Conference unifix::sailing

    Quite an engrossing article.  But the rescue of the sailboat was the
    precipitationg event which lead to an even more difficult series of 
    rescues.
    
    Based on a quick skim, the sequence went like this:
    
    Westsail 32 calls "Mayday" after 2 knockdowns during Nameless Oct
    storm.
    
    Cutter responds to call but loses rescue launch in high seas.
    
    Helicopter responds. Drops rescue swimmer who saves sailboat crew.
    
    Cutter responds to call from second sailboat.  Can't get close enough.
    
    Helicopter #2 called.  Don't remember if they rescued Sailboat # 2 or
    not.
    
    Copter #2 run out of fuel and crashes in ocean.
    
    Copter #3 called to locate Copter # 2.  
    
    Cutter rescues 3 out 4 crew of copter # 2 with difficulty.  4th crew is
    never found and presumed drowned.
    
    Copter # 3 barely makes land before running out of fuel.
    
    Skipper of Sailboat # 1 finds boat floating in Delaware, fixes it, and
    continues on trip to Bermuda.
    
    
    Not enough time to type in all the heroics on the part of the Coast
    Guard personnel but it was extraordinary.  One memorable piece of
    dialogue between a Coastie, in the water, dangling from a line attached
    to a helicopter, in huge waves, as he's about to rescue the crew of
    sailboat #1 who are huddled in the water after jumping ship.
    
    Coastie, in cheerful tone:  "Hi folks, I'm Dave, your rescue swimmer. 
    Who wants to be rescued first?"
    
    Crew, after politely raising her hand: "Oh, I'll go first". 
    
    One question all the ensuing carnage raises is should you call for 
    help if there is more danger to the rescuer than the rescuee.  With the
    benefit of hindsight, it seems apparent that the crew of sailboat #1
    would have lived if they had done nothing.  The mast was intact after
    both knockdowns although the contents got shaken up.
    
    - gene

>    One question all the ensuing carnage raises is should you call for 
>    help if there is more danger to the rescuer than the rescuee.  With the
>    benefit of hindsight, it seems apparent that the crew of sailboat #1
>    would have lived if they had done nothing.  The mast was intact after
>    both knockdowns although the contents got shaken up.
    
This is exactly the same thought I had after reading the article. In fairness to
the sailboat crew, they never had a chance to consent to the rescue, since they
never heard any responses to their mayday. I suspect that they would have
discouraged helicopter flights, if they had had a chance to talk to the coast
guard first. (The crisis was partly precipitated by the loss of their SSB.)

It was definitely a riveting article, well worth reading!

--RS

    "Rescued from what?" was my question as I read the article at
    breakfast.  A good summary, Gene.  You didn't mention, though, that the
    skipper acted very withdrawn and sullen after being "saved".  Writer
    opined that this would be a typical reaction of one who just lost his
    boat.
    
    Sounds like they were in a bad storm and got tossed around a lot while
    on a delivery trip to Bermuda.  No hull damage, no rig damage, diesel
    still running and an experienced skipper - no harm, no foul.
    
    One guy dead, a helicopter lost.
    
    When is it ok to call for help?
    
    Ron

    Pretty tough to call when a rescue is appropriate.  I expect the
    knockdowns were 'demoralizing' to say the least.  Also, the story
    could well have progressed to a sinking boat after they decided NOT
    to call for rescue with the loss of the entire sailboat crew.  With
    the benefit of hindsite its clear their best choice was the one that
    is drilled into us again and again: "STAY WITH THE BOAT UNLESS IT SINKS
    OUT FROM UNDER YOU".  Clearly the boat was ok in spite of having been
    knocked down twice. If the boat survived without any human help it
    appears that it certainly wasn't in imminent danger of sinking when
    abandoned.  
    
    Its well to keep in mind when heading out that you are not only risking
    the lives of your crew and yourself but potentially the lives of
    rescuers as well.  Its only responsible to head out with the proper
    equipment and weather conditions (forcast conditions too) appropriate to
    the capabilities of the boat and crew. 
    
    The article did say that the Skipper of the sailboat was aware of the
    building storm and choose to continue into it.  But hindsite is cheap.
    
    Jeff

I thought the helicopter that crashed was a National Guard helicopter
responding to a Mayday by another boat, not the Scerenta (sp?). It was included
in the article because the CG cutter that help rescue the first trio then
proceded on to rescue the National Guard crew.

The way I read it was the NG helicopter was responding to a Mayday by a Japanese
sailor on a private yacht about 200 miles out. The NG responded because the
range was too great for the CG helicopters and the NG helicopters are equipped
for in-flight refueling. They reached the guy but were unable to take him off
so they dropped an emergency survival package to him and started back. They
met the tanker but were unable to take on fuel because of extreme turbulence.

(Refueling is effected via a boom on the helicopter that sticks out about 25'
in front of it. The tanker unreels a hose with a funnel-like connector on the 
end which trails back a couple of hundred feet behind the tanker. All the 
helicopter pilot has to do is fly up and poke the boom into the funnel. In the
dark, being bounced all over the sky there is a real possibility of catching the
hose in the rotor, which is not good. Understand; I just read about this stuff,
I don't practice it.)

Anyway, they couldn't take on gas and I quess it was so bad that there was some
misunderstanding about how high they were because they bailed out too early. Two
guys jumped together and they must have hit hard because one guy suffered
internal injurys but survived and was rescued, the other guy wasn't seen again.

Mike H

    Fascinating story and so easy to comment on from the safety of home.
    
    But it just pushes home the fact that the boat can typically take more
    than the crew.  It's story that's been repeated so often - the 198?
    Fastnet race and lots of similar incidents.  I guess the rule is do not
    leave the boat unless it's literally dissappearing under you or it's
    headed for destruction on shore.  Easy to say.

re .6:

In general, I would agree that you should not abandon ship until the
boat sinks from under you. The proper decision in this particular case
was not obvious and could not have been easy. Clearly, the crew was
afraid of sinking and had no way to know if the boat would weather the
storm. Help was at hand, but only briefly. The crew had to decide
whether to accept rescue then and there or trust in the fates. I really
don't know what I would have decided in this situation. 

Alan

    Reading an article in the comfort of home is a lot easier than being in
    a situation that is exacerbated by, say howling wind, knockdowns, your
    own fear, crying crew members, perhaps seasickness setting in, guilt in
    setting out in a storm in the first place, and the gnawing
    responsibility that other live's are in your hands.  I'm projecting
    quite a bit, but whom among us, hasn't felt some or all of these
    emotions from time to time?  I know I feel this ridiculous
    responsibility every time I take out people out and the conditions are
    too windy or even too calm.

    Emotions and sickness screw around with good solid decision making.  I
    know about this first hand: I had hypo-thermia on a solo winter
    backpacking trip some years ago.  I'm lucky I'm here.  In hindsight, I
    shouldn't have gone in the first place, should have had better gear in
    the snow, should have sought shelter sooner, and so on.  Once you start
    to go ... you don't always have the ability to rationally work your way
    back rationally.  
    
    I know I've made some funny decisions when I've been in the sun too
    long, been beating against the wind for the 10th hour, or felt quezy
    because of rollers all day...
    
    Bob

    
    	Facts???
    	I don't believe the ship (Westsail) was abandoned until help was
    there- and what was the (60-year old, upset) guy gonna do, tell the
    rescuers to go home? The rig WAS loose and getting looser, maybe
    grinding a hole in the deck- etc.
    	One of the knockdowns took their raft, there was no escape. The
    storm showed no sign of stopping. 
    	I think the call (get off the boat) was correct. I also figure they
    would have lived, had they not sent the MAYDAY.
    	Like the concensus of the last few replies says, hindsight is easy
    and better than 20-20!
    	Getting pulled out of cold water DOES modify one's outlook-
    
    	Scott

Did the article give the skipper's name?  (Was it Ray Leonard?)

Were I the skipper in such circumstances, I might make one decision if I 
were alone (wait longer, stick it out) and another if I had crew aboard 
(call now since time-to-rescue is too long if there's no boat under us.)

Reminds me of the John B. Leavitt, Ned Ackerman's wooden schooner built 
~15 years ago in Thomaston, Maine, to restore knowledge of the traditional 
building methods and to demonstrate the feasibility of hauling cargo under
sail in this modern age.  Due to a bunch of delays and other issues, she
was launched late in the year, and left on her maiden voyage in December
loaded with lumber for the Caribbean via Bermuda.  A friend was 2nd Mate,
and recalled how they were hit by a big winter storm about 200 miles SE of
Long Island.  The ship lost her sails, and I gather the deck cargo was
shifting, too.  Booms came loose and tore out some standing rigging, and a
design/installation defect in the hydraulic capstan forward resulted in
hydraulic fluid venting all over the deck--slicker than an ice rink. 
While uncomfortable below, danger didn't seem immediate.  Ned (skipper)
noticed, however, that the SSB antenna was about to leave the masthead,
and decided to call for help while he had the chance.  Again, it was the
NG or Navy with longer-range choppers that went out and got them. They
left the 85' ship afloat and upright with decks almost awash (they'd 
stopped pumping when the choppers arrived), and flew more than two hours
back to LI.  At the time, it was some number of miles outside the service
range of those choppers, and the farthest ocean rescue by helicopter to
date.  Crew members afterwards generally believed they would have survived
by staying aboard, and by taking a more active role in damage control as
the storm wreaked its havoc, though the skipper forbade any on-deck
activity after a [relatively early] point.  Ned remained quite defensive
about his actions for as long as the story was in people's minds that year
and next.  He went in two years from being a folk hero for building a big
traditional cargo schooner entirely by the hands of the old builders with
their traditional materials and tools, to disgrace for losing his ship. 

Neither the ship nor any identifiable cargo or equipment was ever found.

J.

    Yes, John, the skipper/boat owner was "Ray Leonard(60)" per 
    Boston Globe, Thur, 19-March.
    
    We also should remember that these incidents were during the 
    "storm with no name". 
    
    Fred
    

Fred,

Thanks for the confirmation.  Ray is/was a Frestry Service officer in 
Maine back when I was at Outward Bound, and he had a boat called "Satori".      

I'm sorry he had to go through the experience, but glad he found his boat!

J.

    Since I read the article in the newspaper there is a question in my
    mind about the operation that I didn't want to bring up at that time.
    After all it was a heroic mission, very professional by the CG,the loss
    of life of one guardsman and ofcourse the happy ending of the owner
    finding his boat afloat.But there was something wrong with the picture.
    I do believe that when the CG is called and the choise is made to
    abandon ship the CG is required to sink the vessel so it doesn't become 
    a hazzard to navigation.Am I wrong on my assumption or the CG was
    negligent after all.
    

>> Am I wrong on my assumption or the CG was negligent after all?

It's easy, of course, to second-guess the CG from the comfort of a warm dry
office, but here goes anyway...

I think the CG did a needless rescue, in the case of the Satori. The boat was
not in immediate danger when the crew was taken off. The rescue itself was a
risky business, with crew members abandoning a seaworthy boat in favor of a very
wild ocean. As you mentioned, the boat was abandoned to pose a potential risk
to others. The CG could have simply stood by until the storm let up. 

The loss of life in the rescue of the national guard pilot was also probably
preventable. For starters, the helicopter pilot presumably knew (from training)
the limits of weather conditions in which he could safely refuel. He should
not have exceeded his range. Also, the CG rescue swimmer who died apparently
suffered injuries when he jumped into the water from too high. Since this
was an immediate life-or-death situation for the pilot in the water, the
decision to jump despite the wild seas was probably inevitable. I wonder,
though, whether there wouldn't have been a safer way to get into the water,
e.g. use the sling to get down, or perhaps the swimmers did not exhibit
as much caution as they could have in the timing of their jump.

It's been my experience that "accidents" usually happen when several bad
things happen at once, typically some combination of negligence, bad timing,
bad weather, and bad luck. Perhaps the injuries and loss of life in this case
were at least partly caused by macho coast guardsman operating slightly
outside the envelope they were taught to stay within.

Then again, it's easy to second-guess the CG from the comfort of a warm dry
office... I hope if my life is ever at risk out there, they come and do
their best to help me!

--RS

re .14:

Excess bravado? No, I don't think so. I have great admiration for Coast
Guard people (and anyone else) who choose to hazard their own lives to
help others, especially when they receive so little glory and reward.
Perhaps they went beyond the limits of safety, but I'm sure it was from
a desire to help others, not to show how courageous they were. Admitting 
failure is hard, especially when your failure may result in someone 
else's death. More likely, I think, the rescue people simply wanted to 
succeed too much. 

re Satori: Not in immediate danger? I'd say the danger was most immediate 
and real and extreme. The boat had already been knocked down twice and 
damaged to some extent. Another knockdown or capsize in those winds and 
seas was all too probable. I'd argue that those winds and seas would 
pose a significant threat to any vessel, let alone a 32' sailboat. A 
knockdown or capsize could have sunk Satori far too quickly for the crew 
to survive even if it had been possible for the Coast Guard cutter to 
stay nearby (which was probably not feasible and would have put the 
cutter at quite some additional risk). 

re the helicopter: I doubt the pilot knew precisely how bad the weather 
was and whether he could or could not refuel safely. Weather conditions 
can vary dramatically over very short distances. The pilot certainly knew 
refueling would be difficult. I think the article made the point that the 
helicopter was rapidly bouncing up and down many tens of feet and in the 
darkness it was impossible for the crew to tell how high off the water 
they were when they jumped. I would guess that jumping was the only 
alternative to a certainly fatal crash into the water. 

Alan

I read it the same as Alan and agree on all points. 

Remember even the Cutter TAMAROA at 205 feet and 1,600 tons was rolling to 
as much as 47 degrees of more than halfway to a knockdown.

Also impressed with the performance of the CG 21 foot hard hulled inflatable
after the bow chamber was smashed by the bow of the SATORI

Fred

    re .13
    
    The same thought had crossed my mind when I read the story.  I'm not
    sure if the Coast Guard routinely sinks abandoned boats or whether this
    is just another folk tale.  If they'd do anything, I'd think it would
    be to try to salvage the vessel for potential later sale.
    
    There are also the pratical aspects of sinking a boat in rough
    conditions.  They had difficulty rescueing the persons from the boat
    initially so it's not likely they would have tried to put someone back
    on board to open seacocks.  I doubt if trying to shoot at the boat
    would have been a good idea.  Naval gunfire is ineffective if both the
    target and gun platform are moving unpredictably.
    
    
    re .14
    
    There was a short letter in the Globe in response to the article.  The
    author, with a crew of four, had set out in perfect weather only to run
    into a hurricane.  They called the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard
    arrived on the scene and observed the boat for a while.  Both the crew
    of the boat and the Coast Guard agreed that a rescue would not be
    needed.  But, you guessed it, as soon as the Coast Guard left, the boat
    sank.  The crew drifted in a life raft for four days before being
    rescued by a passing freighter.  But not before two of the crew died.
    
    Emergencies require fast judgement calls.  No matter what the skill or
    experience of the parties involved, some of the calls are going to be
    wrong.
    
    - gene