. That's intense, happened on my watch on a tug in the dark of night... but even that isn't threatening the safety of the vessel if it's handled.

I always thought that design would just turn turtle at the first chance. Never understood how that much top hamper can remain upright when the water is interesting. But that wasn't the problem. the only problem was, someone didn't prevent water coming in. This could be anything in any kind, shape, or material on the water.

To stay afloat, keep the water out..,

Grizz

[rooster]

http://pic70.picturetrail.com/VOL1836/10964315/19495062/333388214.jpg

[Grizz_]

OK, I know there's a preference for wooden sail and row boats, it's the wooden boat forum for pity's sake...

But, there's no reason that boat should be any less serviceable than, say, a small tug boat, or a small pedestrian ferry. Is there?

Granted, in the basic common view around this port, that boat looks out of place.

But in the world of commercial working boats, the "other" boat world, that boat doesn't look out of place, it just looks "different".

Looked at in the context of its heritage it isn't beautiful and it isn't ugly, it's just what it is.

Me, I am attracted to high volume hulls from kayaks to schooners, I prefer more volume rather than less. It helps the boat back up after it is swept, in my experience. Which includes towing 40 million dollars worth of heavy equipment with a 60 foot tug boat in a 70 kt southeaster in the dark of night. This is the type of boat being discussed here. and FYI, all around the coasts retired tugboats are being converted into boats that resemble Sails illustrated above.

Sorry that it seems to offend so many people. I'd just like to say maybe folks should get out more, see what's happening up and down the coasts.

Regards,

Grizz

[Scott Rosen]

I never understood the appeal of those kinds of boats.

They look about as seaworthy as a paddle-wheeled river boat.

With that windage -- it'd be like never being able to take your sails down. But with the added problem of not enough draft to keep you in the wind or heave-to.

[Sam F]

...a thunderstorm that came out of nowhere
It's the last thing that bothers me.
Do thunderstorms come out of nowhere in that part of the world?
Or does the barometer drop before hand just like everywhere else?

Out of nowhere? No, not exactly.
But on the Chesapeake, they can come with astonishing speed - even when you're paying attention. There you are sailing in bright sunshine with gentle breezes and you hear what sounds like a sonic boom and there behind you is a black brooding line of clouds on the horizon. Ten minutes later... you'd better have the sails down and the motor running and hang on!

[Hughman]

To add to Sam F:

Line Squalls are frequently encountered on in late afternoon on hot humid hazy no-wind days, conditions that lull the boater to inattention, never mind the beer intake..:rolleyes:.

the weather systems travel at speeds near 40 kts, and have internal winds easily around 60kts, plus the real possibility of wind shear and tornadoes.

so, you're pooping along at a slow speed, you're dehydrated, thinking of a nap in the shade, when of a sudden, the haze is whipped away to reveal a bruise colored sky and churning water just several hundred yards away. so, panic amongst the women and children ensues, just when you need to focus.

Oh, and the Chesapeake averages 27 feet deep, IIRC, and can raise a stiff chop in a hurry. The Magothy River has a steep shoal bottom near it's mouth, which allows even freighter wakes to be dangerous to the inattentive.

combined with a top heavy vessel - where was that hot tub, and was it full? - it's not surprising they got into trouble.

Oh, yeah. Lightning. Jeez, I've never been in a lightning event quite like a Chesapeake line squall.

[rbgarr]

Glad they were rescued unhurt.

[paladin]

I've never seen waves that high on the bay, and am well familiar with the area where the boat went down....about 20 years ago I had come into the bay, and had been at St Michaels for a few days before sailing across to Annapolis....bad, bad thunderstorn...numerous sinkings etc, capsizes with the winds. I had rescued folks from 4 different boats in about an hour and a half from the problems...many more boats sank and a few folks lost their lives...but the waves were never that high..

[pcford]

The boat is the very definition of dog-butt ugly. The only thing more appalling is those colleagues here who cannot see anything wrong with the boat.

[Thermo]

Is that a houseboat cut in half and with one half stacked on the other, and then a "Steamboat Willie" front stuck on?

[Saltiguy]

My guess is that they left an aft deck hatch open, or that she was taking on water through a hull opening of some type.
The design looks good, not too different from some of the small steel fishing trawlers being built these days. 6-8 foot waves are no big deal in a boat that size - you just plow along and keep the water out.

[rufustr]

I have always thought of these boats as attractive in a caricature of a WW2 Liberty ship sort of way.
They would be perfectly safe and stable when used in conditions they are designed to handle.
As with any design, when the conditions get bad enough, and the skipper's skill levels are exceeded, s**t happens.

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

I'd never own a steel boat.
At least wood floats.

[dhic001]

I've seen a couple of similar vessels here in New Zealand, and the stability of them has always concerned me. Based on the depth of water where one was berthed, it couldn't have more than 6 foot draft, but the tophamper and windage was huge. A friend likened it to a vessel that they'd forgotten to add 100 feet into. I've not seen one in a seaway, but I can't imagine it'd be remotely comfortable, or safe, the pendulum effect in the wheelhouse must be horrible. I'm not adverse to steel boats (just crawled over the remains of an 1879 steamer), but that is one that I wouldn't want to go to sea on.
Having said all that, short of rolling over, I can't see how it could take on water, short of a breakage or total carelessness (leaving portholes open etc). Will be interesting to find out what the cause was.
Daniel

[Rigadog]

If I wanted that sort of boat, I would go with the "Diesel Duck" series by George Buehler. He overdoes everything as far as construction goes, and he's a good read - even his plans.


P.S what about Benford's ferries?

[PatCassidy]

Stability? What's that? How much cupboard space is their in the kithen? I mean galley. What about shelf space for linens? Chances are a spouse green-lights the purchase decision.

It might be wise to wear rollerblade gear in the wheelhouse.

[Tom Hunter]

So are there any actual lessons on this thread?

So far I have learned that lots of WBF members don't like these boats. Neither do I, but I'm not convinced that there is a lot of value to learning that.:rolleyes:

I agree that the eight foot waves are likely a creation of the maratime exageration factor (it also explains the fish that got away, and various other mysteries of the deep.)

But what happened? Do you think the captain was under the impression that she was safe with her stern towards the waves?

Open hatch? open door aft?

Or was it the design. Suitable for a river but not the ocean? Not my type of boat, but the world is full of boats that have shallow draft and big superstructures.

Cause of sinking should be of great interest to other owners of the type, and maybe even us. Thoughts?

[Lew Barrett]

The lesson? Stability. Don't leave home without it.

[pcford]

So far I have learned that lots of WBF members don't like these boats. Neither do I, but I'm not convinced that there is a lot of value to learning that.:rolleyes:



Did you every consider that the reasons a boat is surpassingly ugly might also be related to sea keeping ability?

You should.

[seedy]

Did you every consider that the reasons a boat is surpassingly ugly might also be related to sea keeping ability?

You should.

I was thinking about that fishing boat that mmd posted photos of a while back. Wonder if some of those underwater hull tricks might have helped with this design.

Also, while it ain't my cup of espresso, and doesn't look very seakeepy, I respect a certain kind of maritime ugliness, like some of the RO-RO's I used to see while switching freight at Dundalk, or like Long Micro.

The short hulls on the Benford's are an economic response just like that fishing boat, with limitations and compromises a given, and accepted by the builders and owners as such. Be very interesting to learn what the contributing factors were in the sinking.

[Tom Hunter]

pcford,

In this day and age, if ugly meant likely to sink, would there be any maritime trade at all? :D Name a beautiful car carrier, or a container ship that makes your heart race.

Once upon a time form did follow function, but I don't think that has been true for years. What was it that Phil Bolger said about some of his designs, that people have trouble reconciling how they want the boat to look and how they want it to preform?

Maybe that was true of the captain of Steel Away, I hope it is safe to say he wanted better performance than he got.



Lew, your correct on stability, but is that what sunk the boat?

[Bobcat]

Still puzzled why people here are banging the stability drum. Doesn't sound as if stability played any part in the foundering here. The boat did not turn turtle and there is nothing in the reporting to suggest the boat could not be turned into the wind.

Sounds like water got in and the people aboard did not realize this until it was too late "over their ankles."

Like Benford's liveaboard designs or not, this sounds like a lack of seamanship, not a flawed design.

[mmd]

Although the vessel doesn't have much draft (unlike the fishing boat Lery Charles that I posted photos of), and therefore relies mostly on form stability to stay upright , the quote of "standing ankle-deep in water" indicates downflooding, not instability. Sounds like a really good example of the necessity for bilge alarms. Poor seamanship and/or insufficient build quality do not necessarily indate poor design quality, Noah. I think that one is certainly able to voice opinion of the aesthetics of a design, or even voice concerns - based on knowledge & experience - about stability issues of a particular design, but to publicly proclain the design as flawed must, in my humble opinion, be backed up with study of the design including a static stability calculation and damaged stability investigaton. Had you looked into this design with that level of detail prior to your pronouncement on the efficacy of the design, Noah?

[paladin]

In Jay's defense...he's no dummy......and I had the stability curves etc on that boat...but I sent all that associated stuff to another designer.....there was nothing to indicate anything other than high stability.
I'll call Jay tomorrow when he comes in and ask him about it...but I suspect it will turn out to be an operator malfunction.

[Grizz_]

Did you every consider that the reasons a boat is surpassingly ugly might also be related to sea keeping ability?

You should.

uh, junk?, galleon? caravel? all relatively shallow with great amounts of top hamper... beauty is in the eyes of the owners..

[Noah]

I did no research on the design, nor did I really critique it in a honest manner. This was nothing but a rant about a boat that I felt was a boat only in name and not in function. I was calling attention to the fact that way too many dreamers on this forum propose the building of similar boats - ones that I feel have no redeeming qualities.

Sure it has tons of room inside, but it still doesn't mean that it is able to sail on anything more than a duck pond.

One of the constant themes on this message board is, IMHO a bunch of fools proposing "dream" boats that are based on arm chair imagination, and some warped idea of "salty" or some other BS. We then watch the travesty in action as another nautical turkey follows a sinking dream. Most often on the internet the will spend hours and hours extolling the positive aspect of what-ever still born idea they have - that is until the dream sinks like a stone.

In the meantime 10 other arm chair dreamers have followed their foolish footsteps.

All too often some landlocked fool will find this board and come up with a design that is nothing more than a travesty. Often the thinking goes like this:
Hmm, folkboat's have sailed all around the world -
I will take a folkboat shape above the water, but make it fit on a trailer - reducing the draft to 2 ft
then I will make it into a schooner, cause I like the look
Then I will take all the framing out, cause norse longboats were flexible, so it must be good
Then I will put in an 85hp engine so I can motor at 10 knots when the wind dies
Then I should add a full deckhouse on so I can stand up and navigate
Etc Etc Etc.

We watch this crap day in and day out. The boat that sunk - though designed by a respected designer - I feel was a similar bastardization of a boat.

[Lew Barrett]

Lew, your correct on stability, but is that what sunk the boat?

Yours is a fair question Tom, and to be fair myself, I shouldn't suggest that the boat in question is not a stable design. It doesn't at a glance look terribly comforting, but we know such visuals can be very deceptive. Thank you for the question, because it is a fair one the answer to which I don't have. I've always believed that I had a good eye, but should seek a professional opinion for this sort of problem solving. My comment was not intended to be other than a glib quip, but clearly poked at a potentially non-deserving object.

Added, like some others here, I've never been a fan of many of the Benford designs, mostly based on esthetics. I am not looking to pack the maximum living space into 200 square feet on the water so Benford's efficient houseboat approach doesn't ring my bell. But I have no basis to critique them, or any other design, based on stability as I am not a marine architect or engineer.
Now, you look at them and think they must be designed for some other place or use than I would put one to, and perhaps in an absolute sense they might turn turtle faster than a different design, but as to what constitutes "seaworthiness" I couldn't say with authority.
On the other hand, a shallow draft and that sort of windage, coupled with a small single, would clearly make for interesting handling close to a dock in a breeze and that I would be willing to stand by. It doesn't take much wind or current to make slow speed maneuvering and handling of some designs that appear to be similar to this one very entertaining as long as yours is not the boat parked next door. But this boat is seemingly intended for maximum space utilization on a given footprint. I guess that's a compromise the owner and designer were prepared to make.

[Rick Tyler]

With marinas charging by the linear foot, building stubby, tall boats that spend 98% of their time at the dock makes sense -- especially if it's meant to be a liveaboard. I doubt anyone has tried to cross to Bermuda or sail from LA to San Francisco on one of these. It's uglier than sin, but might be a rational response to a particular set of requirements.

[John B]

I've seen a couple of similar vessels here in New Zealand, and the stability of them has always concerned me. Based on the depth of water where one was berthed, it couldn't have more than 6 foot draft, but the tophamper and windage was huge. A friend likened it to a vessel that they'd forgotten to add 100 feet into. I've not seen one in a seaway, but I can't imagine it'd be remotely comfortable, or safe, the pendulum effect in the wheelhouse must be horrible. I'm not adverse to steel boats (just crawled over the remains of an 1879 steamer), but that is one that I wouldn't want to go to sea on.
Having said all that, short of rolling over, I can't see how it could take on water, short of a breakage or total carelessness (leaving portholes open etc). Will be interesting to find out what the cause was.
Daniel

Blue ? referrred to by my family as ' the ugly boat'.

1879 steamer..... Pakihi island?

[GoldDogs]

"Waves plummeted the stern of Steel Away, eventually pouring in.

They didn't notice until the last minute they're in water up to their ankles"

"Anyone who drives a cruising powerboat downwind in waves knows that is the most dangerous situation for them. Even good ones need to be handled with smart seamanship to avoid broaching.

How correct was the seamanship on this boat? I would be very dubious about running down wind with this boat in waves anywhere near 8 feet. Trying to turn it up wind in such conditions would be no small matter either with all that weight and windage up high."



Evidently they left the door, window or hatch open which most of us know you can't do.

Jay Benford is a competent designer. Many of these designs can lay right on their side and right themselves. If the doors, windows and hatches were secured the boat would prolly still be floating.

These designs are called "Coasters" and are not meant for offshore or extreme conditions.

Just because you can afford a boat like that doesn't mean you are competent to operate it.

[Hwyl]

I would think that operating such a boat would require extreme care and skill level. Not a boat for a neophyte. Learning in a boat like this would be like learning to drive in a double decker bus.

I agree with Noah that the above decks section is rapidly becoming the "salty looking" boat forum.

[mmd]

It seems a common feature of the comments here is operator competency. Interesting point. On one side, there is a desire for boat operators to be properly trained and aware of the capabilities of the vessel that they are in charge of, to ensure the safety of those aboard and on the surrounding boat traffic. On the other hand is the resistance to "nanny state" intervention in the ability of the private person to use and enjoy the toys he is able to afford. (This also applies to land vehicles as well, IMHO. For example, why does a driver of a 5-ton delivery truck need to undergo a more rigorous licensing process than the driver of a 60-foot motorhome towing a two-ton sport ute?) So what is the happy medium? Should the owners of vessels over a certain size be required by law to be trained in proper seamanship, navigation, & stability as commercial captains must be? If so, what is the breakpoint of size that would require such training? Should the "common man" be allowed to buy an 80-mph Cigarette without any restrictions regarding his competency to pilot it? Should vessels with restricted seaworthiness require special training of its operators? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Hwyl]

It seems a common feature of the comments here is operator competency. Interesting point. On one side, there is a desire for boat operators to be properly trained and aware of the capabilities of the vessel that they are in charge of, to ensure the safety of those aboard and on the surrounding boat traffic. On the other hand is the resistance to "nanny state" intervention in the ability of the private person to use and enjoy the toys he is able to afford. (This also applies to land vehicles as well, IMHO. For example, why does a driver of a 5-ton delivery truck need to undergo a more rigorous licensing process than the driver of a 60-foot motorhome towing a two-ton sport ute?) So what is the happy medium? Should the owners of vessels over a certain size be required by law to be trained in proper seamanship, navigation, & stability as commercial captains must be? If so, what is the breakpoint of size that would require such training? Should the "common man" be allowed to buy an 80-mph Cigarette without any restrictions regarding his competency to pilot it? Should vessels with restricted seaworthiness require special training of its operators? Inquiring minds want to know...

That's certainly not what I meant to imply. I do think that it would be incumbent on the person selling the plans to let the customer know that these boats require a certain level of competency.

I don't think there should be a licensing requirement, after all I'm licensed to drive 300GT and a Class B truck, and I'm a menace

[mmd]

To use an extreme (fictitious) example to illustrate my point, Hwyl, what good does telling an owner that the design he wants has restrictions due to stability when he doesn't understand a stability curve? How do you respond to an owner who doesn't know what a Beaufort Scale is or what Sea State 5 implies? How do you make owners realize that they need to know this stuff to safely operate the vessel? Is it the designer's responsibility to teach the client seamanship?

[Kaa]

It seems a common feature of the comments here is operator competency. Interesting point. On one side, there is a desire for boat operators to be properly trained and aware of the capabilities of the vessel that they are in charge of, to ensure the safety of those aboard and on the surrounding boat traffic. On the other hand is the resistance to "nanny state" intervention in the ability of the private person to use and enjoy the toys he is able to afford. (This also applies to land vehicles as well, IMHO. For example, why does a driver of a 5-ton delivery truck need to undergo a more rigorous licensing process than the driver of a 60-foot motorhome towing a two-ton sport ute?) So what is the happy medium? Should the owners of vessels over a certain size be required by law to be trained in proper seamanship, navigation, & stability as commercial captains must be? If so, what is the breakpoint of size that would require such training? Should the "common man" be allowed to buy an 80-mph Cigarette without any restrictions regarding his competency to pilot it? Should vessels with restricted seaworthiness require special training of its operators? Inquiring minds want to know...

Pointing out the operator's (in)competency does not imply that making that operator go get some kind of government license will make him competent.

I am a big fan of the principle that people should be free to do what they want and suffer the consequences.

Yes, in an ideal world only intelligent, competent, properly prepared captains would take their boats out. It's the same world in which everyone exercises each day, never jaywalks, does not consume any kind of mind-altering substances, and declines cookies :-)

Kaa

[Kaa]

To use an extreme (fictitious) example to illustrate my point, Hwyl, what good does telling an owner that the design he wants has restrictions due to stability when he doesn't understand a stability curve?

Not a big problem. Words to the effect of "If she leans over more than 60 degrees she's not coming back" are understood by most people with enough money to afford a boat.


How do you respond to an owner who doesn't know what a Beaufort Scale is or what Sea State 5 implies?

Same thing -- "If you take this boat out when the waves are taller than you are, you are likely to die" :-)


How do you make owners realize that they need to know this stuff to safely operate the vessel?

You don't. It's impossible to make things idiot-proof -- every time you think you succeeded, nature comes up with a better idiot :D


Is it the designer's responsibility to teach the client seamanship?

Nope, not at all.

Kaa

[Hwyl]

To use an extreme (fictitious) example to illustrate my point, Hwyl, what good does telling an owner that the design he wants has restrictions due to stability when he doesn't understand a stability curve? How do you respond to an owner who doesn't know what a Beaufort Scale is or what Sea State 5 implies? How do you make owners realize that they need to know this stuff to safely operate the vessel? Is it the designer's responsibility to teach the client seamanship?

There are two different kinds of designers here. Jay Benford, at least with these designs, sells dreams. I would say he has a responsibility to put a rider on these dreams regarding difficulty of use and limitations of the vessels. He may do that, I'll look later.

You and other designers of your ilk, convert dreams into a pragmatic reality, If I were to come to you and ask for a Dyarchy with outriggers and built with CDX ply, you'd soon dispatch me into reality, but I do sometimes think of such things.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

I cannot envy the designer - this poor soul is going to catch flak regardless of whether the craft was built (closely) to his design (or not) or whether it was operated in a sensible manner.

[ron ll]

One of these Benford Coasters called, "Teddi Bear" has been in Seattle most of the summer and was also was the cover picture and article in a recent issue of Passagemaker magazine. Teddi Bear carries a small car on the foredeck, a good-sized shore boat above the car, and a helicopter on the very top of the vessel. Not intuitively stable "looking". Benford was quoted in the article (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that these boats are quite wide and that they are not really taller for their width than many longer boats. Still "seems" to me that the shortness of such a tall vessel will make it much harder to keep the bow into the wind if required.

None of this may have anything to do with the incident in question and I hasten to add that I don't know enough about the real stability issues to pass judgement. Just idle observations on my part.

[paladin]

In a recent (this morning) telephone call, the owner of the boat stated that the author of the article had taken a bit of "poetic license" in describing the sinking of the boat......
The owner of the boat is a lawyer, and his wife works for the D.C. Government. The insurance people are going over the boat and removing the contents each bay at a time and weighing it. The boat was built to a spec and the spec sez that the absolute healing moment with all hell breaking loose would be about 10 degrees....the boat went past 20 for whatever reason.
The owners had lived aboard for 10 years, and had obviously accumulated material/goods over the years, in excess to what would normally have been aboard a cruising boat....all this is being considered in the investigation.
Additionally, there was a large deck hatch on the boat that was not sealed, relying on gravity to stay closed, additionally the steering was passed through some thru hulls, some 6 inches in diameter....
Witnesses at the yard stated that the boat appeared to not have had in routine maintenance for some time....consider that if an engine hose had come astray and the running engine was literally pumping water from the bay into the bilge....
There is more...but I'm sure the insurance and CG will determine the cause, and I seriously doubt it will have to do with the boat design.

[mmd]

Well, Kaa, we’ll have to disagree on licensing. I would much rather have some form of required training for the guy that is at the helm of the sixty-five-foot, 100,000-lb behemoth bearing down on me beyond his ability to pay for his boat. Licensing will not guarantee that everybody on the water is safe, responsible, and alert, but it will go a long way to making them aware that it is their responsibility to themselves and others to operate their vessels in a safe manner. Mandatory training is better than no training, IMHO, and such training would eliminate a lot of ignorance, if not arrogance, of things nautical.

[Kaa]

Licensing will not guarantee that everybody on the water is safe, responsible, and alert, but it will go a long way to making them aware that it is their responsibility to themselves and others to operate their vessels in a safe manner. Mandatory training is better than no training, IMHO, and such training would eliminate a lot of ignorance, if not arrogance, of things nautical.

I guess we'll have to disagree :-)

Car-driver-style licensing is essentially useless -- anyone can get a driver's license for just a bit of hassle and a bit of money. It does not make people better drivers. Aircraft-pilot-style licensing is effective, but it will kill boating.

As to mandatory training being better than no training, do you want start with mandatory training for car driving? Cars kill many many more people than boats. Then mandatory CPR training. Then mandatory fitness/exercise training. Etc. etc. Once you venture on the mandatory training path, "things nautical" are way down the list.

Kaa

[mmd]

No, Kaa; you can't kill other innocent and otherwise healthy people with lack of CPR knowledge, nor through ignorance of fitness training. But you can kill innocent people through lack of proper seamanship skills. If you wish to operate a large vehicle within the boundaries administered by a given administration (state, provincial, national, etc.), I believe that you should have to submit to mandatory training to try to achieve some minimum level of competence. You may look upon this as an imposition of your free will, or as a cash-grab by the government, but I prefer to look upon it as a state-sanctioned and administered program to make it safer to be out on the water. Agreed, such programs cannot be 100% effective, but if the general level of safety on the water is improved, how can it not be deemed a success? In your American society it seems that you try to keep boaters alert to the perils of boat handling through fear of lawsuits by the victims (though this method doesn't seem to help the dead people very much); I seem to think that prevention through enforced competence is a more effective way to go.

[Kaa]

You may look upon this as an imposition of your free will, or as a cash-grab by the government, but I prefer to look upon it as a state-sanctioned and administered program to make it safer to be out on the water.

As I said, I guess we'll have to disagree :-)


Agreed, such programs cannot be 100% effective, but if the general level of safety on the water is improved, how can it not be deemed a success?

There is always the price.

Again, consider licensing done aviation-style. It most certainly will improve "the general level of safety on the water" -- would you like to have such a system imposed and do you think it would be "deemed a success"? Or, alternatively, let's say anything over 20 feet has to be operated by a professional captain. Improve the safety? Of course. A success? Disaster, more likely.

Kaa

[Mike Vogdes]

Mandatory CPR training, first aid, drug testing are all essential in maintaining my 50 ton Master ticket, so what? Its no big deal... I think its gonna become the norm in the future if you want to travel the litigious high seas. Just because you can afford to buy it doesn't mean your competent to operate it.

I wonder if that hot tub they found in the debris field was factory equipment or something the owner added.

[mmd]

No, licensing for boaters does not have to be as rigorous as aviation licensing because the survival rate on boats is greater than that of airplanes when things go wrong. No, professional captains should not be required on pleasure boats over twenty feet long - I am not advocating such a system. I'm merely saying that you should be required to have training appropriate to the size & type of vessel you wish to operate to keep me safe from you. Licensing is merely a method of ensuring that you have recieved appropriate training.

[Kaa]

No, licensing for boaters does not have to be as rigorous as aviation licensing because the survival rate on boats is greater than that of airplanes when things go wrong. No, professional captains should not be required on pleasure boats over twenty feet long - I am not advocating such a system.

My point was that all licensing/mandatory training regimes come with a price (and I'm not speaking only or even mostly about money). You said that a program to improve safety on the water cannot but be deemed a success -- I hold that depending on the price it may turn out to be a failure, even if it did manage to improve safety.


I'm merely saying that you should be required to have training appropriate to the size & type of vessel you wish to operate to keep me safe from you. Licensing is merely a method of ensuring that you have recieved appropriate training.

If you goal is to keep yourself safe from me, or, in more general terms, is to save lives, I would reiterate that "things nautical" is a wrong place to start. Consider death rates from accidents and such -- how far are boats down that list? Wouldn't you start with effective driver training?

Kaa

[Tom Hunter]

There are promotional videos for the boats in question on youtube one of them does have a hot tub in the video. I'm not sure if it was this one or another of the type.

In of itself that is not a problem, if the boat is designed to have a hottub high up that is fine.

Paladin's post does indicate stability may have been an issue, so if the tub got added later maybe it is.

[mmd]

Actually, we do have rather rigorous driver training here in Nova Scotia - graduated licenses for beginner drivers, hefty fines for infractions, suspension of license for serious infractions, occasionally incarceration for those that refure to obey the driving laws. Draconian stuff. As I understand it, statistics have proven my observation that since these tighter restrictions have been put in place the accident and, more importantly, the death rate here in NS has gone down. As for prioritizing which activity gets first attention, that is not the issue of this thread, boating safety is, so, let's stick to the subject, OK?

[Kaa]

Actually, we do have rather rigorous driver training here in Nova Scotia - graduated licenses for beginner drivers, hefty fines for infractions, suspension of license for serious infractions, occasionally incarceration for those that refure to obey the driving laws. Draconian stuff.

Punishment is not exactly the same thing as mandatory training and licensing, is it? :-)


As for prioritizing which activity gets first attention, that is not the issue of this thread, boating safety is, so, let's stick to the subject, OK?

I am not sure there's much life to this subject left short of a Bilge-style sparring match. It's fairly clear we have rather different ideas about the proper role of government and about the desirability of letting people do what they please. That is our core disagreement and the specific issue of licensing for boaters is just one of the consequences.

You could make a variety of arguments that licensing would lead to more boating safety and that the price you'd have to pay would be worth it. I'd then disagree and bring up arguments that either you would not get any appreciable safety or that the price would not be worth it. We might go back and forth like that for a while, but the discussion won't get anywhere because we have a sufficiently different concept of what is worth what price.

To resolve the issue we would have to get down to such questions as freedom, proper role of government, allocation of limited resources -- it might turn out to be a interesting and useful discussion, but it won't be about boaters' licenses any more.

Kaa

[mmd]

Punishment is what you get when you don't play by the rules. Punishment does not make you safer, but it makes you remember the rules that make you safer. I suspect that your Mom made you familiar with that concept by the time you were five years old.

Then let's try a different tack, then: Based on the premise that the level of safe recreational boating knowledge is lower on average than would be deemed desirable, as evidenced by the original subject of this thread and other such incidents, what would you propose as a solution to the problem? Maybe to make things interesting, we should accept that if a response is some varient of "do nothing, the weak will cull themselves from the herd" we should forever after refrain from any commentary here on boating accidents that have occurred due to operator error. So, how would you improve the level of the public's boating safety knowledge, and boating safety in general?

[Kaa]

Then let's try a different tack, then: Based on the premise that the level of safe recreational boating knowledge is lower on average than would be deemed desirable, as evidenced by the original subject of this thread and other such incidents, what would you propose as a solution to the problem?

There is no "solution" to the problem -- you probably mean "how can we make the intersection of boats and stupid people less painful" :D


Maybe to make things interesting, we should accept that if a response is some varient of "do nothing, the weak will cull themselves from the herd" we should forever after refrain from any commentary here on boating accidents that have occurred due to operator error.

Nope, no call to do that -- there is a very big difference between providing information to someone looking for it versus shoving it down somebody's throat. People who want to become competent should be given every opportunity to achieve this.


So, how would you improve the level of the public's boating safety knowledge, and boating safety in general?

That rather depends on who "me" is. I don't consider improving the level of general public's boating knowledge to be a proper government function. So if "I" were the government I'd do nothing about this particular issue and concentrate on something more important.

But generally speaking, I'd say that the way to go forward is through voluntary societies (clubs, associations, etc.) and mostly by application of carrots rather than sticks. Note that we are not talking about breaking the law (e.g. DUI) or deliberately/negligently inconveniencing others (e.g. roaring through no-wake zones) -- we're talking about following good practices, basically.

Kaa

P.S. But I do find the natural-selection approach... elegant :D Good old bash.org:
I’m not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don’t we take the warning labels off everything and let the problem solve itself?

[S B]

No, Kaa; you can't kill other innocent and otherwise healthy people with lack of CPR knowledge, nor through ignorance of fitness training. But you can kill innocent people through lack of proper seamanship skills. If you wish to operate a large vehicle within the boundaries administered by a given administration (state, provincial, national, etc.), I believe that you should have to submit to mandatory training to try to achieve some minimum level of competence. You may look upon this as an imposition of your free will, or as a cash-grab by the government, but I prefer to look upon it as a state-sanctioned and administered program to make it safer to be out on the water. Agreed, such programs cannot be 100% effective, but if the general level of safety on the water is improved, how can it not be deemed a success? In your American society it seems that you try to keep boaters alert to the perils of boat handling through fear of lawsuits by the victims (though this method doesn't seem to help the dead people very much); I seem to think that prevention through enforced competence is a more effective way to go.
I have to argue with you here, With all the training and equipment money can buy, experienced captains are still piling the tankers and container carriers upon the rocks.

[mmd]

No, Kaa, I don’t mean any insult to inexperienced boaters at all. I asked a rather simple and straight-forward question; one without demeaning overtones nor hidden agenda. Surely, with all of your wit and intellect you can enter into a conversation without resorting to obfuscation and cynicism, and formulate some sort of reasonable response, though I understand that to grandstand with bon mots while trying to be clever in avoidance of the question is ever so much more entertaining to the perceived audience. C’mon, now; stay on topic – beyond a vague reference to “voluntary societies” and “carrots and sticks”, how would you consider that a raising of the boating public’s awareness of, and adherence to, boating safety could be accomplished. After all, it is not the idiot in the 100,000-lb yacht overrunning you in a dinghy who will die. At that point, I would expect that raising the seamanship knowledge of the other guy would be the most important topic in the world to you. I reiterate: How can your society/government/whatever encourage that guy to be a better seaman? Entertain the question and maybe we’ll all come away better informed from your answer; duck and run – no matter how cutely put – and you may appear to have bitten into a subject for which you are ill-equipped to chew.

S.B., all the equipment & training that money can buy still doesn’t prevent airliners from crashing and killing all on board, so does that mean that all training and licensing of pilots – private or commercial – should cease? I though not. Accidents will always happen due to equipment failure and human frailties. Adequate and appropriate training will reduce the frequency of such accidents, though, and enforcement of the rules associated with retention of one’s license will encourage most to abide by the rules. Of course, if you disagree, I assume that you would be happy giving the keys to the family car to a fourteen-year-old and telling him to feel free to drive his buddies around town on Friday night. After all, training and licensing is not necessary for anything other than enriching the government and removing the freedoms of the citizenry, right?

[Scott Rosen]

I have a suggestion on how to accelerate the natural selection process.

Make licensing optional, but rigorous. Every person who passes the license exam gets to fly a special pennant and gets a special registration sticker to affix to the bow of the boat they are driving at the time.

Every license holder gets the right to use the firearm of his or her choice against unlicensed drivers, "if necessary or desirable to avoid collision or other damage to the vessel or its passengers."

I'd want to carry an RPG launcher, a tear gas gun or two, a flame thrower, an automatic shotgun and sundry small arms. I'd also install a deck mounted cannon at the bow, which could double as a mooring bit. If I had a bigger boat, I'd consider a surface to surface missle system.

[mmd]

How about leaving the weaponry ashore and having the government waive registration fees for properly trained and licensed owner/operators?

[Lew Barrett]

At the very least people should be required to know the rules of the road. Required. Not optional.

[mmd]

Now we're getting somewhere - thanks, Lew.

How about basic firefighting for boats with enclosed galleys and inboard motors?

[Kaa]

No, Kaa, I don’t mean any insult to inexperienced boaters at all. I asked a rather simple and straight-forward question; one without demeaning overtones nor hidden agenda.

Well, since bon mots seem to confuse and irritate you, I'll try to be more straightforward than usual :D

I didn't mention inexperienced boaters and did not imply that you meant to insult them. My point was that the problem we're talking about does not have a solution. It's not something that can be solved, that is, fixed and forgotten. What we have is more of an unattainable goal (no accidents / loss of life / etc.) that we can move closer to, usually by paying some price. Each way of approaching that goal is a trade-off of some sorts. Thus -- and this was my point -- it's not very useful to talk of a "solution" to the boating safety problem. It's much more useful to talk about trade-offs you can make and which steps forward are worth which price.

Also, I wasn't speaking about inexperienced boaters -- I was speaking about stupid boaters. There's a rather large difference.


C’mon, now; stay on topic – beyond a vague reference to “voluntary societies” and “carrots and sticks”, how would you consider that a raising of the boating public’s awareness of, and adherence to, boating safety could be accomplished. After all, it is not the idiot in the 100,000-lb yacht overrunning you in a dinghy who will die. At that point, I would expect that raising the seamanship knowledge of the other guy would be the most important topic in the world to you. I reiterate: How can your society/government/whatever encourage that guy to be a better seaman?

Let me try again, now in bold: It is not the proper function of the government to encourage that guy to be a better seaman.

Remember how I said we have an underlying disagreement about the scope and the role of the government? Well, here it is again, poking it's snout out of the sand.

To express myself a bit differently, I do not believe that the frequency and severity of boating accidents (ones avoidable by better training) warrant the introduction of a government licensing and training program.

Did I make myself clear this time?


Of course, if you disagree, I assume that you would be happy giving the keys to the family car to a fourteen-year-old and telling him to feel free to drive his buddies around town on Friday night.

I thought you wanted to argue reasonably, without grandstanding and introducing silly analogies?

Kaa

[mmd]

I do not believe that the frequency and severity of boating accidents (ones avoidable by better training) warrant the introduction of a government licensing and training program.

Did I make myself clear this time? - Kaa

Quite.

I don't believe that my question to you limited your answer to acquiescence to government administration & licensing, though that is my solution to the issue. To reiterate, in bold as you have done for me, how would you consider that a raising of the boating public’s awareness of, and adherence to, boating safety could be accomplished?

Silly analogy? If you advocate no licensing and no controls on the use of vehicles in public spaces, then the concept of an unlicensed fourteen-year-old driving the family car fits right in to that scenario. Scary, but not silly.

[Scott Rosen]

It is not the proper function of the government to encourage that guy to be a better seaman.

That is absurd. Our government has jurisdiction over all of the navigable water of the US. It spends billions on maintaining free and safe navigation. The Army Corps spends quite a few billion more on maritime projects. Then there's the Coast Guard which has to rescue at huge taxpayer expense every nincompoop in a boat who can't find his bilge pump.

The government has the right, and, I would argue, the obligation to make the waterways safe. I would support mandatory licening for all operators of motor boats, including auxilliaries. I would make the exam as tough as the six-pack license exam. I would include mandatory on the water testing. It would include firefighting, MOB, basic mechanical and electrical, environmental, anchoring, heavy weather tactics, radio operation and, of course, navigation, both conventional and electronic. Sailboat operators would have an additional test on sailing skills and knowledge.

If the net effect would be to keep a lot of people off the water -- then so much the better.

We do it for air travel. Why not boats?

[Kaa]

I don't believe that my question to you limited your answer to acquiescence to government administration & licensing, though that is my solution to the issue. To reiterate, in bold as you have done for me, how would you consider that a raising of the boating public’s awareness of, and adherence to, boating safety could be accomplished?

Can you clarify the question, in particular:

-- Who is "me", that is, who is the agent that would be raising the boating public's awareness of safety? We already figured out it's not government, so who is it? What are its powers and what are resources available to it?

-- What's the measure of success? By which metric are you going to figure out whether the public's awareness of boating safety increased or not?

Just so that you don't think I'm trying to cynically obfuscate the issue with bon mots and such, I'll explicitly state my point. There is no magic bullet. No single action that will suddenly make everything hunky-dory. No flashy and catchy slogan for everyone to unite behind. Increasing the competency of boaters -- and I'm much rather work towards competency as opposed to adherence to boating safety -- happens through a multitude of small things, most of them time- and location-specific.

It's a lot like, say, trying to reduce the prevalence of obesity. No glib easy answers, lot of messy little complicated dance steps that, hopefully, lead in the general direction we want.

Kaa

[Kaa]

That is absurd.

Really? :D


I would support mandatory licening for all operators of motor boats, including auxilliaries. I would make the exam as tough as the six-pack license exam. I would include mandatory on the water testing. It would include firefighting, MOB, basic mechanical and electrical, environmental, anchoring, heavy weather tactics, radio operation and, of course, navigation, both conventional and electronic. Sailboat operators would have an additional test on sailing skills and knowledge.

Clearly, we have a difference of opinion.


If the net effect would be to keep a lot of people off the water -- then so much the better.

Can I ask, then, what's the point of all this keeping the people away from boats?

Kaa

[Scott Rosen]

Can I ask, then, what's the point of all this keeping the people away from boats?

Kaa

Fewer, better trained people on the water means safer conditions for those who are on the water.

Yes, we clearly have a difference of opinion. :D

I've been scared silly way too many times by morons in boats who didn't know what they were doing.

If a person is willing to commit the time and effort needed to pass such an exam, then that person has earned the privilege of operating a boat on public waters. If he's not, then he shouldn't be allowed to be where his ignorance can endanger other people's lives. Such a holdout could get on the water with a human powered boat or small, motorless sailboat.

I don't see any basis to treat boats differently from planes, cars and helicopters. They are all motorized transit on public spaces.

[Kaa]

Fewer, better trained people on the water means safer conditions for those who are on the water.

Of course, if you don't let anyone on the water, the ultimate safety is achieved.


I don't see any basis to treat boats differently from planes, cars and helicopters. They are all motorized transit on public spaces.

Oh, good. Let's start by introducing aircraft-pilot-style licensing for car drivers, then. I can guarantee it will lead to "fewer, better trained people" on the roads, much "safer conditions" for those who'd be able to drive, and a very considerable reduction in deaths by car accidents.

I take it, you would be all for this?

Kaa

[mmd]

Kaa, you are trying to dance away from the question again. I am asking you your opinion on what could be done to improve boater safety. I'm open to any and all reasonable suggestions. Therefore, to answer your questions in yet another effort to get you to actually present an opinion;


Who is "me", that is, who is the agent that would be raising the boating public's awareness of safety? We already figured out it's not government, so who is it? What are its powers and what are resources available to it?

You are you. You have carte blanche to opine on who should or could be empowered to achieve the goal of better boating safety and training. You get to suggest the scope of the powers and budget of the agent of change.


What's the measure of success? By which metric are you going to figure out whether the public's awareness of boating safety increased or not?

The measure of success is a statistical drop in the numbers of boating accidents, boating-related deaths, and a lowering of the number of incidents of coast guard and police have to attend to on the water. You get to suggest the timeline between implemenation of your idea and measurable success.

Have at it...

[Kaa]

You are you. You have carte blanche to opine on who should or could be empowered to achieve the goal of better boating safety and training. You get to suggest the scope of the powers and budget of the agent of change.

I'm not avoiding an answer, but you seem to be unwilling to accept mine :-)

It's not a government function. Therefore NO ONE should be empowered. The scope of powers should be NONE and the budget should be ZERO.

Recreational boating training/safety, in my opinion (which, clearly, is not shared by some people :D) should be left to individuals and private/voluntary organizations.


The measure of success is a statistical drop in the numbers of boating accidents, boating-related deaths, and a lowering of the number of incidents of coast guard and police have to attend to on the water. You get to suggest the timeline between implemenation of your idea and measurable success

That's not a very good measure. The easiest way to achieve this kind of "success" is to keep people off the water. Anything which prevents people from boating (high license fees, onerous safety or environmental requirements, straight prohibition, etc.) will lead to the statistical drop you mentioned.

Kaa

[mmd]

Kaa, your first answer is a recipe for anarchy. No rules, no training, no enforcement. No minimum standards of knowledge required, so ignorant people can blithely drive boats that they are functionally incapable of handling, any person no matter how ignorant of seamanship can buy a boat and threaten the safety of other boaters, even so far as children could concievably pilot 80-mph Cigarettes in heavy traffic zones with impunity. I am glad I don't live in your world - freedom is precious, but not to the point of anarchy. I would prefer a more regulated society to ensure the well-being of the populace.

Your second answer is asinine as well as evasive. Of course removing boaters from the water will lower the accident rate; the question still remains, how would you suggest that the boating public be educated so that the numbers that are out there are safer?

These past few postings has shown me only that you have nothing to contribute to the debate, but merely wish to heckle and demean any ideas from others. So, good day; you are not of interest to discuss this subject with any longer.

[Kaa]

Kaa, your first answer is a recipe for anarchy. No rules, no training, no enforcement.

You are misstating my position, I don't know deliberately or not. If not, it seems you haven't been reading my posts carefully enough.


No minimum standards of knowledge required, so ignorant people can blithely drive boats that they are functionally incapable of handling, any person no matter how ignorant of seamanship can buy a boat and threaten the safety of other boaters, even so far as children could concievably pilot 80-mph Cigarettes in heavy traffic zones with impunity. I am glad I don't live in your world - freedom is precious, but not to the point of anarchy. I would prefer a more regulated society to ensure the well-being of the populace.

I believe we established that particular difference of opinion very early on. It's as if you could not believe I was serious and continued to pick at it -- that difference of opinion is still there.

As to the "anarchy" that you're so afraid of, the situation describes much of the US (not much federal regulation and states' laws vary widely). Somehow, boaters manage to survive in that wild and lawless anarchy.


Your second answer is asinine as well as evasive. Of course removing boaters from the water will lower the accident rate; the question still remains, how would you suggest that the boating public be educated so that the numbers that are out there are safer?

Recourse to insults is rarely a good argument :-) I asked you for a metric -- you provided one -- I pointed out the problems with it -- and you seem to be unhappy about it. Thinking about what is and how to measure success is highly useful, a pity you're refusing to do so.


These past few postings has shown me only that you have nothing to contribute to the debate, but merely wish to heckle and demean any ideas from others. So, good day; you are not of interest to discuss this subject with any longer.

You mean I was unwilling to enter the box you seem intent on herding me into :D Oh well, this part of the thread had all the inklings of belonging to the Bilge early on.

Kaa

[Scott Rosen]

Oh, good. Let's start by introducing aircraft-pilot-style licensing for car drivers, then. I can guarantee it will lead to "fewer, better trained people" on the roads, much "safer conditions" for those who'd be able to drive, and a very considerable reduction in deaths by car accidents.

I take it, you would be all for this?

Kaa

43,300 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2006. That's 1.44 deaths per each 100 million vehicle miles.

778 people died in air accidents in 2006. That's 0.02 deaths per 100 million passenger miles.

The death RATE in cars is 72 times greater than in airplanes.

Yes. I would support aircraft style licensing for car drivers. It would greatly reduce the number of private vehicles on the road and force state, local and federal governments to provide alternative transit for unlicensed drivers.


You may not want government to protect you from yourself.

But I want government to protect me and my loved ones from you. I also want government to protect me from having to pay to clean your remains off the road. Either that, or let me use an RPG to protect myself. :D

[willmarsh3]

FWIW Alabama has a boat licensing program. Boaters here are required to get a "V" put on their drivers license. To get that they must submit paperwork indicating passing a boater safety course. This course is commonly put on by the Coast Guard Auxiliary or the US Power Squadron. The government function is limited to the actual license adminstration and law enforcement.
I think this fits well with my belief that education goes the furthest in solving problems.

[Kaa]

The death RATE in cars is 72 times greater than in airplanes.

Yep, I know that.


Yes. I would support aircraft style licensing for car drivers. It would greatly reduce the number of private vehicles on the road and force state, local and federal governments to provide alternative transit for unlicensed drivers.

I appreciate the consistency :-) Of course, our opinion still differ :D


You may not want government to protect you from yourself.

I don't. Do you?


But I want government to protect me and my loved ones from you.

A valid reason. But, safety, and even the illusion of safety, usually come with a price -- consider the War on Terror. How much are you willing to pay to have the government protect you from me?

Kaa

[andrewe]

A recent comment on a similar thread was that the issuing of licences was more about the ability to punish by pulling the licence (and therefore ones living) than making sure that people could behave in the correct manner. In europe, generally, using a boat with more than 5HP requires a licence and therefore some knowledge. Not a bad idea, given that lots of HP and no experience could lead to problems. Curiously, here,if the primary power is sails no licence is needed. They are more worried by Mobos. The UK has no mandatary requirements and suffers a lower than average accident rate. The New Zealanders have tough ones and also a high accident rate. Might be the difficult seas there though.
I prefere the no licence route, but see, all the time, people who should be regulated.
A

[seanz]

The New Zealanders have tough ones and also a high accident rate. Might be the difficult seas there though.
A

NZ has tough regulation on off-shore yachts but I think we're about average on the rest of the regulation.
FWIW most of the deaths here (recreational boating) appear to be from small fishing boats that get into trouble and then aren't carrying any safety gear.

Back to the bunfight.

No Fat Boats!
:p

[Scott Rosen]

Interesting discussion. The greatest opponents of mandatory licensing is -- no surprise -- the recreational boating industry!

They, of course, want to sell as many boats to as many people as they can. Licensing gets in the way.

I don't expect to see any kind of serious licensing in my lifetime. FWIW, this economic downturn and the high gas prices have kept a lot of powerboats off the water. It's been unusually peaceful this year. Still plenty of sailboats, though. At least with sailboats, you have time to react if you see them coming. And they do a lot less damage at six knots than a big powerboat at twenty knots.

[Rapelapente]

... In europe, generally, using a boat with more than 5HP requires a licence and therefore some knowledge....., here,if the primary power is sails no licence is needed. ......A

The licence in France and in most f European country is only for motor boat. For sailing boats having less HP than 50% of the sail area in m²(...?) no licence for private use, even with a 150' LOA boat. weird isn't it?


The UK has no mandatary requirements and suffers a lower than average accident rate. The New Zealanders have tough ones and also a high accident rate. Might be the difficult seas there though.A

It shows that safety is more a matter of state of mind and culture.

I'm more on the "pro" licence side.
Interresting thread.

[John B]

NZ has tough regulation on off-shore yachts but I think we're about average on the rest of the regulation.
FWIW most of the deaths here (recreational boating) appear to be from small fishing boats that get into trouble and then aren't carrying any safety gear.

Back to the bunfight.

No Fat Boats!
:p

yeah, and you have to watch a population percentile based statistic when you have a small population with high boat ownership.

[carioca1232001]

The licence in France and in most f European country is only for motor boat. For sailing boats having less HP than 50% of the sail area in m²(...?) no licence for private use, even with a 150' LOA boat. weird isn't it?

On the Swiss lakes (I was told), one can hire a powerful motorboat and no questions are asked. One is given a quick briefing on how to handle the controls and that´s it !


It shows that safety is more a matter of state of mind and culture.

The British make a fuss over issuing driving licenses for motor vehicles. Overall, they are some of Europe´s more sensible and courteous users of roads and motorways. However, no licenses are required for plying the waterways, and they are still above average in matter of safety. :rolleyes: You may have a point.....


I'm more on the "pro" licence side.
Interresting thread.

Seconded.

[essaunders]

I came to this thread to find out what sank the coaster. Since this thread has apparently changed direction, perhaps anyone with relevant boat-related info could start a new thread with that info.... Thanks.

[paladin]

It would appear......the coaster was well overloaded, cabin area on second deck had been extended and enclosed and more furnature added, 10 years collection of stuff in the bilge and closets......deck hatches with no seals, just hinged and dropped flat on the deck to close them....apparently some of the excess furnature was not secured and was tossed thru som windows....but the speculation also was that the boat was leaving a marina after 10 years with no appreciable maintenance and a coolant line may have come off the engine pumping sea water directly into the bilge thru a 6 inch diameter hose....lotta water, lotta fast.....the insurance co. is weighing all the stuff removed from the boat...including a hot tub.....

[Saltiguy]

In these discussions about competence and owning large expensive vessels, remember that the insurance companies often call the shots. Try buying a large yacht and apply for insurance. The first thing they will want to know is your ability as a captain. If you cannot prove experience, they will not issue a policy.
One of my friends owned large yachts all adult life - a series of powerboats, the largest one 48 feet, and he ran them up and down the East coast for years. When he moved up to a 58 foot Burgher he couldn't get insurance coverage unless he had a captains license. He had to go to school and get his captains license - a process that took about 9 months. During that time he could not operate his vessel unless he had a licensed captain aboard.

[John B]

hot tub.
Hot tubs aren't very heavy. :p

[S B]

No, Kaa, I don’t mean any insult to inexperienced boaters at all. I asked a rather simple and straight-forward question; one without demeaning overtones nor hidden agenda. Surely, with all of your wit and intellect you can enter into a conversation without resorting to obfuscation and cynicism, and formulate some sort of reasonable response, though I understand that to grandstand with bon mots while trying to be clever in avoidance of the question is ever so much more entertaining to the perceived audience. C’mon, now; stay on topic – beyond a vague reference to “voluntary societies” and “carrots and sticks”, how would you consider that a raising of the boating public’s awareness of, and adherence to, boating safety could be accomplished. After all, it is not the idiot in the 100,000-lb yacht overrunning you in a dinghy who will die. At that point, I would expect that raising the seamanship knowledge of the other guy would be the most important topic in the world to you. I reiterate: How can your society/government/whatever encourage that guy to be a better seaman? Entertain the question and maybe we’ll all come away better informed from your answer; duck and run – no matter how cutely put – and you may appear to have bitten into a subject for which you are ill-equipped to chew.

S.B., all the equipment & training that money can buy still doesn’t prevent airliners from crashing and killing all on board, so does that mean that all training and licensing of pilots – private or commercial – should cease? I though not. Accidents will always happen due to equipment failure and human frailties. Adequate and appropriate training will reduce the frequency of such accidents, though, and enforcement of the rules associated with retention of one’s license will encourage most to abide by the rules. Of course, if you disagree, I assume that you would be happy giving the keys to the family car to a fourteen-year-old and telling him to feel free to drive his buddies around town on Friday night. After all, training and licensing is not necessary for anything other than enriching the government and removing the freedoms of the citizenry, right?
Relax, just making the point that regulations do not eliminate the potential that ,taking a cruse ,you are in the hands of an idiot, just because they have the paper work to be in charge.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

...
The British make a fuss over issuing driving licenses for motor vehicles. Overall, they are some of Europe´s more sensible and courteous users of roads and motorways. However, no licenses are required for plying the waterways, and they are still above average in matter of safety. :rolleyes: ...

Hmmm.

The next main cost is your license. For British Waterways (covering nearly all the canals and quite a few of the rivers) the cost is about GBP400 a year for a 48ft cruising boat and about GBP490 for a 60 foot boat. Houseboats and multi-user boats pay more.

[John B]

Hmmm.

Those licenses have nothing to do with competence or even the fitness of the vessel though do they.( as I recall it anyway)

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

It is a license for the boat - not the driver - there are a growing set of strictures on what is and is not allowed, things like head design.
But it is a British Waterways License.

[John B]

I realise its a waterways thing, We did 6 weeks on the Grand union and Warwickshire ring.
I've been sitting here thinking that yes, it's more about compliance and head/ environmental issues, But thats your point isn't it.. nothing to do with sea worthiness or driver competence.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Yup - How did you get on with the English canals?

I found them to be full of surprises. - Spent almost twenty years with the Grand Union at the bottom of the garden and used to do sprint and interval training - about four sessions a week so I thought I knew that patch well, until we took a cruiser for a week - just lifting the eyeline six feet makes it look like a completely different place.

The other surprise was the wildlife - never seen so many BIG freshwater mussels.

[Plover]

I've always said "That 90% of people that own boats, shouldn't!"
And I see once again I am correct in that statement!
He'll get his insurance money and miss some memories and be thankful he's still breathing with the rest of his crew I'm sure. And will it happen again?.... You can count on it! For myself, I've been on boats, ships, and tugs all my life, I've been on tankers loaded to the gills in the South China sea with typhoons all over the place and some really scary looking seas. It has always amazed me that a ship that stands 50 plus feet to the deck out of the water empty can stay afloat in very heavy seas with only 5 feet of free board full to the plimsoll. People ask me?........What's it like out there?....... My answer is always.........."Hours and hours of pure boredom, and moments of sheer terror!"

mmd is right.............Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

[John B]

Reading what Chuck has to say, it certainly looks that way.

Great fun Doug, but it was way back ... 1990 IIRC pre kids etc etc. so there'll be some changes now. Love to do it again.

[paladin]

Long long ago and far far away.....coming across the South China sea in October heading for J'Burg from Singapore.......bad storm.....took in all sail, extra heavy lines forward with a bridle with old water hose for chafing gear....drogue from bow with about 60 pounds of diving weights to submerge the drogue...hatches and everything nailed down tight....most of the day, all night into the next....radio on...trying to make something hot......
all within 200 miles...two large boats...one a tanker, split in half, lost with all hands after radio transmission....freighter started breaking up sank on second day, lost 10 men, 4 survived.....Columbia 50 in transit went down, 4 crew survived....I was bruised a bit, 31 footer survived the blow. I redirected to Seychelles.....but I was also radio relaying the info from the other boats as I could hear everyone loud and clear and was in contact with Southeast Asia net headquarters during the entire operation....with 60 watts on transmit. I still have the radio.

[carioca1232001]

.....I've been sitting here thinking that yes, it's more about compliance and head/ environmental issues, But thats your point isn't it.. nothing to do with sea worthiness or driver competence.

Exactly, shelling out 400 quid yearly in 'water tax', similar to 'road tax' is not the point.

What is being addressed is if there is a requirement (or test ?) prior to being (feeling ?:D) authorised to sail a boat, under power or sail.

ACB informed us ages ago that such a license/authorisation is obtainable simply by filling in the correct forms and paying a nominal stipend to the authorities. No examination or test required, which sounded more like a birth right to me !

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

In essence that is correct - the twist in the tail can be insurance - where it's quite common for the company to insist on a "competent helm".....

Honoured, all to frequently, in the breach.

[Mad Scientist]

pcford,

In this day and age, if ugly meant likely to sink, would there be any maritime trade at all? :D Name a beautiful car carrier, or a container ship that makes your heart race.

Going back a few decades, ACL's Atlantic Saga was, oddly enough, a pretty ship, IMHO. Also, there were 2 NYK containerships whose hulls actually had some 'attractive' curves in thier hulls. I last saw them about 10 years ago.

OTOH, on a foggy morning about 12 years ago, an incredibly ugly auto carrier anchored here - a ship so INCREDIBLY ugly that all other auto carriers look attractive by comparison.

Then, there was a conversation I had with a shipmate years ago...I suggested that the 'modern' cruise ship passing us wasn't particularly attractive, and he pointed out that the passengers didn't give a damn about the exterior appearance as long as they were enjoying the onboard amenities.

Tom

[Jay Benford]

As the designer of the Coasters, I’ve had several discussions with reasonable people inquiring about the sinking of Steelaway and what may have been behind it.
Discussions about our Florida Bay Coasters often come round to questions about the stability. Having personally been aboard several of them in sea conditions of at least 8' seas (on the beam) and gale force winds, and I've yet to see one heel more than ten degrees. The thing that the casual observer misses is that the boats are VERY beamy. Transverse stability increases relative to waterline beam CUBED. These boats would not be readily blown over nor heel much without something catastrophic happening to compromise their watertight integrity.
The 55' Coaster on the cover of the September 2008 PassageMaker has made a round trip on the Seattle to Sitka, AK, route and is on her way back up now. On the last trip down, crossing at the Queen Charlottes, in large mixed seas, they reported heel angles of six to eight degrees. See http://www.benford.us/pdf/WhatAboutStability.pdf for further explanation. Please learn more about stability before condemning ANY boat. A boat like this, with a GM of 3 to 4’ when built, is considered to be very stable. Check this with the owners of the Coasters – “Ask the man who owns one”….
http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=394&stc=1&d=1223327531

Here is a set of stability curves for an actual sistership to the alleged missing vessel. The highest one is with the tanks full. The middle one is the data as inclined. The lower curve is with the tanks empty. There were three of these 45’ Coasters built in about 1990, one right after another, each with slight variations in layout. These curves were created from values measured on a vessel that had been in service for a decade and a half, with the associated accumulation of stuff and spares aboard. The vessel in question had larger house volumes aloft – no aft deck off the master stateroom – and thus would have an even higher rise as the houses were immersed.

Keep in mind:
1) We're talking about a vessel that is in the over 100,000 pound range. Thus to start it heeling from wind pressure is not an immediate thing, but rather more gradual as the wind pressure has to overcome the tendency of such a heavy object to not move. They are not intentionally light for high sailing performance, they are intentionally heavy for comfort and sedate motion.
2) All that "stuff" noted as deck cargo is included in the weight calculations and thus becomes part of the center of gravity portion of the stability curve calculation. They're still incredibly stiff with a load on deck, or hung over the side. Look back at what an actual owner of one (Steel Magnolia) said in the passagemaker.com threads....
3) I do hope and pray that we can have an OBJECTIVE and informed discussion here, based on facts, not one based on uninformed opinions. "Hearsay" (look up the definition) does not qualify in a court of law nor should it here.
I hate to let facts and first-hand experiences get in the way of a lively exchange. Particularly when it is stated that these boats are not capable of leaving sheltered waters. This flys in the face of the facts that two of them are based on Lake Michigan, which is open water as soon as you leave port, and several have cruised many times in the Bahamas.
However, having been in operational control of half a dozen different Coasters, I can say without qualification that they are readily and easily controlled by a reasonably competent operator. For instance, I've docked a 45’ sistership in a gale, laying her alongside after doing a 180 in one and a half boat lengths of clear space. The lesson learned in doing this was that the boat had more time for the operator to consider their next move than we would have had on a lighter boat, for the wind took longer to have an effect on her....
Get a trip aboard one or talk with the people who actually have run them if you want to know the facts.
There's a simpler answer as to why they are named Florida Bay Coasters. Reuben Trane, who started the original business of that name was then running Florida Bay Boat company that he founded in Miami, building shallow draft cruising sailboats. He liked the Florida Bay name and kept it, calling the new company the Florida Bay Coaster company. There was never any intent to imply that they were limited in their cruising range or lacked ability to deal with open oceans. In fact, many of them have crossed to the Bahamas and cruised widely there, they've done north-south transits on the US east coast with many legs in the ocean, they've done the great loop and two of them are based on Lake Michigan -- always open waters cruising there. One has made the Puget Sound to Alaska circuit and is about to start it again. And the owner of the 38 in Australia just wrote that he's had her in 2-3 meter seas ("as stable as a rock") and is looking forward to seeing her in larger ones. A later Coaster crossed 1,000 miles of the Gulf of Mexico through some terrible weather. I think it would be more truthful to call them "freighter yachts" which would take away the assumption to readily made that they have some limited cruising or voyaging ability.
The owner called me after this article appeared in the Annapolis paper, questioning the accuracy of the reporting. Having personally been misquoted and seen articles (and message board posts) with made-up information, and opinions expressed as facts in them, I found this easy to believe.
The insurance company representative subsequently also called me, to follow up on our prior discussions about what happened to Steelaway. Their finding is that the six 8D batteries in the engine room were not properly secured. One of the batteries shifted, hitting the starboard dripless stuffing box, knocking it such that it allowed a lot of water to flood into the boat, which compromised the inherent stability of the boat, by creating a lot of free surface from having a very large amount of water in her which allowed her to make the lurch on heeling and led to her sinking. He made a point of telling me that there was no question that the design had good stability. It was only by being compromised in advance of the final incident, by this accumulation of water, that she sank at all.
Having a chance to see her again after she had been cleared of most of the interior debris and silt, I did not see a switch or circuit breaker labeled “high water alarm”. The salvors have emptied more than 10 tons of stuff from her, including the galley, heads, paneling and floor coverings. She is nearly ready for someone with the right vision to buy her and refit her. At the recent Solomons TrawlerFest I gave directions to see her to a couple folks and I’m looking forward to seeing her cruising again, with new owners who will care for her and keep her well found.

Postscript:
Another anecdote for those who persist in questioning the Coaster’s stability: when hurricane Andrew blew through Miami, coming ashore at 165 mph, the original Florida Bay Coaster, the 50’ Florida Bay, was in the Miami Marina. Her owner was a long ways away and could not get back in time to move her. When he did get back, he found most of the marina gone. Including the access piers to his boat. Which was still floating just where he left her. He had to get in a small boat to get out to her. She had not been blown over….
Remember that wind pressure varies with wind speed squared. Thus, Andrew’s winds were over six times as powerful as the reported wind gusts at the time of Steelaway’s sinking.
Further, a week or two later, Florida Bay was found to have a small accumulation of water in the hull where there had been none before. On a subsequent hauling, a very small crack was found and quickly welded shut. Apparently, during the high water and wild weather conditions, she had gone up and over an adjacent piling and acted as a pile driver on it. There was quite an accumulation of smeared wood material in the area of the crack testifying to this.

[dpincus]

Thanks for posting Jay.

[Jay Greer]

Thank you Mr. Benford for your sage input! I have had the pleasure of sailing the original Coaster, a boat that I have had a long affection for.
Jay

[seanz]

....for a houseboat.

:o
Not a houseboat.
Sorry.

Thanks for posting. I was waiting to find out what the cause of sinking was. Now we know.

[Jay Benford]

I have asked Jay Benford to post this on my behalf. I tried to post on your web site but it said the administrator had something turned off and I could not create an account to be able to post.

FROM THE OWNER OF STEEL MAGNOLIA:

Wow, you wood boat owners are a rude bunch. ****ty Boat? I take offense to that. How would you feel if I said that about your boat? I'm kind of shocked at what I'm reading here. All these supposed "experts" on the stability of a Florida Bay Coaster and I do not see any discussion in any of the threads where any of you have spent any time on board a Coaster or had an extended discussion with anybody who owns one (except for maybe Jay Benford who designed the boat). I guess you could consider him biased, but I happen to know he is a very smart individual and it's marketing fallacy to believe he would design a boat that was inherently unstable (initial, ultimate or otherwise).

I'm not an expert on Coasters like others in this forum. I'm just an owner of one. I am not a marine architect or designer, but I am a licensed tonnage Captain for both power and sail and an instrument rated multi-engine pilot. I have a pretty good understanding about stability and center of gravity issues. In an airplane essentially your life depends on positive stability (but hey, other than my life I don't give it much thought). So I guess I just don't understand what all this flap is about. You can say what you want, but here it comes from the horses mouth.... I have owned lots and lots of boats in my life and without question Steel Magnolia (my 50 foot Coaster) is the MOST stable boat I have ever owned. I consistently hang thousands of pounds waaaaay over the side in the form of a13 foot Boston Whaler, with a 40HP motor, gas and accessories, and the boat lists less than three degrees. I have not been hit by a gust of 75 miles per hour, but I clocked one right on my beam at 65 miles per hour (close enough) and the boat heeled over, but only a mere 5 degrees. I have been in every kind of sea and again the boat is more stable than most boats. As I read through these threads I see a lot of "I feel this, or I think that". Stability is a math problem. It's either stable or it AIN'T. It may be hard for you to believe but if you do the math this boat has positive stability almost through being completely upside down. How many boats can say that? The fact that it appears to be high and have a large sail area makes no difference. If it did every cruise ship in the world would fall over because they sure do look tall for how wide they are, don't they? When was the last cruise ship you saw tip over? This boat has been to the Bahamas to St. Thomas etc. So to call it a houseboat (wow) or a dock sitter is not accurate.

As for considering the boat ugly, you know what's funny...? 10% of the people come up to me on the dock and say wow, that's an ugly boat. I just laugh because I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You guys being wood boat owners should get that. However the majority of the people (including myself) really like that tramp freighter look. And as for steel vs. wood, I think we're both out of our minds!!!! But hey, I got ya beat when we’re stuck on a reef or something equally as hard.

Blogs are about opinions, and I'm all about that. I just get a little tweaked when somebody starts stating something as fact when it's not fact.

CURT
Owner, 50' Florida Bay Coaster Steel Magnolia

[Rick Starr]

Thank you both, Mr. Benford and Curt.

[mmd]

Hello, Curt;

Thanks for dropping by to post your rebuttal. I agree that some of the participants on this forum are a bit too vocal in their criticisms of things that they may be a bit ignorant of. I think that I can speak for the majority of the more moderate members here when I say that I am sorry that your vessel has been so maligned here.

It was not always so rude here. When I first started coming here in 1999 discussions were sometimes intense and viewpoints were ardently defended, but civility and consideration were much more prevalent. Things started to go seriously downhill shortly after Sept. 11, 2001 and the slide seems to be continuing unabated. It has caused a lot of the former members to leave, removing a great wealth of experience & knowledge from the forum.

As you have said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a lot of the beauty of a boat lies in its appropriateness for its mission. Not all vessels can meet their mission while looking like seventy-five-year-old Herreshoff or Atkin designs, nor should they. But, it seems that a number of denizens here seem to think so, and they appear to have little self control in stating their difference of opinion in a polite manner. I wish that this was not the case, but I am powerless to influence the tenor of the place.

I feel a bit of guilt by association over this, so offer my apology for your mistreatment. I expect that I will be excoriated for this, too. Enjoy your yacht; I hope you have fair winds and interesting ports of call.

[paladin]

Thanks Curt and Jay.....
Curt....I don't believe I made any disparaging remarks about the coaster at all....and I also have the requisite maritime tickets...commercial/instrument/multiengine/rotorcraft ratings, master scuba, FCC commercial with radar endorsement and a few others......

[Ian McColgin]

I'm glad that Jay Benford injected a note of factuality and that Curt rose to the aesthetic and sea kindly values of his boat.

We've had numerous accident postings that get around to judgemental blame tossing, usually from folk who don't know the facts and haven't the experience to interpret them anyway. They should not be mistaken for the majority of the woodenboat community.

Though it is true that a lot of us go through a period where we know we can improve on an LFH design and can outsail Slocum.

[Tom Hunter]

Mr Benford and Curt,

Thank you for stopping by posting additional information and the rebuttal. It was kind of refreshing.

As I said in my posts, not my type of boat, but certainly worth understanding the nature of the loss. Thanks for explaining that as well, and helping us better understand the type.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Noah's boat glass? :D

[Tom Lathrop]

Jay,

Thanks for getting here. I knew you did not design "****ty" boats and wanted to head off some of the comments but people will jump to conclusions based on others uninformed opinions sometimes. Human nature, I guess.

[Jay Benford]

I assume the remark about the ark being 'glass was made tongue-in-cheek. In Genesis 6:8 we read "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." And then in 6:14 Noah is told to "Make yourself an ark of gopher wood." (both from the ESV) I would be interested to know if anyone has any facts about what would have been called gopher wood.

In Robert Cornuke's book, Lost Mountains of Noah, he notes that the correct translation of the ark's resting place is properly the mountains (plural) of Ararat which are mostly in inaccessible Muslim countries. He did slip behind the borders briefly and came back with tantalizing stories.

[Larry P.]

Yep Noah's boat is glass, you also have to love this comment:


All too often some landlocked fool will find this board and come up with a design that is nothing more than a travesty.

but look at his profile

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Burlington, Vermont, USA
Posts: 2,076

[Thermo]

I assume the remark about the ark being 'glass was made tongue-in-cheek. In Genesis 6:8 we read "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." And then in 6:14 Noah is told to "Make yourself an ark of gopher wood." (both from the ESV) I would be interested to know if anyone has any facts about what would have been called gopher wood.

In Robert Cornuke's book, Lost Mountains of Noah, he notes that the correct translation of the ark's resting place is properly the mountains (plural) of Ararat which are mostly in inaccessible Muslim countries. He did slip behind the borders briefly and came back with tantalizing stories.

I think he was referring to "Noah" the original poster of this thread ;)

[Noah]

I understand that I'm getting some heat for starting this thread, but I'm going to stand by the original premise - that all too often folks are drawn to boats that were designed with too many compromises - in my opinion the boat featured in this thread is the type of boat that brings out the worst in boat owners. Generally speaking you can't have it all, when people try you get this boat, or a Macgregor 26X.

One top of that, the wooden boat forum tends to bring out the largest number of these dreamers - folks that think they should turn every sailboat into a schooner, etc etc.

I'm sick of watching it happen. I'm also sick of ugly boats.


Yep Noah's boat is glass, you also have to love this comment:

but look at his profile

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Burlington, Vermont, USA
Posts: 2,076

Thanks Larry P, I'm sure you are the woodiest, best mariner of them all - fact is I have a number wooden boats along with my Swede, and I'm confident in my sailing abilities. While I still have much to learn, I can step onto most sailboats and make them go faster, as well as spending 3 summers working in the commercial fishing industry. Thanks for the pot shot...dick.

In fact, I should add that while I have a number of wooden boats, I no longer need to look to this board for information about maintenance or up keep questions - fact of the matter is that too much of the advice is offered by folks that have little to no real knowledge of the facts.

[Noah]

Also, I really don't see any redeeming qualities to the boat featured in this thread. While it's stability may be acceptable, I really don't think it has any place on the water.

The very fact that owners can add 10 tons of extra crap to the boat means that it is inherently a flawed design in my opinion.

[Thermo]

Come on man, the overview drawing has a freakin' JEEP drawn on the fore-deck! How awesome is that?

Everybody needs a Jeep-parking space on their boat. You can't park one on a 26x either.

[Ian McColgin]

Noah, if your original premis was that there are some who post here who have some odd ideas about how to improve a design, there are objectivly ugly boats, and not all boats are suitable for the uses to which they are put, I could agree. Making baseless accusations about the seaworthiness of Benford's design does not advance your case.

[Rick Starr]

Noah advances no "case" but tries to coax an audience from subjective bias masquerading as objective analysis, and not surprisingly, without advancing the merest whisper of basis or credential.

The fascinating part of all this is the manifest complacence by Woodenboat for a very long-time advertiser. Puzzling that Scot or whoever cannot spare a moment to encourage a more dispassionate discussion, and perhaps remove the profanity from the title.

Of course, I'm certain Mr. Benford has noted all this too.

[erster]

Also, I really don't see any redeeming qualities to the boat featured in this thread. While it's stability may be acceptable, I really don't think it has any place on the water.

The very fact that owners can add 10 tons of extra crap to the boat means that it is inherently a flawed design in my opinion.

Where do you stand when it comes to design and the issues related to liability for the consumer on any product? I would think that knowingly producing a product that is faulty is not a wise move for somone in any industry. So what is your interest in continuing on this notion of a flawed product from your point of view? Thats a more inportant question at this stage since Mr. Benford has weighed in on this issue.

Many people consider numerous boats to be unseaworthy, and unfriendly for the general public. At the end of the day, there is not one boat that is of sound state of mind if the operator thinks they are never responisble for their own actions, simular to the modern day enhabitants in real life of all things being purchased and consumed.

[Tom Hunter]

I was trying to be gentle, because lord knows we could use more of that in the world.

The discussion is helpful, I've replaced some seacocks recently but will also check on a few other places that could sink my boat because of this. And take a close look at the battery try.

Personally I think it is totally acceptable to say "I don't like such and such boat, or I would not own it." But that doesn't mean we need to insult it.

As the saying goes, what ever floats your boat.

Noah you provided us with two marvelously ironic straight lines. Might as well smile at it, our turn will come.;)

[Jay Benford]

To paraphrase an old quote, I disagree with what you're saying (maligning my designs) but will vigorously defend your right to free speech. In other words, we need to agree to disagree, but do it agreeably. I fear that civil discourse and high regard for Truth has left too many areas of our lives. Which is all too evident in this election season....

We all want different boats and the designer's role is to provide those different boats. In the design process, we look at all the design elements. Providing high stability with high weight carrying ability for liveaboard boats, such as the Florida Bay Coasters which leads to a boat that is high in comfort and isn't readily bounced around by small passing wakes.

On the other end of the scale, we did what was the largest cold-molded sailing yacht in the world at the time, the 40 meter ANTONIA which had a slender 7.5 meter beam and great elegance and sailing ability. See http://www.benford.us/pdf/KetchAntonia.pdf

I surely do not want all boats to be alike, not only because it keeps designers like me employed, but because that variety makes them interesting as we see how well they suit their purpose. And those purposes are all not alike. It's somewhat like a marriage, if we were both alike one would be redundant....

[Noah]

Sorry Jay - I owe you apology for dragging you into this mess.

You did the work that you needed to do as a navel architect to design a boa that the customer wanted. You designed it to be seaworthy in a range of conditions.

I suppose my rant was more about the folks that want these boats, and why they want them. As a designer you create what folks want - I don't think you should, but that's a different discussion. I think my anger over this whole thing was really how daft people can be.

Every Macgregor 26 owner seems to think the boat is amazing - exactly what they wanted - what they don't realize is the damn thing can kill you really quickly. I felt that this was another example of that.

On a side note - why is it that navel architects/designers always seem to be very level headed and cool? Is it because you are constantly using logic to make decisions based on vague criteria, or extremely complex variables?

[Larry P.]

Noah, you are priceless. I'm not going to turn this into a bilge type thread. I just want to point out the ironies

1. You title the thread using profanity bashing a design that you no nothing about except that you don't like it.

2. You make a comment about landlocked fools but you sail on a landlocked lake.

3. Then you sarcastically say I must be the saltiest guy around and then go on to say about you own experience:


I no longer need to look to this board for information about maintenance or up keep questions - fact of the matter is that too much of the advice is offered by folks that have little to no real knowledge of the facts.


Then to spice things up a bit you add a little personal insult:


Thanks for the pot shot...dick.


Frankly you, and people like you are the reason the forum has gone way downhill.

[Thermo]

I know the feeling Noah. It gets increasingly hard to say 'to each his own' when there is so much excess and super-sizing all around us. I still can't see why anyone would need a motorbike with an engine bigger than about 600 cc, or why a family of four needs a mansion the size of our local public school, but that doesn't stop people from spending 30 grand on monster machines and millions on mansions either.

I'm sure Mr. Benford designed a safe, stable craft, and he's not to blame that people want to buy such things. Not my cup of tea, but heck, if there's a market for them, someone must fill the demand and make some dough in the process.

If people only bought what they really needed, a lot of folks would go right out of work. So I guess, in a perverse way, it's a good thing.

I guess any of us who run recreational boats of any sort don't have much room to talk, but I do know the feeling. I get the same feeling when I'm driving my battered old pickup to the grocery store and get passed on a double line curve by a guy doing 70 in a Hummer while talking on a cellphone. It's the "Wow, I'd dearly love to come around the next corner and see you turned over in the ditch so I can toot my horn at you as I drive by" feeling. It's plain old bitterness, but I think we all have it to some extent.

Anyway, Jay Benford, any photos of this 131 foot cold-molded ketch? I can only find some grainy photos of the framing-out.

[paladin]

Everyone has different ideas on what makes the ideal boat. To me the Swede may be a boat for going fast or weekends around the bay, but not something I would use for a solo circumnavigation. All boats are a compromise to some degree. A craft designed for racing generally will not make a comfortable cruiser and vice versa....and besides...Jay draws some pretty boats.

[seanz]

On a side note - why is it that navel architects/designers always seem to be very level headed and cool? Is it because you are constantly using logic to make decisions based on vague criteria, or extremely complex variables?

I think it's constantly having to deal with all the 'dreamers'. NAs either develop the patience of a saint or explode early on in their career...
;)

[Ian McColgin]

The B's have it - Bolger and Benford have been for many years (I'm old enough to recall some of their earliest published designs) my favorite (shall we say?) quirty designers with Benford perhaps more likely to put some deliberate aesthetic touch where Bolger might be more remorselessly utilitarian. Yet each can plan boats of wonderous beauty and each can design boat perhaps more beautiful the the smitten but good keepers that are most economical to build and run.

Benford's especial genius is in what might be called his human architecture, the incredibly well adapted accomodation across and incredible range of sail and power boats. The tramp freighter look of the seaworthy, relativly shoal draft hulls under discussion here is matched by their interesting livability. Just right for the right person or family.

It would have helped the discussion if Noah had read and understood the stability chart included in the sites he cited in the opening post.

I am glad the discussion has gone forward. No carping here can actually harm Mr. Benford's very high reputation and the back and forth, even if a tad embarrassing for Noah, has I am sure educated participants and readers, even those who no longer need to read in the building section to get ideas they'd not thought of.

[Saltiguy]

Hey, did anyone notice? Old Saltiguy nailed the cause for this mess in the first comment. Damn, I'm good!

[Bobcat]

Hey, did anyone notice? Old Saltiguy nailed the cause for this mess in the first comment. Damn, I'm good!


good job. Funny thing: if you let the water get in, the boat generally goes down.

Here in Seattle we found the same thing happens with floating bridges. If you leave the hatches open in a storm with a lot of rain, the bridge is now longer a floating bridge.

[Ian McColgin]

Finastkind Saltiguy. But you expressed yourself with insufficient vehemance and pomposity.

[JimD]

I always thought they were pretty cool looking boats.

[Canoeyawl]

About “bad’ boats…
When I was a lad being introduced to cruising the docks I made a comment about a boat.
Laughing and pointing, I said to the old salt with me “Look at that ugly boat!” He hurriedly looked around, grabbed my arm and took me aside saying in a hushed tone ”Son, never say anything disparaging about someone’s boat. Boats are like wives, men will adore them for reasons unimagined and at the very least you will surely hurt someone’s feelings, at the worst you can get into real trouble.
Boats can have small and large fortunes spent on them, they may have been polished and painted, cared for beyond all reason, or they could be derelict. But they are objects of affection even if you do not appreciate it. That “ugly” boat you see may have fed a family for a generation or two, put the kids through college, or perhaps saved a life.
Speaking in that manner is like walking through a bar and critiquing the women sitting at the counter, you just don’t do it.”

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

A good thread, but I come down on the side of those who espouse higher regulated standards for boat operators. We have an operators card here, which will be in force for all boats by september 2009. It is a basic test, about 40 questions. I took it as a challenge at the Toronto boat show a few years back, and got one answer wrong... and I should have known the answer.

There are a lot of people in my cruising area, which is Lake Ontario, that are new to boating. There is a lot of boat traffic, and a lot of rock around here. It's a bad combination. The boat repair guys love it. The outdrive repair business around here is booming.... but there are also injuries, and occasionally deaths.

I think there should be required courses from the Power squadron to be licensed in boat operation. That infrastructure already exists, the courses exist, and it would benefit all boaters. I work at a major marine store, and the amount of ignorance displayed by people who own and operate larger pleasure craft is boundless. They don't know the first thing about the mechanical or structural nature of their boat. They don't pay attention to safety equipment. Beyond reading a GPS, they know nothing of navigation or seamanship. All they possess is a big enough cheque book to buy an impressive pleasure craft, sail or power. Scarier still, they think they can buy, with different electronic doo dads and pieces of hardware, the experience they lack.

Frankly, when I am down in the thousand islands, I try to stay away from most boat traffic, since I can't determine what the hell they are going to do.

[Windsong]

A thing of beauty is joy forever!

[Tom Robb]

A personal opinion:
I've lived on two different large schooners for a total of a mere two weeks. I found it do-able but far from comfortable. Others' experiences have obviously varied.
I can not imagine being willing to live my life on the sorts of boats that most of us (me included) seem to consider beautiful. I'd love to own a Rosanante (sp?) but I couldn't imagine living on one. The Coasters, to my eye, look like a nice combination of houseboat and voyaging vessel and aparantly are seaworthy given their intended purpose. I could imagine living on one but will undoubtedly keep the paid-for house we have.
You either like the tramp steamer thing or you don't. Life is like that.
BTW, unless you haul freight, defend our shores or fish commercially, your boat is a toy.
Be nice. There's way too much disagreeableness in the world.

[jimdowns]

I am the owner of a FLORIDA BAY COASTER called INVESTIGATOR At 38 feet she is one of the babies of the fleet. In the 2 years since her construction i have cruised through AUSTRALIA'S Great Barrier Reef and almost every other weekend i cruise around the waters of the Gold Coast in Sth East Queensland Aust.( Similar to Florida) On board i have air con. foxtel. a fireplace walk around beds in both bedrooms both with ensuites all the comforts of home. During my cruises i have encountered all the normal weather you experience while cruising and i can say without hesitation INVESTIGATOR has performed perfectly in all conditions. I am no expert on design stability but the designer JAY BENFORD is. I take a good dose of caution with me when i am offshore and 30 years of sailboat seasense with me. I can highly recommend JAY BENFORD'S work over the last 30 years. BUT next time i build a boat i will use NOAH whose Obvious interlect and superior boat knowledge in both design and naming of boats is without peer. My question to WOODENBOAT is why isn' he and some off the other EXPERTS running the magazine , They would obviously own boats that would be loved by all the names off their boats would be chosen by us meer mortals without hesitation. Just think NOAH' S boat would be the only one on the water because of it's perfection in all departments . WHAT A GRAND DAY THAT WOULD BE .

[Paul Pless]

I must admit, Noah's gotta pretty sweet boat. :)

[Thad Van Gilder]

OK guys, to be fair, the thunderstorms on the bay this summer were earlier in the day than normal and more severe than normal...

Also, you can run into the magothy in any conditions and hide... and there is a light house at the mouth to show you were it is if you can't navigate.

I am suspect of the person operating the boat.

Let me edit that to say there was perhaps something else going on.

Wait a second... this was from last year...

-Thad