How dangerous is blue water sailing ?
Art Heyman
statistics ? I've done coastal sailing, and am thinking of going further
afield - and have now read numbers of books by people who have spent
years on the water without major storms - and have also read, of course,
of people having very bad times - but have gotten the impression that
the odds are with a good boat and crew - but a sailing friend of mine
mentioned a TV show which stated that large numbers of people die each
year - in offshore winter fishing (which we've heard a lot of recently)
, but also in container boats and recreational cruising - any place on
the web with this information ?
Phoenix
I found it to be much easier than when we sailed from Chicago to Halifax,
less traffic, no shoals, and it was all downwind. The biggest problem is if
you have a problem, there are very few people around to assist. There are
many books and magazines geared to the Bluewater Cruiser. Do a quick web
search and you will find some great reading. Before you do any bluewater
sailing, I would recommend you take some Nav. Courses and Cruising World
always has a number of seminars around the country.
Many of the delivery companies are also looking for experienced sailors who
want to get some experience in bluewater sailing.
--
--
Jim
M/V Phoenix
Regal 256
Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?
Art Heyman wrote in message <36B8F0...@mindspring.com>...
Robert David
I've logged 3 trans-pacifics without a major incident. Weather is something
you can never plan but always be ready for. What I tell friends is that
they should think about spending a month out in the gulf without a port
call. If you have the skills built up over a myriad of conditions then
good, if not...then DON'T! If you want to see what weather you'll be
running into you can just monitor the conditions on a daily basis for a
month in the areas you'll be sailing through then compare that to your
previous expierences.
Bob David
St Petersburg, FL
jameslw...@my-dejanews.com
us00...@mindspring.com wrote:
> How dangerous is blue water cruising
<snip>
>large numbers of people die each
> year - in offshore winter fishing (which we've heard a lot of recently)
This was an oft discussed topic while we were circumnavigating. We knew of
at least six boats lost on reefs and another three that were saved, two of
them because they had the good luck to go on the reef just outside a port,
and the third because of strength of will, boat, and pocketbook. We
discussed the reasons for these groundings – pilot error, without exception,
-- and the other incidents of which we have all read.
The not very scientific conclusion? As you say, the odds are with a good boat
and crew. Fundamentally, safety while at sea is a matter of common sense,
choosing the correct seasons for acceptable weather, and knowing the strengths
and weaknesses of your boat and crew.
Offshore winter fishing is irrelevant – fishermen do things in weather that
won’t find the prudent cruiser within a thousand miles. Container vessels are
irrelevant – some foreign merchant vessels are sinkings waiting to happen.
Much recreational cruising is irrelevant – liquor is often combined with
inexperience in unhealthy ways.
A list of legitimate concerns for the voyager: - boredom - loss of community
(the substitution of a very small very tight community for the much larger
one you have now) - living in tight quarters (or getting to know your spouse)
- loss of some luxuries (your favorite food, easy access to books, TV –
trading books and tapes only goes so far) - cost (lost salary or salaries
overwhelms everything else) - fear (you’re never in as much danger as you
sometimes think you are and the boat can always take more than you can) -
his/her own competence - the boat’s competence - - - sickness (voyagers are a
pretty healthy lot, but we did know of one case of serious malaria) - - -
and, a lot farther down the list: - danger from weather, pirates, criminals,
sharks or whatever (during our three year circumnav we learned of no incident
that caused permanent bodily harm to any individual. We were in more or less
daily SSB and VHF contact with probably 100 people who had nothing better to
do than gossip and we learned about everything that happened. I doubt if 100
people ashore in a big city would be as safe.)
Jim
s/v Sweetwater circumnav 1995-98
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Glenn
is just sailing for extended periods in your local waters not far from
safety.
I hate it when I see someone who is planning that once in a lifetime trip,
but never goes out and really sails in their local waters for extended
periods. Find out if you really like being out at sea for days at a time.
Sailing in the 21 century is safer than ever before. We have reliable books
and charts that abound for the whole world. But you must have the ability
to translate that material into a safe trip.
The success of your trip will be measured by your experience and your
ability.
Glenn
Bill Turner, W7TI
______________________________________________
My research indicates if you do it long enough, the fatality rate is
the same as life itself - 100%.
73, Bill W7TI
Kent Lewis
in Mexico and found that about 25% of them admitted that they had never so
much as sailed over night before they actually left for good.
Since they had successfully made it to Mexico, one can conclude:
1) Blue water sailing is not dangerous
2) Blue water sailing is only dangerous if you run into bad weather, so
don't go there
3) God really does look out for drunks and fools
4) All of the above.
Kent
S/V Que Tal
Robert David wrote in message <36B98A3D...@yahoo.com>...
>Art,
>
>I've logged 3 trans-pacifics without a major incident. Weather is
something
>you can never plan but always be ready for. What I tell friends is that
>they should think about spending a month out in the gulf without a port
>call. If you have the skills built up over a myriad of conditions then
>good, if not...then DON'T! If you want to see what weather you'll be
>running into you can just monitor the conditions on a daily basis for a
>month in the areas you'll be sailing through then compare that to your
>previous expierences.
>
>Bob David
>St Petersburg, FL
>
>Art Heyman wrote:
>
>> How dangerous is blue water sailing (cruising ) ? What are the
>> statistics ? I've done coastal sailing, and am thinking of going further
>> afield - and have now read numbers of books by people who have spent
>> years on the water without major storms - and have also read, of course,
>> of people having very bad times - but have gotten the impression that
>> the odds are with a good boat and crew - but a sailing friend of mine
>> mentioned a TV show which stated that large numbers of people die each
>> year - in offshore winter fishing (which we've heard a lot of recently)
Major oz
seem to have good advice), my years in the Micronesia region indicated a high
incidence of very successful blue water experience in many of the yachties
passing through.
I was astounded, however, at the number of these successful sailors who ran
into the reefs with various levels of tragedy.
cheers
oz
Mark Sienkiewicz
Kent Lewis <kle...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>A couple of years ago, Latitude 38 did an informal survey of cruisers down
>in Mexico and found that about 25% of them admitted that they had never so
>much as sailed over night before they actually left for good.
>
>Since they had successfully made it to Mexico, one can conclude:
One can conclude that only people who successfully made the trip
were available to answer the survey. Obviously, those that turned
back after a day or two weren't counted. :)
Armond Perretta
>Kent Lewis wrote: ...
>A couple of years ago, Latitude 38 did an informal survey of
>cruisers down in Mexico and found that about 25% of them
>admitted that they had never so much as sailed over night
>before they actually left for good.
>
>Since they had successfully made it to Mexico, one can
>conclude:
> 2) Blue water sailing is only dangerous if you run into bad
> weather, so don't go there
> 3) God really does look out for drunks and fools
> 4) All of the above.
Or none of the above.
For example no one seems able to draw clear and indisputable
conclusions from the recent Sydney-Hobart (which included all
manner of experienced people and expensive equipment).
Thus I wonder if any weight should be give to conclusions derived
from an informal survey of folks who completed a coastal sail
(probably in the right direction and probably in the right season)
down the California coast.
Except perhaps that it was a pretty nice boat ride, of course.
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat (Remove BOAT)
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/sideline/8620
Greg Delezynski
Armond Perretta wrote:
> >Kent Lewis wrote: ...
> >A couple of years ago, Latitude 38 did an informal survey of
> >cruisers down in Mexico and found that about 25% of them
> >admitted that they had never so much as sailed over night
> >before they actually left for good.
> >
> >Since they had successfully made it to Mexico, one can
> >conclude:
> > 1) Blue water sailing is not dangerous
> > 2) Blue water sailing is only dangerous if you run into bad
> > weather, so don't go there
> > 3) God really does look out for drunks and fools
> > 4) All of the above.
>
> Or none of the above.
>
> For example no one seems able to draw clear and indisputable
> conclusions from the recent Sydney-Hobart (which included all
> manner of experienced people and expensive equipment).
"expensive equipment" does NOT equal safe equipment!!!!
And racing does NOT equal blue water cruising!!!!!!!!!!
A lot of conclusions came out of the fastnet. have any been implemented?
Same goes for the Queens Birthday race??
> Thus I wonder if any weight should be give to conclusions derived
> from an informal survey of folks who completed a coastal sail
> (probably in the right direction and probably in the right season)
Isn't cruising mostly, if not all, going in the right direction in the
rightseason? If not, then it's racing and that is a totally different
subject!
> down the California coast.
>
> Except perhaps that it was a pretty nice boat ride, of course.
>
> Good luck and good sailing.
>
> s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat (Remove BOAT)
>
> http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/sideline/8620
--
Greg & Jill Delezynski
S/V Guenevere
http://home.att.net/~g-j-delezynski/
Anders Svensson
Cruisers often like to think (or lull themselves into false security) that
the ugly stuff that happens to racers won't happen to them, for some reason.
Why is that?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Armond Perretta
>Greg Delezynski wrote: ... Armond Perretta wrote: ... Kent
>Lewis wrote: ...
>> >
>> > ... Latitude 38 did an informal survey of cruisers down in
>> >Mexico and found that about 25% of them ... had never ...
>> >sailed over night before they ... left for good ... one can
>> >conclude:
>> > 1) Blue water sailing is not dangerous
>> > 2) Blue water sailing is only dangerous if you run into bad
>> > weather, so don't go there
>> > 3) God really does look out for drunks and fools
>> > 4) All of the above.
>>
>> Or none of the above. For example no one seems able to
>> draw clear and indisputable conclusions from the recent
>> Sydney-Hobart (which included all manner of experienced
>> people and expensive equipment).
>
Should "what" be "blue water racing"? I suppose you might ask
Miles Smeeton or Bernard Mottissier about the relative dangers
of cruising and racing (if you believe this point is important).
Everybody, somewhere, sometime, has a problem.
>"expensive equipment" does NOT equal safe equipment!!!!
>And racing does NOT equal blue water cruising!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for this clarification. Had you looked into Deja
News you might have noticed that the important distinctions
you quote have been the subject of tens (if not hundreds)
of threads in this group. Nonetheless they bear repeating,
if only for the uninitiated.
>A lot of conclusions came out of the fastnet. have any been
implemented? Same goes for the Queens Birthday race??
I suppose you'd have to analyse this issue point by point.
If you are interested, please feel free to start.
>> Thus I wonder if any weight should be give to conclusions
>> derived from an informal survey of folks who completed
>> a coastal sail (probably in the right direction and probably
>> in the right season)
>
>Isn't cruising mostly, if not all, going in the right direction in
>the right season?
Well, mine usually is (or at least tries to be), and frankly I like
it that way. But whether "all cruising" is such I don't know, so
let's take a look at the record. I will describe only one instance,
but it's one that many already know.
In "Cruising with Serrafyn," the Pardey's first book, they describe
a passage from the eastern end of the Panama Canal, north through
the Caribbean, and eventually to Florida. This passage, against
the prevailing winds and currents for most of its length, was
considered by the Pardey's as one of their major sailing
accomplishments. It was "in the wrong direction" as we are
using the phrase.
Since many folks consider the Pardey's the "ultimate cruisers,"
I suppose one might conclude that "most, if not all, cruising" isn't
necessarily in the "right" direction. YMMV.
Phoenix
winds will be fair and the seas calm. It doesn't mean that they won't be
hit by bad weather, but it improves the odds considerably.
--
--
Jim
Expert: "ex"=a has-been. "spert"=a drip under pressure.
Anders Svensson wrote in message <36BBE968...@swipnet.se>...
|Greg Delezynski skrev:
|
|> Shoud this be How dangerous is blue water racing?
|>
|> Armond Perretta wrote:
|>
|> > >Kent Lewis wrote: ...
|> > >A couple of years ago, Latitude 38 did an informal survey of
|> > >cruisers down in Mexico and found that about 25% of them
|> > >admitted that they had never so much as sailed over night
|> > >before they actually left for good.
|> > >
|> > >Since they had successfully made it to Mexico, one can
|> > >conclude:
|> > > 1) Blue water sailing is not dangerous
|> > > 2) Blue water sailing is only dangerous if you run into bad
|> > > weather, so don't go there
|> > > 3) God really does look out for drunks and fools
|> > > 4) All of the above.
|> >
|> > Or none of the above.
|> >
|> > For example no one seems able to draw clear and indisputable
|> > conclusions from the recent Sydney-Hobart (which included all
|> > manner of experienced people and expensive equipment).
|>
|> "expensive equipment" does NOT equal safe equipment!!!!
|> And racing does NOT equal blue water cruising!!!!!!!!!!
|>
|> A lot of conclusions came out of the fastnet. have any been implemented?
|>
|> Same goes for the Queens Birthday race??
|>
|> > Thus I wonder if any weight should be give to conclusions derived
|> > from an informal survey of folks who completed a coastal sail
|> > (probably in the right direction and probably in the right season)
|>
|> Isn't cruising mostly, if not all, going in the right direction in the
|> rightseason? If not, then it's racing and that is a totally different
|> subject!
|>
|> > down the California coast.
|> >
|> > Except perhaps that it was a pretty nice boat ride, of course.
|> >
|> > Good luck and good sailing.
|> >
|> > s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat (Remove BOAT)
|> >
|> > http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/sideline/8620
|>
Bill Turner, W7TI
<snip>
>In "Cruising with Serrafyn," the Pardey's first book, they describe
>a passage from the eastern end of the Panama Canal, north through
>the Caribbean, and eventually to Florida. This passage, against
>the prevailing winds and currents for most of its length, was
>considered by the Pardey's as one of their major sailing
>accomplishments. It was "in the wrong direction" as we are
>using the phrase.
>
>Since many folks consider the Pardey's the "ultimate cruisers,"
>I suppose one might conclude that "most, if not all, cruising" isn't
>necessarily in the "right" direction. YMMV.
The Pardeys tend to do things differently from most folks. On their
first circumnavigation not only did they go the "wrong" way, they
completed it without crossing the equator. They came close at
Singapore, but missed it by a few miles. I wonder how many other
circumnavigators could make that claim.
73, Bill W7TI
Armond Perretta
Bill Turner, W7TI wrote: ... Armond Perretta wrote: ...
>>
>>In "Cruising with Serrafyn," the Pardey's first book, they describe
>>a passage from the eastern end of the Panama Canal, north through
>>the Caribbean, and eventually to Florida. This passage, against
>>the prevailing winds and currents for most of its length, was
>>considered by the Pardey's as one of their major sailing
>>accomplishments. It was "in the wrong direction" as we are
>>using the phrase.
>
>first circumnavigation not only did they go the "wrong" way, they
>completed it without crossing the equator.
I had not noticed this very much until you specifically mentioned it.
The fact that they do things as "differently" as they do, leads one to
wonder why so many cruising folk seem to want to imitate them (at
least unconsciously).
Heck, I'm not one of them. I would love to travel the world in
Jim Clark's (Netscape CEO) new 150 footer. But ...
Greg Delezynski
Anders Svensson wrote:
> Greg Delezynski skrev:
>
> > Shoud this be How dangerous is blue water racing?
<snip>
> Cruisers often like to think (or lull themselves into false security) that
> the ugly stuff that happens to racers won't happen to them, for some reason.
>
> Why is that?
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Anders Svensson
> Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
> -----------------------------------------------------------
Lets look at that a bit. It's not that we (I AM a cruiser) don't think that I
will
not have to face the ugly stuff. We just do everything we can to avoid it. I
don't
go out in it if I don't have to. I equip my boat to take it, as best as I can.
EVERYTHING on my boat is built to withstand heavy weather, it's oversize.
If I didn't think I might get into the ugly stuff, why would I equip my boat
this way?
NOT built to a rule or built on the edge of strength and light weight! I always
carry extra food and a batch of stuff that no racer in his right mind would
weight down his boat with.
Not long ago there was a story about ocean racers that were down to no food
at the end of the race. All to save weight! Sorry, that won't happen here!
Also a story about a racing boat that broke in half when they tried to cross
winch a jib sheet. It broke the boat in half at the cockpit.
When we cruisers do get into the ugly stuff, we handle it. If that means
heaving-to
then we do! We don't run on headlong to finish first.
It's not that I don't like racing. It's just that not all blue water sailing is
the
same!
If you race, car, boat, plane, or anything, it's not as safe as taking it easy.
Armond Perretta
>Greg Delezynski wrote: ... Anders Svensson wrote: ...
>Greg Delezynski skrev: ...
>> >
>> > ... [snip] ...How dangerous is blue water racing?
>>
>> Cruisers often like to think (or lull themselves into false
>> security) that the ugly stuff that happens to racers
>> won't happen to them, for some reason. Why is that?
>>
>
>Lets look at that a bit. It's not that we (I AM a cruiser) don't
>think that I will not have to face the ugly stuff. We just do
>everything we can to avoid it. I don't go out in it if I don't
>we handle it. If that means heaving-to then we do! We
>don't run on headlong to finish first.
Unless I totally mis-understand Anders, what he seems to
be saying is _not_ that "cruisers" (and I'm not sure I know the
particular definition you are using) can't take it, or aren't
prepared, or seek trouble, or just keep on going when
common sense and experience dictate otherwise. Rather
his point seems to be that trouble is sometimes _there_ and
sometimes there's damn little one can do to avoid it.
I'm not directing this comment to the foolhardy.
meuz...@my-dejanews.com
> How dangerous is blue water sailing (cruising ) ? What are the
> statistics ? I've done coastal sailing, and am thinking of going further
> afield
You got quite a few interesting answers already but few or no "hard numbers".
One way of trying to come up with a number is asking your insurance company
what kind of an extra premium ("rider") they will charge you when you want to
make a given bluewater passage. Although I expect to catch a lot of flack
from the group for assuming that insurance companies might know anything
about sailing one should not forget that they wouldn't survive long if they
underestimate the risk. Also, they tend to place these riders with the help
of LLoyds, which must have access to a tremendous data base regarding
bluewater sailing risks. For our Pacific passages to Hawaii (2x) and
Australia I was consistently quoted a rider equal to approximately 1% of the
insured value of my vessel (a 43 ft light cruiser/racer design). FWIW, I
therefore estimate that the average risk of losing one's vessel during
Pacific passages must be quite a bit less than 1%. After all, these insurance
companies want to make some money. Furthermore, there are lots of ways of
incurring substantial damage without losing your boat (e.g. by losing your
rigging, etc.) which need to be calculated into the rider.
Flying Dutchman
Anders Svensson
Sometimes it is good to know that there is someone that interpretes me
as good as I do myself ;-)
Ofcourse this was a provocation, and a ugly one too.
All answers I have got this far on my "question" have pointed out how
cruisers are looking for the best weather periods (yet the Fastnet and
Sidney-Hobart are scheduled in the height of the summer at each place),
that cruisers have far heavier boats, that they bring a lot of food,
that they "think safe", that they don't skimp on safety gear... on and
on like that.
Like I said:
Cruisers often like to think (or lull themselves into false
security) that the ugly stuff that happens to racers
won't happen to them, for some reason. Why is that?
--
Paul Kamen
>You got quite a few interesting answers already but few or no
>"hard numbers"...
I think this is because there's so much variability in the way it's done.
Driving a car, for example, is done pretty much the same way, with pretty
much the same equipment and safety measures, by most of the people who
drive. Sure there are outlyers in both directions, but a large population
in the mid-range is exposed to a more-or-less uniform and definable risk
level.
Not so with cruisers. We all do it differently, in vastly different
machines under vastly different conditions. It's like asking "How safe is
crossing the street?" (without even specifying which street). If you're
careful, the risk is inconsequential. If you're careless, you take your
life in your hands.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
JAXAshby
>Cruisers often like to think (or lull themselves into false
>security) that the ugly stuff that happens to racers
>won't happen to them, for some reason. Why is that?
Anders, I think you're asking a seriously deep psychological question that has
little chance of a "good" (i.e. accurate) answer from the likes of N/A's,
mechanics, retired postal workers, nickle-a-word magazine writers, drywall
specialists, or sometime sailmakers. There are entire fields of study devoted
to the area of personal risk assessment and the persoanl actions in light of.
Probably the easist answer to "Why" do cruisers "lull themselves into false
security" is cruisers (like most everyone else) are prone to a narcisstic
belief that they themselves "are better" than the other guy. They have to
believe this to keep on going. It can be a big, scary world out there and the
cruisers know it (they can read, AND they HAVE been out there is situations
close to the edge of their personal control). The anxiety of worry causes
people to believe that "The REALLY bad stuff" happens to "the other guy"
BECAUSE he did something more dangerous and/or stupid than _I_ would do. So
goes the reasoning and it is comforting. Not to mention a lot easier than
admitting one's own talents and skills are not up to the effort. (Interesting
psychological note: a large, rigorous study showed that _90%_ of all men
studied BELIEVED that they personally were in the top _5%_ of men athletically.
Plainly not true, yet 85% NEEDED to believe, flying in the face of empirical
fact and data.) An interesting side note is that a red, sporty car is the car
most likely to be involved in a fatal accident (at 2:00 am Sunday morning
driven by a single man in his early 20's in a single car accident, but who
cares), so look how many people (who are sloopy drivers to say the least)
purposely drive a gray, four-door Volvo "because it's safer".
So "Why do cruisers mislead themselves about the danger of bluewater
sailing"? There are myriad reasons, but one "Because they have to, or they
wouldn't go" is right up there near the top.
Phoenix
excitement factor associated with doing something that has the potential of
being dangerous. ALL Around the World Along contestants KNOW that something
can happen when they are in the southern ocean, but that challenge is what
brings them.
While Cruisers may not want to put themselves into a situation where the
norm is 30' swells and 40 - 80 knot winds is common, if you sit around the
marina you will find cruisers discussing the "scary" times they have had
with a bit of pleasure.
--
--
Jim
Without my ignorance, your knowledge would be meaningless
JAXAshby wrote in message <19990207080805...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
Anders Svensson
This is not a bad answer...
Not bad at all.
meuz...@my-dejanews.com
Fishmeal,
What you are saying is all true. However, it is also too vague and too obvious
to be really useful.
Imagine you own an insurance company for bluewater cruisers and you have to
set the premium for a particular bluewater passage. I don't see you repeat
the "risk is inconsequential if you are careful" spiel too many times. Sure,
your clients will love it and will all promise to be "very careful" (and you
will soon be out of business).
With enough data (which LLoyds should have by now) and some smart multivariate
analysis approach (taking into account all the well known parameters that help
distinguish between safe and unsafe passages) they will be able to categorize
cruisers and their boats into various risk categories for a given, frequently
sailed passage. Each category will have its statistical average and a more or
less definable distribution around it. Based on that kind of approach the
company can then set reasonable premiums, and so on.
Is there anything a sailor could learn from these numbers, provided they were
publicly available? Several years ago, SSCA offered their members a certain
type of bluewater insurance where the deductible was coupled to your cruising
area and season (e.g. as high as 50% for the North Sea, and then only in July
and August, if I remember off the top of my head. At any rate, seeing these
numbers made me think twice about ever planning a cruise there outside the
summer. Now, it is quite possible that their numbers were wrong. However, this
only means we need better numbers.
The very fact that your own attitude and behavior can make a big difference in
your own place within a given statistical risk category, or even move you from
one category to another (just as certain eating and exercis habits can do that
for your life and/or health expectancy) would make it very desirable for these
numbers to be made available to the community, while potentially saving the
insurance industry some big bucks and lowering premiums......
Now, wouldn't that be a nice thought!
meuz...@my-dejanews.com
JAX,
I like it a whole lot too.
Glad to see you snapped out of your rant mode.
Thanks for a great post!
Terry Schell
>
<snip>
I generally agree with you about using insurance rates as a general
guidline for determining risk, at least across classes of events that
the insurance companies have analyzed separately. (e.g., various
cruising areas, severe weather seasons, multi vs mono, etc.)
However, this information would be a lot more useful if we knew why the
rates are different. Specifically, I would love to get two types of
information: First, the degree to which high rates are due to a lack of
policy holders under those particular conditions. Insurance companies
use a much higher premium/claims ratio for policies that are rare;
insurance for a trip to Alaska might be high due to the lack of cruisers
making the trip as much as any actual danger. Second, I would like to
see what the claims are paying for. Are they paying for damage that
occured in a situation in which the crew was endangered (e.g. collision
at sea) or while the crew was relatively safe (e.g., hurricane damage to
an unoccupied vessel, dingy theft, etc.)?
Quarterberth
continue to question the vagueness of what fishmeal has posted, agree
with him and Terry now, before it's too late.
Hope you don't mind, but I would like to include this, in one of the
upcoming chapters.
Quarterberth
That's one of the vaguest post I have ever seen, mind you, it still has
a small measure fish flavored BS, so you haven't lost your touch
completely.
Adios, au revior, auf wiedersehen, ciao and do widzienia.
Stay tuned.
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> meuz...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >You got quite a few interesting answers already but few or no
> >"hard numbers"...
>
> I think this is because there's so much variability in the way it's done.
>
> Driving a car, for example, is done pretty much the same way, with pretty
> much the same equipment and safety measures, by most of the people who
> drive. Sure there are outlyers in both directions, but a large population
> in the mid-range is exposed to a more-or-less uniform and definable risk
> level.
>
> Not so with cruisers. We all do it differently, in vastly different
> machines under vastly different conditions. It's like asking "How safe is
> crossing the street?" (without even specifying which street). If you're
> careful, the risk is inconsequential. If you're careless, you take your
> life in your hands.
>
rado...@ibm.net
>>
><snip>
>
>I generally agree with you about using insurance rates as a general
>guidline for determining risk, at least across classes of events that
>the insurance companies have analyzed separately. (e.g., various
>cruising areas, severe weather seasons, multi vs mono, etc.)
>
I agree that the insurance companies who do write offshore coverage have
gotten a pretty good idea of the risks involved. While some of this is
cruiser lore, there are a few important points to note:
1. A good part of the higher premiums is the higher cost of fixing the boat
in remote areas--for example its quite expensive to send an adjuster out to
a remote Tongan island, and then ship the boat to NZ or OZ for repair.
2. The insurance companies require boat surveys. The one who used to write
the Blue Water Cruising Club policies didn't and they went broke.
3. Insurance companies require experienced crew for more than overnight
passages.
4. Insurance companies refuse to insure singlehanders, and many refuse to
insure double-handed boats, even if both crew have circumnavigated. They
understand the significance of crew fatigue.
Translation: if you want to significantly reduce the dangers of blue water
sailing, take a well-found boat and bring adequate and experienced crew.
Don Radcliffe
s/v/ Klondike
JAXAshby
>>JAX wrote:
>> > Anders, I think you're asking a seriously deep psychological question
><<<snip>>
>> <<Anders wrote>>This is not a bad answer...
>> Not bad at all.
>>
>
><Dutch wrote>>
>JAX,
>I like it a whole lot too.
>Glad to see you snapped out of your rant mode.
>Thanks for a great post!
>
>Flying Dutchman
Dutch, sorry about the "rantings" b/4. Frankz Kafka said that studying law was
like "chewing on thousand year old dust". Me, I get a little irritated by the
bombastic, quarter-truth, three-quarter BS self-aggrandizements from
high-fiber, ninety-day-dry fish food. The lack of elemental understandings of
math, physics, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, navigation, mechanical engineering
and open bluewater passagemaking are appalling. The use of multiple,
ficticious screen names to bolster jounalistic dishonesty and claim a ground
swell of opinion is reprehensible. This is a forum for interchange of info
important to cruisers, not a totem to some one person's helium-filled ego.
Garry Elmer
racing or just exercising their freedom and skills, it's like nothing else.
People write books about it. Personally, I hug the coast in my plastic
boat. There's nothing quite like the feeling of being tossed around for
days on end and being that fabled "I'd have to feel better to die" sick and
tired. I've done thousands of miles on top of, and under the ocean, and
seen some amazing things (never on anything less than 5000 tons). Most of
which I would not want to see from the cockpit of my small plastic boat.
People can compare it to all kinds of risky hobbies and ways of life and I
am sure there are many that are a lot more dangerous.
I can not think of another hobby or personal endeavor that, if you screw up,
risks so many other people's lives, not even mentioning expense, to come to
your aid. Luckily, the selfless act of rescue at sea is a time honored
tradition among seafarers.
On one submarine, the unofficial motto was "The Stupid Shall Be Punished".
If you feel you MUST go out there, you're on the right track. Information.
Good luck!
Garry
http://www.99main.com/~elmergw/
Art Heyman wrote:
> How dangerous is blue water sailing (cruising ) ? What are the
> statistics ? I've done coastal sailing, and am thinking of going further
Paul Kamen
>Fishmeal,
>What you are saying is all true. However, it is also too vague and
>too obvious to be really useful.
Agreed. The only question I'm attempting to answer is "why no hard data?"
Insurance companies have some statistics, but an individual who relies on
those statistics to assess the risk level of their own voyage might be led
astray.
Steve Shelikoff
...
> Sometimes it is good to know that there is someone that interpretes me
> as good as I do myself ;-)
>
> Ofcourse this was a provocation, and a ugly one too.
>
> All answers I have got this far on my "question" have pointed out how
> cruisers are looking for the best weather periods (yet the Fastnet and
> Sidney-Hobart are scheduled in the height of the summer at each place),
> that cruisers have far heavier boats, that they bring a lot of food,
> that they "think safe", that they don't skimp on safety gear... on and
> on like that.
>
> Like I said:
>
> security) that the ugly stuff that happens to racers
> won't happen to them, for some reason. Why is that?
Having read Jax's psycho-answer, it's good and explains part of the
answer. But reasons in the other posts, including your reasons above,
also are valid answers as to why cruisers feel safer, whether it's false
or not. As far as Sydney-Hobart is concerned, a cruiser would not have
cast off even in the predicted conditions and so would not have run into
the trouble the racers ran into when the conditions were worse than
predicted.
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / /
Ponapay
I have recently bought a vessel of that name and would like more info onPonape.
Can you help.
Ian Parkinson
Quarterberth
Maybe it's the multiple personalities that you post as, i.e. not sure
who you were supposed to be, at any point in time.
Matt Pedersen
>Unless I have missed something, I don't think anyone has mentioned
>Tony Farrington's book, _Rescue in the Pacific_, which deals with
>cruisers caught in a storm.
>
>I think it is of value to anyone interested in this thread.
Here's another article about cruisers traveling from Tonga to
New Zealand. Another bomb storm that caused quite a
few problems (although it doesn't appear to be quite as
bad as what happened during the Queen's Birthday Storm).
Read it soon as it might not be on the web site next month.
http://www.latitude38.com/features/nzstorm.htm
Matt
macnaughton.com
tell it is pretty darn safe provided: 1) You have a boat designed and built
for the type of sailing you do. 2) You are truly experienced. 3) You don't
count the possibility of a medical emergency.
Certainly it is much safer than driving a car.
Tom MacNaughton
Naval Architect
http://www.macnaughtongroup.com
Ponapay wrote in message <19990208180607...@ng04.aol.com>...
macnaughton.com
most of this century and myself for half of it. None of us have lost a boat
yet. I don't think we are unusually skilled or competant. So I would
conclude that cruising is a reasonably safe pastime.
By the way I generally feel that it is safer to cruise offshore, given an
adequate vessel than it is to cruise coastwise. So in a sense the more
psychologically demanding sailing you do the safer you are.
Tom MacNaughton
Naval Architect
http://www.macnaughtongroup.com
Quarterberth wrote in message <36BFAB...@yahoo.com>...
Rodney Myrvaagnes
Tony Farrington's book, _Rescue in the Pacific_, which deals with
cruisers caught in a storm.
International Marine/McGraw Hill
ISBN 0-07-021367-4
I think it is of value to anyone interested in this thread.
Mark Sienkiewicz
Phoenix <jgallo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>While Cruisers may not want to put themselves into a situation where the
>norm is 30' swells and 40 - 80 knot winds is common, if you sit around the
>marina you will find cruisers discussing the "scary" times they have had
>with a bit of pleasure.
Yeah, but how good a story is this:
We made a 30 day crossing that was totally uneventful.
On the first day, seas were calm and the weather was clear.
On the second day, seas were calm and the weather was clear.
On the third day, seas were calm and the weather was clear.
but
On the fourth day, something happened. A roc came and carried
away our dingy. The bird must have had a 50 foot wingspan.
It made this tremendous shrieking sound, dived at us, and
snatched the dinghy right of the deck. Snapped the lines
instantly!
Have you ever seen a roc? They're beatiful birds, but they
scare the crap out of you. etc. etc.
Doesn't a 30 second event that you can talk about for 20 minutes
make a better story than a 30 day event that you can only talk
about for 20 seconds before you run out of anything interesting to
say?
JAXAshby
>make a better story than a 30 day event that you can only talk
>about for 20 seconds before you run out of anything interesting to
>say?
Chuck Yeager (as a very young man) said of fighter planes and fighter pilots,
that EVERY time he heard a story of a really flukey aircraft (i.e. a
"widowmaker"), a plane so difficult to fly that it took a superhuman to do so,
he found he was talking to a man who had, in fact, flown one himself.
Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.
Michael T Kennedy
>
> >Kent Lewis wrote: ...
> >A couple of years ago, Latitude 38 did an informal survey of
> >cruisers down in Mexico and found that about 25% of them
> >admitted that they had never so much as sailed over night
> >before they actually left for good.
> >
> >Since they had successfully made it to Mexico, one can
> >conclude:
> > 1) Blue water sailing is not dangerous
> > 2) Blue water sailing is only dangerous if you run into bad
> > weather, so don't go there
> > 3) God really does look out for drunks and fools
> > 4) All of the above.
>
> Or none of the above.
>
> For example no one seems able to draw clear and indisputable
> conclusions from the recent Sydney-Hobart (which included all
> manner of experienced people and expensive equipment).
> Thus I wonder if any weight should be give to conclusions derived
> from an informal survey of folks who completed a coastal sail
> (probably in the right direction and probably in the right season)
> down the California coast.
This is a good point. Perhaps those interviewed should be the ones who
returned and get their opinion then. It is well known around here that
a piece of driftwood can cruise to Mexico without difficulty. Coming
back is the problem. There are often cruisers for sale at good prices
in Mexico. The same situation exists with Tahiti although the
difficulties are much less with the return from Mexico. It isn't a
tradewinds situation but the problems are similar. Many large yachts
have been lost returning from the south due to adverse winds, severe
winter storms and poor aids to navigation.
Mike Kennedy
yacht Audacious
Graham Frankland
Anders Svensson wrote in message
>Cruisers often like to think (or lull themselves into false
>security) that the ugly stuff that happens to racers
>won't happen to them, for some reason. Why is that?
>
Possibly because cruisers tend to plan more in advance and choose where and
when to go, they "think" they have covered most eventualities.
Racers on the other hand have to go when the gun dictates, regardless of
what's waiting out there.
Graham.
Jere Lull
> us00...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > How dangerous is blue water sailing (cruising ) ? What are the
> > statistics ? I've done coastal sailing, and am thinking of going further
> > afield
>
> You got quite a few interesting answers already but few or no "hard numbers".
> One way of trying to come up with a number is asking your insurance company
> what kind of an extra premium ("rider") they will charge you when you want to
> make a given bluewater passage. Although I expect to catch a lot of flack
> from the group for assuming that insurance companies might know anything
> about sailing one should not forget that they wouldn't survive long if they
> underestimate the risk. Also, they tend to place these riders with the help
> of LLoyds, which must have access to a tremendous data base regarding
> bluewater sailing risks. For our Pacific passages to Hawaii (2x) and
> Australia I was consistently quoted a rider equal to approximately 1% of the
> insured value of my vessel (a 43 ft light cruiser/racer design). FWIW, I
> therefore estimate that the average risk of losing one's vessel during
> Pacific passages must be quite a bit less than 1%. After all, these insurance
> companies want to make some money. Furthermore, there are lots of ways of
> incurring substantial damage without losing your boat (e.g. by losing your
> rigging, etc.) which need to be calculated into the rider.
>
Listen carefully to the above post and re-read three or four times.
Almost NO insurance companies lose money in the short term and even fewer lose
money in the long term. [I currently work for a number of insurance companies
and would be tempted to be even more adamant except that a 1% premium on boat
value could be quite useful to the few that were unlucky.... and that's the
reason for insurance, anyway.]
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux -- '73 Tanzer 28 #4 -- out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's Pics & Specs: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI Vacation trip FAQ (250+ Annotated pics):
http://members.dca.net/jerelull/BVI.html
Major oz
I have recently bought a vessel of that name and would like more info onPonape.
Can you help.
Ian Parkinson>>
Yes; I spent a bit over a year in Pohnpei (or Ponape -- but never with a "y"),
living in a village on the southeast coast. Did very little "sailing" (that
was the following year in Palau) but got into blue water with the most
gawdawful outboard powered open boats.
If you have specific questions, contact me via e-mail, as I don't wish to bore
those not interested.
cheers
oz
William W. Walton, III
I think part of the answer lies in the fact that many of us thrive on
"controlled anxiety," and that cruisers can expand their body of
experiences and knowledge in stages, each with it's accompanying
anxieties and consequent satisfaction in overcoming them. What caused
anxiety before becomes standard fare (here may be where the real danger
lurks), and we move on to be anxious about something else. By
"controlled anxiety" I mean that the new experience has been prepared
for, the risks have been evaluated and found acceptable, but the
experience is still new and there always is the possibility of the
unexpected, with serious consequences, because as Rudyard Kipling
wrote: "...but sleep Thou lightly. It has not yet been told to me that
the Sea has ceased to be the Sea." Remember, if you will, preparing
your boat for your first extended blue water voyage, your first
single-handed voyage, your first landfall, your first overnight, etc.
Heck, I can remember the anxiety of my first docking of my boat and, I
must admit, of my last. There is nothing quite as sweet as anxiety
overcome, fear mastered, and to keep moving forward when you are
afraid. Especially when you've prepared well enough that your anxiety
far outstrips the actual danger. I think most folks, after they've done
that enough times, pushing themselves through their anxieties over
dangers real and imagined, come to see what they do as "safe." And,
within limits, it is.
Will
Jordan Bigel
>In your Micronesia sailing did you visit PONAPE or POHNPEI?
>
>I have recently bought a vessel of that name and would like more info
>onPonape.
>
>Can you help.
>
>Ian Parkinson
>
Pohnape is an island in the Pacific and is part of the nation Federated
States of Micronesia. It is the capital of the "State" of Pohnape (the
FSM is comprised of 4 states: Korsae, Pohnape, Chuk (Truk) and Yap).
The island is especially known for the ancient ruins of Nan Madol.
This web site is a good place to start: http://www.visit-fsm.org/
From there you will find: http://www.visit-fsm.org/pohnpei.html
Also, a search of Yahoo will reveal hundreds of sites using
the keyword "Nan Madol" as a key.
Jordan.
JAXAshby
<<<snip a lot of good stuff >>>>
>There is nothing quite as sweet as anxiety
>overcome, fear mastered, and to keep moving forward when you are
>afraid. Especially when you've prepared well enough that your anxiety
>far outstrips the actual danger. I think most folks, after they've done
>that enough times, pushing themselves through their anxieties over
>dangers real and imagined, come to see what they do as "safe." And,
>within limits, it is.
Without challenges, without mountains to climb, the human soul withers. That's
why so many people die shortly after retirement.
Bill Turner, W7TI
<snip>
>Without challenges, without mountains to climb, the human soul withers. That's
>why so many people die shortly after retirement.
Also, they're pretty old. Best to retire young.
Bill, W7TI
Harrison W. Pratt, DO
(1) You can't beat the ocean; the best you can hope for is to
break-even.
(2) You don't have to go out there.
(3) You don't have to come back.
Everything else derives from careful consideration of the above.
Harrison Pratt