paradise cove trip
Brien Alkire
Paradise Cove in Malibu. We went last weekend, so here's some info on our
experience.
We left Marina Del Rey at 10:30 in a Catalina 36. Paradise Cove is due west
and the wind was nose on. It was a beautiful day, sunny and clear day.
Temperature was around 70F, and winds initially were around 12 knots.
The wind and waves built throughout the afternoon with plenty of whitecaps.
We had many periods of solid 18 knot winds, and short periods of winds in
the low 20s and waves around 5 ft. It was difficult making progress upwind,
but we were having a great time.
We arrived at Paradise Cove and set the anchor by 16:00. We anchored in
sand outside the kelp beds about 300 feet off the pier in 38 feet of water.
The wind died down suddenly, partly due to shelter of the cove and partly
due to their own accord.
I snorkeled for a short while, with visibility around 15 feet (not bad for
the coastline around here, but nothing like the islands). I also swam down
and checked the anchor, which was fine. We enjoyed a bottle of wine on deck
as the sunset, and watched numerous pods of dolphins swim by. A few of them
even jumped, and it was a happy time with a goreous sunset.
There were two other sailboats in the cove, further out and apparently
unoccupied (one was moored). There was a 25 foot cabin cruiser anchored
about 100 feet from the pier. We saw a few kayakers around before sunset
too.
After sunset there was a dramatic change. A nasty Santa Ana kicked up out
of the east. I would say the winds were in the high 20s with gusts around
40. It blew out any westerly swell, so the water was calm. The winds are
warm.
We enjoyed a nice BBQ dinner. After dinner, the wind was very severe and I
checked the anchor. It seemed to be holding fine (single plow anchor off
the bow). I let out more scope as a precaution, and went below.
At 20:10 (shortly after letting out more scope) we heard a loud BANG! I
looked up through the campionway and saw a structure. My first impression
was that our bimini had been blown off. I scrambled up the steps, then
realized the structure was not our bimini, it was the cabin cruiser. First
I didn't know if we'd dragged anchor or what had happened. Then I realized
we were still anchored fine, and my impression was that the cabin cruiser
had swung into us. There was no one onboard the cabin cruiser (we'd seen
some folks in a dinghy earlier). And it was clear that the cabin cruiser
was dragging anchor.
I debated whether I wanted to try and board her and reset the anchor on the
cabin cruiser. However, we're not very experienced, don't have a dinghy,
and the winds were howling. Instead I wrote down the CF numbers and hailed
the USCG.
The cabin cruiser was flying out to sea fast! Luckily, there's no lee shore
in this condition at Paradise Cove. The USCG intercepted the vessel at
around 22:00. We could see from the anchor light that the vessel was about
to go hull down, and we estimated it must have been nearly 10 nmi away by
then (it was flying fast).
We were fine, only our BBQ was destroyed. Our anchor was holding, but the
event made us all anxious. I sent the crew to sleep and I stayed on deck
and watched the anchor until 1AM. It was a beautiful night, warm, very
clear, the moon almost full. I went below for some sleep, and got up every
two hours to check the anchor throughout the night.
The next morning was beautiful and all was well. We had a non-eventful trip
home.
The owner of the cabin cruiser paid for the damage and all is well and
everyone happy.
A little more adventure than I would have wished for, but it's a beautiful
place and I'll be sure to go again.
-B.
Jonathan Ganz
Was there some reason for not assigning shifts to do the anchor
watch? Then, you get continuous coverage, and everyone gets
some sleep. Something to think about next time.
Jonathan
"Brien Alkire" <br...@rand.org> wrote in message
news:c0bv0o$d2g$1...@lumberjack.rand.org...
Brien Alkire
we did discuss anchor watch shifts and you're right, it would have been the
better thing to do.
I also considered setting a second bow anchor. However, I had an
inexperienced crew and felt it might create more problems than it prevented
(such as fouling the prop in the first anchor rode). Instead I opted to
increase scope, and never did I find an indication we were dragging.
"Jonathan Ganz" <nos...@noooOoooospam.com> wrote in message
news:102j1q2...@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Vernon
SV
"Brien Alkire" <br...@rand.org> wrote in message
news:c0bv0o$d2g$1...@lumberjack.rand.org...
Jonathan Ganz
if it isn't necessary just complicates life.
"Brien Alkire" <br...@rand.org> wrote in message
news:c0c1mk$del$1...@lumberjack.rand.org...
Jeff Morris
situation. I often use two anchors, but usually because the bottom is soft, or
I'm expecting a wind or current shift. BTW, setting and recovering two hooks is
not as difficult as it would seem, but you don't want to do it the first time in
the dark.
"Jonathan Ganz" <nos...@noooOoooospam.com> wrote in message
news:102j746...@corp.supernews.com...
Nav
warp and letting out more scope again?
Cheers
Jonathan Ganz
"Jeff Morris" <jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message
news:MPidnQBVq_-...@comcast.com...
Brien Alkire
news:c0c54a$15ebka$1...@ID-154502.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Nice story. How did you get hold of the cabin cruiser guy?
We wrote down the registration number immediately after the collision. I
faxed a request for info to the National Vessel Documentation Center and
sent copies to the USCG Group that I worked with on VHF that night, and to
the Marina Del Rey sheriff. It was the latter that provided me contact info
for the owner based on the registration number.
Brien Alkire
and pursue it. If someone was onboard and in distress then we would have
lifted anchor and tried to help. But it was not worth the risk to our crew
to pursue an unoccupied vessel drifting out to sea (no lee shore).
"Nav" <No_Sh**_sher...@sailing.com> wrote in message
news:c0c810$14rgl6$1...@ID-58816.news.uni-berlin.de...
Jonathan Ganz
You might be putting your boat/people in danger. I guess it's a judgement
call.
"Brien Alkire" <br...@rand.org> wrote in message
news:c0dq70$lo5$1...@lumberjack.rand.org...
Nav
all masters to go to the aid of stricken _vessels_ -i.e. whether they
have people on board is irrelevant. The only excuse not to is where your
crew or vessel would be placed in danger by providing aid -it doesnt
sound as if that was the case but it was your call. I'm not sure if that
principle applies in coastal U.S... Second what about salvage laws? It
doesn't sound like it would have been a big deal to go after it.
Wouldn't at least a part of the vessel become yours under salvage laws?
I commend you for getting help for it -others might have just cursed and
hoped it went on the rocks for hitting your boat...
Cheers
Brien Alkire
> all masters to go to the aid of stricken _vessels_ -i.e. whether they
> have people on board is irrelevant. The only excuse not to is where your
> crew or vessel would be placed in danger by providing aid
Yes, and I determined it would place us in danger (night time with
inexperienced crew in dangerous winds).
> I commend you for getting help for it
Thanks.
Nav
an idea if it is a harbour that was providing refuge from poor
conditions. It is possible that some vessel would be trying to come in
and not know there was a drifting hazard out there?
It seems to me your story is finally a proper sailing post we can get
out teeth into. There are lots of interesting side issue to discuss if
you want to.
Cheers
Jonathan Ganz
at a minimum. Good catch.
That makes it a bit safer for the other people out there...
"Nav" <No_Sh**_sher...@sailing.com> wrote in message
news:c0e6pc$16e3g0$1...@ID-58816.news.uni-berlin.de...
otnmbrd
Nav wrote:
> Just a couple of thoughts. Here it is a part of the responsability of
> all masters to go to the aid of stricken _vessels_ -i.e. whether they
> have people on board is irrelevant. The only excuse not to is where your
> crew or vessel would be placed in danger by providing aid -it doesnt
> sound as if that was the case but it was your call. I'm not sure if that
> principle applies in coastal U.S... Second what about salvage laws? It
> doesn't sound like it would have been a big deal to go after it.
> Wouldn't at least a part of the vessel become yours under salvage laws?
> I commend you for getting help for it -others might have just cursed and
> hoped it went on the rocks for hitting your boat...
>
> Cheers
46 U.S.C. sect 2304
(a) A Master or individual in charge of a vessel shall render assistance
to any "INDIVIDUAL" (my emphasis) found at sea in danger of being lost,
so far as the Master or individual in charge can do so without serious
danger to the Master's or individual's vessel or individuals on board.
He had no responsibility to the boat, other than the responsibility he
took to inform the USCG. Upon receipt of the call, the CG should have
initiated a "securite" or "pan", depending on their perception of events
..... course, it would also have been fine if the caller sent a securite.
Naturally, if there is any doubt as to someone being aboard, and in the
spirit of how we should act, it is always well looked upon when someone
tries to save a boat, people or no people aboard.
<G> FWIW, I'd say he did fine.
otn
Nav
vessel and her cargo received similar rights of protection from other
mariners as passengers -of course the length you might go to would be
different. I Thought it was considered to be a vessel in distress and
not the passengers per se. I take your point though that the USC looks
different. Anyone else care to add anything?
Cheers
Scott Vernon
them leave the PB on their dingy, but whose to say they didn't return unseen
, or that someone or two stayed aboard and were sleeping, passed out drunk,
or ill, whatever. How could one be sure there's no one onboard?
Scotty
"Nav" <No_Sh**_sher...@sailing.com> wrote
otnmbrd
Lawyer".
I think we all can show cases, where the various rescue organizations
have rescued the "individuals" and then let the vessel and cargo go it's
merry way, which could be perceived as not showing a concern for the
vessel/cargo (I, for one, have been involved in a few rescues, where our
only concern was the "individuals". Once they were secure we paid no
further heed to the vessel).
The possible sticking point here, may involve certainty that the
particular vessel does not contain "human" life, which may require saving.
otn
Scott Vernon
SV
"Nav" <No_Sh**_sher...@sailing.com> wrote ...
katysails
vessel and her cargo received similar rights
Maybe you're confusing the Colregs with a letter of marque?
--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com
"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein
DSK
>> Just a couple of thoughts. Here it is a part of the responsability of
>> all masters to go to the aid of stricken _vessels_ -i.e. whether they
>> have people on board is irrelevant. The only excuse not to is where
>> your crew or vessel would be placed in danger by providing aid -it
>>
I can't believe that any maritime law requires "aid to stricken vessels"
as the obligation is to save human life where possible.
>
> otnmbrd wrote:
> 46 U.S.C. sect 2304
> (a) A Master or individual in charge of a vessel shall render assistance
> to any "INDIVIDUAL" (my emphasis) found at sea in danger of being lost,
> so far as the Master or individual in charge can do so without serious
> danger to the Master's or individual's vessel or individuals on board.
>
> He had no responsibility to the boat, other than the responsibility he
> took to inform the USCG. Upon receipt of the call, the CG should have
> initiated a "securite" or "pan", depending on their perception of events
> ..... course, it would also have been fine if the caller sent a securite.
> Naturally, if there is any doubt as to someone being aboard, and in the
> spirit of how we should act, it is always well looked upon when someone
> tries to save a boat, people or no people aboard.
> <G> FWIW, I'd say he did fine.
Yes, look at the number of sailors that have been rescued off yachts in
distress, and left the boat. No legal repercussions there, eh? It would
be stupid to expect a private yacht to save a cargo vessel yet it has
occured many times that yachts have rescued people. Then there are
stories about people going to extreme measures to save dogs... one of
those last year IIRC near Hawaii.
I've pulled people out of the water a few times, and in all but one case
it was because of a small boat accident where the boat was no great
difficulty to bring along. But it is absolutely not a legal obligation
to save the boat, just the people.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Joe
NO you can not.
The boat was not abandoned.
Joe
MSV RedCloud
Joe
>
> SV
Let me re-state my answer Scotty.
No-- if the boat is not in peril, now if it were heading towards the
rocks it might be a different situation.
Here is some basic information:
In order to claim a salvage reward, the salvor must meet three
requirements. There must be (1) a marine peril; (2) service
voluntarily rendered; and (3) success in saving persons or property.
If these three requirements are met, the salvor may present the owner
of the salvaged property with a claim for his reward. The size of the
reward will vary from case to case based upon the circumstances
presented by the salvage situation. Many boaters believe that they do
not need to become familiar with the law of salvage, since "that
salvage stuff only applies to large ships and I only own a 25 foot
runabout." This is one reason for their surprise when they
unexpectedly receive a bill for a salvage reward. The laws of marine
salvage apply to every vessel upon navigable waters, from a canoe to
an ocean liner. It is not necessary for the vessel to be engaged in
commerce. This subjects almost all recreational vessels (except those
on landlocked lakes and ponds) to claims for salvage rewards.
It is not necessary for a salvor to be engaged in commerce or to be a
professional tower/salvor. Passing boaters (known as "chance salvors")
and professional salvors are both entitled to present a claim for a
salvage reward. The only difference is in the size of their rewards,
since professional salvors are typically entitled to receive an uplift
in their rewards due to the investment of time and money they have
made to purchase and maintain their equipment, keep up a radio watch,
and to stand ready at an instant to assist boaters in distress. The
availability of the more liberal reward is an incentive to
professional salvors to provide this necessary public service.
The underlying marine peril, which must exist before a salvage claim
can be asserted, may take many forms. Typically, a marine peril is the
kind of dangerous situation at sea that will almost certainly inflict
damage upon a vessel in distress if it is left subject to wind, waves,
weather and tide without prompt salvage assistance. Such circumstances
typically include fire, collisions, leaking/sinking, grounding, and
distress brought upon by mechanical breakdowns and equipment failures.
In order to simplify life on the water, many professional marine
towing and salvage companies have adopted unwritten policies defining
which situations and perils they will consider to present a salvage
situation as opposed to a simple towing job. For example, many
companies will consider simple towing jobs in fair weather, or "light
grounding" jobs (requiring only one towing vessel) to be towage and
will send the boat owner a towing bill. On the other hand, many
companies consider any job that requires more than one towing vessel
(such as a "hard grounding"), or a job performed in perilous
circumstances (such as in fog, shoal water or in a storm) to be a
marine salvage job, and they will send a bill for a salvage reward.
Other marine towing and salvage companies have not adopted any such
policies and, unless some other agreement is reached with the boat
owner, they will consider every job involving the slightest actual or
potential peril to be marine salvage.
The requirement that a salvage service be "voluntary" should not be
exaggerated. Voluntariness only requires that there be no pre-existing
contractual duty between the salvor and the vessel in distress. If a
tower has a contract to perform the work, it cannot present a salvage
claim. Another exception is for salvors who are statutorily obligated
to render assistance such as members of the Coast Guard, police and
fire departments. They typically cannot present a salvage claim
because their service is not considered "voluntary."
Upon arriving at the scene of a potential salvage job, many
professional salvors will present the boat owner with a "No Cure, No
Pay" contract. By signing a "No Cure, No Pay" contract, the boat owner
usually agrees to some form of binding arbitration, which will achieve
a relatively quick determination of the appropriate amount of the
salvage reward. The boater also acknowledges that the services being
provided will form the basis of a salvage claim, and that the salvor
will be entitled to a lien upon the vessel in the amount of the claim.
Regardless of the existence of a "No Cure, No Pay" salvage contract,
and in the absence of a towing agreement or other contract, the
services rendered by a salvor are still considered to be voluntary and
will entitle him to a reward if he is successful. The primary
difference between salvage with and without a "No Cure, No Pay"
agreement, is that without the agreement the boater will not be
required to submit to binding arbitration to determine the amount of
the reward. If the boat owner disagrees with the amount of the claim
it will then be necessary for the salvor to go to court in order to
get paid.
Because every salvage situation is different, it is extremely
difficult to set the amount of the salvage reward. In the absence of a
"No Cure, No Pay" agreement calling for arbitration, an admiralty
court will set the reward after suit is filed by the salvor against
the boat owner and/or his vessel. The United States is a signatory to
the Salvage Convention of 1989 (SALCON 89). This is an international
treaty that attempts to standardize the law of salvage. SALCON 89
includes ten different criteria that must be examined in order for the
court or arbitrator to determine the appropriate amount of a salvage
reward. The maximum amount of the reward is capped at the post-salvage
value of the vessel. In no particular order of importance, the 10
criteria to be considered are:
(a) the salved value of the vessel and other property;
(b) the skill and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimizing
damage to the environment;
(c) the measure of success obtained by the salvor;
(d) the nature and degree of the danger;
(e) the skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessel, other
property and life;
(f) the time used and expenses and losses incurred by the salvors;
(g) the risk of liability and other risks run by the salvors or their
equipment;
(h) the promptness of the services rendered;
(i) the availability and use of vessels or other equipment intended
for salvage operations;
(j) the state of readiness and efficiency of the salvor's equipment
and the value thereof.
In some cases, a salvor is successful in saving the vessel, only to
find that it is a constructive total loss, or that its post-salvage
value is insufficient to pay a meaningful salvage reward. In cases of
constructive total loss, the salvor will not be entitled to any
salvage reward, since he has effectively salvaged nothing of value.
The salvor will, however, be entitled to an award of "special
compensation" - a new form of compensation adopted by SALCON 89. The
possibility of receiving "Special Compensation" is designed to
encourage salvors, even in cases in which saving the vessel is
hopeless, to continue to exert their best efforts to minimize
environmental damage (primarily oil pollution). Under such
circumstances, the salvor is entitled to be paid the fair value of his
out-of-pocket expenses, plus a fair rate for the equipment and
personnel actually utilized in the salvage operation. If he is
successful in minimizing environmental damage, the salvor is entitled
to recover up to 130% of this amount. In extraordinary cases where
court or other tribunal deems it appropriate, the salvor may be
entitled to receive up to 200% of this amount.
It can be seen that there is a considerable difference between marine
towing and marine salvage. It is the boaters who do not know the
difference who are surprised when they receive a bill for a salvage
reward instead of a bill for marine towage or other services based
upon an hourly rate. The difference can be enormous. Take for example
a $150,000 yacht, which is purposefully grounded by its owner because
he can't find the source of a leak. If a marine tower were called and
agreed to assist the vessel on an hourly rate basis, then repaired the
leak and pulled the boat off in 4 to 5 hours, and billed for its work
at an hourly rate, the cost might be $500 to $600. However, the same
marine tower who arrives and sees a boat in peril because the weather
is deteriorating or because the grounding is close to the shipping
channel, and who enters into no contractual agreement with the owner
before providing his services, could demand and receive a salvage
reward for $25,000 for doing essentially the same work.
If the boat owner has time in which to obtain a marine contractor on
an hourly rate basis, as opposed to allowing a salvor to save his
vessel, he may prefer to make a contractual arrangement rather than
accepting salvage services and the inevitable claim for a salvage
reward. SALCON 89 does provide that a boat owner has the right to
refuse salvage services. Under circumstances in which the boat owner
may have time to hire the marine contractor of his choice on a
contractual basis rather than accepting the offered services of a
salvor, and where a small delay will not overly exacerbate the danger
to his property, it is much more advantageous for the boat owner (and
his insurance carrier) to hire a marine contractor who is willing to
perform the services for a conventional bill. If time allows, the boat
owner should consult with his insurance company before allowing
salvage to take place. The insurer may be able to recommend marine
contractors in his area or be able to make other useful suggestions.
Nevertheless, if the boat is in immediate peril and there is no time
to take a more considered approach, accepting the services of a marine
salvor is often the only rational choice. Under such circumstances,
the salvor's services should not be refused (but the boat owner must
be prepared to receive a substantial bill for a marine salvage
reward).
Since the recreational boater is subject to the same laws of salvage
as are large ocean-going ships, the recreational boat owner must be
just as astute as a seagoing Captain in making his choice of remedies
when his boat is exposed to a marine peril. Marine salvors should
still be considered the "good Samaritans" of the sea. They provide a
valuable and necessary service. Their voluntarily offered services are
only misunderstood by boaters who do not appreciate the difference
between accepting a salvor's services and retaining a contractor on an
hourly rate basis. The only way to avoid surprise and confusion and to
be absolutely sure that you will receive a bill for services rendered
as opposed to a bill for a salvage reward, is to get your agreement
with the marine contractor in writing prior to the time the marine
contractor begins his work. If you have a signed agreement for
services at an hourly rate, then you should be able to keep track of
the costs of those services as they are incurred, and you should not
have to fear the unexpected receipt of a sizeable bill for a salvage
reward based upon a percentage of the value of your vessel.
If your boat is in peril (and if you have time), the best advice is to
ask the responding marine contractor what he will charge for his
services before he gets started, get your agreement in writing, and
contact your insurance carrier as soon as possible.
My best salvage Scotty was a siesmic cable that was approx 2 miles
long. It was filled with mercury, and had gold connectors. My company
Point Marine got 1.2 million dollars for the cable. I got a bonus of
10K the mate got 5K and each deck hand got 2.5 K and the company got
the rest. If I could do it over again I would of hired a semi truck to
meet me at a dock and I would sell the thing myself. It was sold back
to the company (Quest Marine) that lost it 3 days before we found it.
Joe
MSV RedCloud
Jeff Morris
http://www.lymanboatownersassoc.org/back/au02/feature.htm
http://www.wcslaw.com/newsletter_proc.asp?nid=52
"Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6d6c2e2.04021...@posting.google.com...
Jonathan Ganz
"Jeff Morris" <jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message
news:fOadnTtyieu...@comcast.com...
Joe
>
> http://www.lymanboatownersassoc.org/back/au02/feature.htm
> http://www.wcslaw.com/newsletter_proc.asp?nid=52
>
I'm going to start to carry one of those "No Cure No Pay" contracts
onboard.
Beside everyone knows my spelling is not gud enough to write 180 lines
of maritime law. Beside it in a public domain and not copywrited. But
your correct I should of gave credit to Steve.
otnmbrd
Joe wrote:
> "Jeff Morris" <jef...@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message news:<fOadnTtyieu...@comcast.com>...
>
>>Hey Joe, Its not nice to plagiarize.
>>
>>http://www.lymanboatownersassoc.org/back/au02/feature.htm
>>http://www.wcslaw.com/newsletter_proc.asp?nid=52
>>
>
> Oh yeah, Steve White the marine lawyer published it on the net.
>
>
>
> I'm going to start to carry one of those "No Cure No Pay" contracts
> onboard.
> Beside everyone knows my spelling is not gud enough to write 180 lines
> of maritime law. Beside it in a public domain and not copywrited. But
> your correct I should of gave credit to Steve.
<EG> The bad news is, yer grammar ain't so good neither .... the good
news is ..... anyone willing to take the time to copy that much good
info, deserves a well done slap, upside their head. (I might snicker at
your spelling and grammar, but I usually understand what you are saying
....we won't get in to my punctuation).
Shhhh don't tell anyone .... I plagiarize the rules all the time ....
and occasionally Bowditch ....Duttons, etc..
otn
Scott Vernon
Scotty
"Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6d6c2e2.04021...@posting.google.com...
Donal
> Thanks, Joe. That clears up a lot.
>
Well, Joe's answer was correct, but I expect otn to accuse Joe of being a
lawyer!
Anybody who rescues a vessel is entitled to "salvage".
The monetary value of the salvage is determined by fairly simple criteria.
If the rescued vessel would have been definitely lost, then the salvor will
own the salvaged vessel.
If the rescued vessel would have definitely made it safely back to port,
then the salvor will get nothing.
In other words, the salvor is entitled to be compensated for the money that
his actions have saved.
For example, if your engine breaks down 10 yards from your slip, then a
rescuer would get almost nothing, as you would be able to prove that you
would have (eventually) managed to tie up safely.
If your boat became incapacitated a mile from your base, and you were
rescued by a stranger, then all sorts of factors would come into play. If
the coastguard had been just two minutes away, then the damage that might
have occured in those two minutes would be important. OTOH, if you were
about to get smashed to pieces on rocks, the salvor might get 100% of the
value of your boat.
Regards
Donal
--
Scott Vernon
Donal
> Read Joes' post.
Must I?
Regards
Donal
--