Introducing myself
The Floating Bear
mention one or two things about myself.
I have been sailing as incompetent crew and then co-owner for about 12
years, until now in the Solent. Last season I bought out my partner in a
Sabre 27 and moved her down to the River Exe in S Devon, where I belong to
the Starcross Fishing and Cruising club. Currently she is laid up in
Exeter town centre by the canal basin.
I took the RYA Coastal Skipper/Yachtmaster Offshore theory last year but
have not as yet taken any practical exams.
One of my perennial concerns, doubtless shared my many, is crew shortage -
I have a regular crew, but she has more and more happening at weekends and
I am left to myself. I have once sailed single-handed, just a toddle
across from Hythe to Cowes but can't honestly say that I enjoyed it as
much as sailing with a crew. What do you recommend, learning to enjoy
single-handing or trying to recruit other crew? If the latter, what is a
good way to find mugs^H^H^H^Hcandidates?
Regards,
Jerry
dennis.pogson
in.
"The Floating Bear" <bo...@nospam.jezza.cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2001112...@jezza.compulink.co.uk...
Guy Fawkes
Floating Bear) wrote:
>Currently she is laid up in
>Exeter town centre by the canal basin.
ooh arr, a local boy... <;^)
>
>I took the RYA Coastal Skipper/Yachtmaster Offshore theory last year but
>have not as yet taken any practical exams.
ah well, navigating up and down the exe will give you some good
experience...
>
>One of my perennial concerns, doubtless shared my many, is crew shortage -
>I have a regular crew, but she has more and more happening at weekends and
>I am left to myself. I have once sailed single-handed, just a toddle
>across from Hythe to Cowes but can't honestly say that I enjoyed it as
>much as sailing with a crew. What do you recommend, learning to enjoy
>single-handing or trying to recruit other crew? If the latter, what is a
>good way to find mugs^H^H^H^Hcandidates?
learn to be comfortable with yourself and your abilities
singlehanding, then start popping over to france at the weekends,
potential crew will come out of the woodwork.... and you can import
some gauloises for my own personal consumption too... lol
Guy Fawkes
<dennis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>The Universities are usually happy hunting grounds, if you can find a way
>in.
with exeter uni it's finding the way out that's the trick...
Lemain
fanatical as I am about sailing per se, I try to always make harbour at a
reasonable hour and make sure that acceptable facilities are available often
enough to be agreeable. Every third night (at least) in a marina. At least
one full day in harbour before leaving again. If we have to leave at 0400
then I get up alone and take her out single handed until a more reasonable
hour, etc. It is very lonely on weekend cruises without company, I find,
however the actual sailing part of being single-handed is easy when you get
organised (I have a Centaur 26', slab reefing, autopilot and radar. I also
have warm air heating :-)).
"The Floating Bear" <bo...@nospam.jezza.cix.co.uk> wrote in message > One of
The Floating Bear
> singlehanding, then start popping over to france at the weekends,
> potential crew will come out of the woodwork.... and you can import
> some gauloises for my own personal consumption too... lol
>
Regards,
Jerry
Guy Fawkes
wrote:
>what's wrong with home grown lung cancer?
it's the "old socks" flavour........
Guy Fawkes
see you in the queue at McGahee's then...
prjones
Greetings, Jerry the Floating Bear,
I hope you enjoy the SW.
You wrote :-
> "One of my perennial concerns, ... is crew shortage. I have once sailed single-handed, ... but can't honestly say that I enjoyed it as
> much as sailing with a crew. What do you recommend, learning to enjoy
> single-handing or trying to recruit other crew? If the latter, what is a
> good way to find mugs^H^H^H^Hcandidates?
>
Two points:-
1)I once discussed crew-choosing with a chap who was sailing a Frances
26 around the world, sometimes alone, sometimes with crew.
"Firstly," he said, "he has to be smaller than I am!"
Secondly, he liked crew who could eat. If they couldn't get fuelled-up
they were no use to him. Eating was fine, drinking was not.
Thirdly, and we were in fairly close agreement here, a crew-member
having knowledge was nice, but one having an ability to understand and
to do as he was told was nicer.
And, somewhere down the list, he liked ladies, if he could find them.
2) Single-handing? Why "learn to enjoy" what you don't enjoy? It's
good to be ABLE to do it alone, but in sailing trouble arrives, and a
chap alone is awfully busy when it does!
prjones
prjones
Greetings All.
Lemain has written, 23/11 :-
> "In an attempt to be more friendly to crew (passengers) who aren't as
> fanatical as I am about sailing per se, I try to always make harbour at a
> reasonable hour and make sure that acceptable facilities are available often
> enough to be agreeable. Every third night (at least) in a marina. At least
> one full day in harbour before leaving again.
Firstly, let me say that there must be many crew who could wish that
all skippers were as crew-considerate as he is.
Secondly, please allow me to take issue on a point of safety. Lemain
has also written :-
> "If we have to leave at 0400
> then I get up alone and take her out single handed until a more reasonable
> hour, etc..."
This seems to be placing crew-consideration above safety.
Watch-keeping with crew below resting when routinely on passage in
open water is one thing, but when entering or leaving harbour, or when
any potentially close-quarters event is planned, or when any event
that breaks routine appears imminent, it is foolhardy to have crew on
board but unready for action.
At a lesser level than safety, crew are not on board to admire their
skipper's single-handed prowess, they are on board to be useful. Might
I suggest that making his crew feel needed is a thoughtful part of
every skipper's crew-considerateness?
Regards,
prjones
Ralph Ferrand
prj...@rya-online.net (prjones) wrote:
You would need illegal use of flares inside the boat to get Jerry the Bear
sailing before 11.00am !! (11.15 on Sundays)
The Floating Bear
> Bear sailing before 11.00am !! (11.15 on Sundays)
A gentleman never gets up at an uncivilised hour.
Regards,
Jerry
martinp
> > You would need illegal use of flares inside the boat to get Jerry the
> > Bear sailing before 11.00am !! (11.15 on Sundays)
>
> A gentleman never gets up at an uncivilised hour.
and *real* gentlemen don't wear flares under their dressing gowns
Lemain
"prjones" <prj...@rya-online.net> wrote in message
news:f0d3f260.01112...@posting.google.com...
>
> Firstly, let me say that there must be many crew who could wish that
> all skippers were as crew-considerate as he is.
Absolutely. They seem to have the notion that they are in their spare time
and ought to be enjoying themselves. Not everyone enjoys waking up at 4am.
> Secondly, please allow me to take issue on a point of safety.
> This seems to be placing crew-consideration above safety.
> Watch-keeping with crew below resting when routinely on passage in
> open water is one thing, but when entering or leaving harbour, or when
> any potentially close-quarters event is planned, or when any event
> that breaks routine appears imminent, it is foolhardy to have crew on
> board but unready for action.
>
> At a lesser level than safety, crew are not on board to admire their
> skipper's single-handed prowess, they are on board to be useful. Might
> I suggest that making his crew feel needed is a thoughtful part of
> every skipper's crew-considerateness?
Sure, when the situation justifies it I have help available, but slipping
off from a mooring in Salcombe in fine weather simply does not require crew.
All preparations are carried out the evening before and all that's required
is to fill the Thermos, start the engine and untie from the buoy. Maybe
I've raised the mainsail, maybe not - it's not a big deal in a Centaur to be
quite honest. A Centaur is a very easy boat to sail single handed - I sail,
without bothering the 'crew', as if single handed, most of the time - if I
didn't we wouldn't go sailing. My 'crew' feels needed in other departments
and she is only too grateful when she doesn't have to clamber over the deck
to muck about with ropes and things. Regarding safety, if you are saying
that single-handed sailing is dangerous then presumably none of us should do
it? After all, yachtsmen seldom find themselves single-handed by accident!
Ken Wilson
> that breaks routine appears imminent, it is foolhardy to have crew on
> board but unready for action.
This is the crux. Coming off a straightforward mooring and leaving harbour
IS routine. If its one of those tricky ones where you have to warp off and
cannon into pocket B before exiting - sure - either leave later or get them
to pull their jarmies on and come hold a fender or two.
> I suggest that making his crew feel needed is a thoughtful part of
> every skipper's crew-considerateness?
No - making sure they enjoyed themselves as much as possible is the skippers
job.
prjones
> Sure,
snip
> but slipping off from a mooring in Salcombe in fine weather simply does not require crew.
snip
> My 'crew' feels needed in other departments
> and she is only too grateful when she doesn't have to clamber over the deck
> to muck about with ropes and things.
I did not raise the question of 'crew' HAVING to do things - " to
clamber over the deck to muck about with ropes and things" - I raised
the question of prudence, of having 'crew' READY to do things -("...it
is foolhardy to have crew on board but unready for action.")
Particularly at those points, what we might call the "tight" points,
in a voyage - and I listed them :-
1) when entering or leaving harbour, or
2) when any potentially close-quarters event is planned, or
3) when any event that breaks routine appears imminent
- being the points in a voyage where the arising of any unexpected
event will offer the vessel little time for correction.
It will not be the routine manoevre that "simply does not require
crew" that surprises us, it will be the un-anticipated events.
Elsewhere,
"Ken Wilson" <k...@kwilson.fsnetDEDUCT.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9u6grm$927$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
makes my point for me and I am grateful :-
> > when any event
> > that breaks routine appears imminent, it is foolhardy to have crew on
> > board but unready for action.
>
> This is the crux. Coming off a straightforward mooring and leaving harbour
> IS routine.
Fine, but performing the routine is NOT the crux. Readiness for the
UN-expected is the crux. Being ready for a planned routine ( even
"... one of those tricky ones where you have to warp off ... " etc)
is not the issue I raise. Being ready for the un-anticipated is the
issue. "It's the one you don't see that gets you".
At an imaginary (or even a real) enquiry following an un-toward event
the difficult question is not, "Was your vessel adequately prepared
for the event you planned?" but "Could your vessel have been better
prepared for the events that occurred?" Would the answer, "My crew
was abed" be better received than the answer "My crew was
standing-by"?
Failure to use crew on board is failure to use all means available to
keep the vessel safe. Once clear of surprises crew may be stood down.
Prudent?
To my statement :-
> > I suggest that making his crew feel needed is a thoughtful part of
> > every skipper's crew-considerateness?
Ken Wilson has responded :-
>
> No - making sure they enjoyed themselves as much as possible is the skippers
> job.
Fine, if they are passengers, perhaps we should call them
'passengers', which may open a separate discussion. But if 'crew' I
consider both they and the skipper should have their skills available
where prudent.
I fancy we shall be unable to agree in this discussion on where the
line falls between prudence and imprudence, between what is wise and
what is foolhardy. I have made my points, I am sure contributors and
readers will have considered them.
Lemain asks :-
> Regarding safety, if you are saying
> that single-handed sailing is dangerous then presumably none of us should do
> it?
The safety of single-handed sailing? That's surely a matter for a
separate thread.
We've all done it, we've all enjoyed it for the heightened sense of
skill it imparts, the feeling of achievement - "I did it myself." It
focusses the mind on forward-thinking as little else will.
But we all know that for any voyage long enough to cause the breaking
of Rule 5 it is illegal. Safe? Whether it's safe or not depends upon
one's view of the safety of maintaining "a proper look-out by sight
and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the
prevailing circumstances ...".
With regards
prjones
Alastair
<snip>
>Failure to use crew on board is failure to use all means available to
>keep the vessel safe. Once clear of surprises crew may be stood down.
>Prudent?
>
I make prudent use of my crew by letting the off watch crew get their
sleep so that they can do an effective job when they are on watch. If
I thought that more crew would be needed that would be a different
matter, but I am not about to endanger my craft by waking everyone up
every time we need to tack!
<snip>
>
>But we all know that for any voyage long enough to cause the breaking
>of Rule 5 it is illegal. Safe? Whether it's safe or not depends upon
>one's view of the safety of maintaining "a proper look-out by sight
>and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the
>prevailing circumstances ...".
>
Wha...?
I didn't know there were 5 rules, and who is going enforce them? The
Salcombe harbourmaster is rarely seen off the scilly isles.
I sail in part to get away from rules.
--
Alastair
Lemain
> I did not raise the question of 'crew' HAVING to do things - " to
> clamber over the deck to muck about with ropes and things" - I raised
> the question of prudence, of having 'crew' READY to do things -("...it
> is foolhardy to have crew on board but unready for action.")
I think that you are going over the top. If we were talking about racing
and high performance yachts in all weathers, stretching crew and vessel to
the limits, then I would agree. But we are talking about a yottie couple
going out sailing in a little cruiser for the fun of being away and out on
the water. Anyway, I usually send my 'crew' down below if anything looks
remotely like 'happening' - I don't want her falling overboard or trapping
her fingers. The only exceptions are in thick fog, when I like another pair
of eyes, and to hop off with a rope when we berth.
> Particularly at those points, what we might call the "tight" points,
> in a voyage - and I listed them :-
>1) when entering or leaving harbour, or
>2) when any potentially close-quarters event is planned, or
>3) when any event that breaks routine appears imminent
1) What's the big deal about entering or leaving harbour? You sound like a
very nervous person, or perhaps you have a very large or awkward boat.
Entering or leaving harbour in a Centaur is no more demanding or dangerous
than parking in a multi-storey car park - probably less so, in reality.
2) So I'd have to get my 'crew' on deck and in readiness just to watch me go
about round a buoy? For what purpose?
3) I already do that if it looks interesting (like the warship that came
straight at us 12 miles south of Plymouth last July) but I don't expect her
to actually *do* anything other than 'ooh' and 'aah' - that's my department,
not hers. Anyway, what could any crew do - what would be their purpose on a
little boat like a Centaur? It's easier and quicker to go about
single-handed than it is with crew in that tiny cockpit.
Do you keep your lifejacket on at all times when on deck, or in the cockpit,
while at sea? How about your safety harness?
prjones
> On 30 Nov 2001 08:43:30 -0800, prj...@rya-online.net (prjones) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Failure to use crew on board is failure to use all means available to
> >keep the vessel safe. Once clear of surprises crew may be stood down.
> >Prudent?
> >
> I make prudent use of my crew by letting the off watch crew get their
> sleep so that they can do an effective job when they are on watch.
That seems sensible.
> If
> I thought that more crew would be needed that would be a different
> matter,
That too seems sensible.
> but I am not about to endanger my craft by waking everyone up
> every time we need to tack!
>
Indeed, no-one is suggesting that you do so. When times permit it is
wise for all on board to keep as well-rested as possible.
These issues (of the management of the vessel in safe water) are not
issues that have yet been raised by anyone on this thread. Earlier
postings on this thread will apprise you of the issues that have been
raised.
> <snip>
> >
> >But we all know that for any voyage long enough to cause the breaking
> >of Rule 5 it is illegal. Safe? Whether it's safe or not depends upon
> >one's view of the safety of maintaining "a proper look-out by sight
> >and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the
> >prevailing circumstances ...".
> >
> Wha...?
>
> I didn't know there were 5 rules,
Indeed! Surprise! There are MORE than five. Not many more, but more
than five.
> and who is going enforce them?
By and large, the COLREGs make sense, and have the aim of keeping
those at sea safe, so self-enforcement by prudent skippers is common.
As well as guiding what we should do, knowledge of the Rules will
guide us as to what the other chap should do.
> The Salcombe harbourmaster is rarely seen
> off the scilly isles.
No matter. It is good that your safety should be primarily your own
concern.
>
> I sail in part to get away from rules.
Don't we all? To get away from the COLREGs might I suggest
hill-walking?
Regards
prjones
Alastair
>> >
>> >But we all know that for any voyage long enough to cause the breaking
>> >of Rule 5 it is illegal. Safe? Whether it's safe or not depends upon
>> >one's view of the safety of maintaining "a proper look-out by sight
>> >and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the
>> >prevailing circumstances ...".
>> >
>> Wha...?
>>
>> I didn't know there were 5 rules,
>
>Indeed! Surprise! There are MORE than five. Not many more, but more
>than five.
>
>
Ah, the colregs, yes. You confused me with "But we all know that for
any voyage long enough to cause the breaking
of Rule 5 it is illegal."
Where in rule 5, or in the colregs generally does it mention a limit
on the length of the voyage.
Just as well really or there would be lots of round-the-world
single-handers being arrested
--
Alastair
Simon Brooke
> On 30 Nov 2001 16:16:49 -0800, prj...@rya-online.net (prjones) wrote:
>
> >> >But we all know that for any voyage long enough to cause the breaking
> >> >of Rule 5 it is illegal. Safe? Whether it's safe or not depends upon
> >> >one's view of the safety of maintaining "a proper look-out by sight
> >> >and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the
> >> >prevailing circumstances ...".
> >>
> >> I didn't know there were 5 rules,
> >
> >Indeed! Surprise! There are MORE than five. Not many more, but more
> >than five.
> >
> >
> Ah, the colregs, yes. You confused me with "But we all know that for
> any voyage long enough to cause the breaking
> of Rule 5 it is illegal."
> Where in rule 5, or in the colregs generally does it mention a limit
> on the length of the voyage.
It doesn't; it merely requires that any vessel under way maitain a
lookout *at* *all* *times*. If you can stay awake and alert for the
number of days you require to sail across the Atlantic, then you can
sail across the Atlantic in accordance with the colregs; otherwise
not.
This really isn't much of an issue in the sort of small, not very
quick boats most of use sail. If we hit more or less any other vessel
at sea we'll come off disasterously worse, and a ship which runs down
a yacht generally doesn't suffer so much as a scratch in her paint. If
you die because you weren't keeping watch, well, hey, that's a risk
you take, and while it doesn't strictly accord with the colregs I
don't see it as grossly unseamanlike.
It's a different matter if you go charging across busy shipping lanes
in something long, narrow, sharp, fast and heavy without keeping
lookout. If you go and punch a waterline level hole in someone else's
vessel and put their lives at risk, that would be a completely
different matter and putting youself in a position where that even
might be the outcome seems to me unseamanlike.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Where is Dmitry Sklyarov? What are *you* doing about it?
<URL:http://freesklyarov.org/status/location.html>
prjones
> > I did not raise the question of 'crew' HAVING to do things - " to
> > clamber over the deck to muck about with ropes and things" - I raised
> > the question of prudence, of having 'crew' READY to do things -("...it
> > is foolhardy to have crew on board but unready for action.")
>
> I think that you are going over the top.
Greetings Lemain,
Over the top? Yes, I gathered you thought that. But that you should
have that opinion surprises me. On issues of safety and prudence your
postings on other threads have reflected views that co-incide with
mine - the espousing of prudence and the shunning of foolhardiness.
I refer here to your post on the "Cooker" thread expressing concern at
using paper to light a parafin cooker, and your post on the "2 Birds
with one stone" thread describing your being anxious to arrive at
your "waypoint 3nm N of Guernsey ... within two minutes of my
scheduled time (I motor sailed the final hour to make that possible);
this was because I was short-handed and had a complete pilotage
schedule already made out ... for entry to Beaucette, at half tide,
springs. This was my first time in those waters, so extra care was
called for.
The concept of "extra care" for uncertainties is not foreign to you.
Why the readiness of your crew for uncertainties should not be part of
this puzzles me.
> If we were talking about racing
> and high performance yachts in all weathers, stretching crew and vessel to
> the limits, then I would agree.
Isn't this reference to racing the introduction of a straw man? But
now that he is here, let's deal with him, because racing yachts, by
needing to be efficiently sailed, make my point for me. The added
weight of crew, and the feeding of them, irks racing skippers, yet
these boats seem over-run by crew. Is this perhaps a reflection of
the added efficiency brought to the conduct of the vessel by a crew's
skills?
If so, why not also to a short-handed vessel I ask myself. Efficiency
need not be reflected in speed, but in comfort and safety too.
> But we are talking about a yottie couple
> going out sailing in a little cruiser for the fun of being away and out on
> the water.
Quite so, and I had not thought otherwise. And I hope, I really do,
that in the unforseeable vicissitudes of sailing you do not encounter
situations that are beyond the coping of the combined skills of the
little party on board.
Neither the weather, nor any other unpredicable hazard picks solely on
"racing and high performance yachts ..., stretching crew and vessel to
the limits"
> Anyway, I usually send my 'crew' down below if anything looks
> remotely like 'happening' - I don't want her falling overboard or trapping
> her fingers.
You keep using the word 'crew' on this thread - however, if the person
you have on board is a passenger I think you should tell us. There is
no dishonour in having passengers, and at times to send unskilled
passengers below is wise.
However, if you have 'crew', might I point out that crew skill and
training is a skipper's responsibility, and that a vessel deserves,
particularly a short-handed vessel, the most diverse range of skills
in its crew that is possible. As you said yourself in an earlier post
on this thread :-
"After all, yachtsmen seldom find themselves single-handed by
accident!"
No, perish the thought, but sadly it has happened. Worse perhaps it
is that sometimes crew have found themselves single-handing by
accident! However reluctant a crew may be to face such a predicament
the wisdom of being able to cope to the best extent possible must be
apparent.
> The only exceptions are in thick fog, when I like another pair
of eyes, ...
That seems sensible.
> .... and to hop off with a rope when we berth.
What, "... to clamber over the deck", to leap over gaps and "to muck
about with ropes and things"? Doesn't that sound like skipper's work?
Leaving the crew to the safe, easy and less hazardous bit on the
tiller?
After all, as you have previously said, firstly :-
"entering or leaving harbour in a Centaur is no more demanding or
dangerous than parking in a multi-storey car park - probably less so,
in reality, "
and secondly:-
"My 'crew'.... is only too grateful when she doesn't have to clamber
over the deck to muck about with ropes and things."
>
> > Particularly at those points, what we might call the "tight" points,
> > in a voyage - and I listed them :-
>
> >1) when entering or leaving harbour, or
> >2) when any potentially close-quarters event is planned, or
> >3) when any event that breaks routine appears imminent
>
> 1) What's the big deal about entering or leaving harbour?
The big deal about harbours and their approaches is that they are
"tight" points, points where one is more likely, not less likely, to
encounter hazards (both planned-for and un-planned-for hazards) than
on passage in open water - be these hazards other vessels, shore
lines, shoal waters, channels, marine installations, other leisure
users of the water, flotsam, jetsam, who knows? And worse, these
hazards build up at a point in the passage where one is more
constrained, one has less time and less room to manoevre in dealing
with them.
Which is why I suggested (in my first posting on this thread) that if
crew is on board, it is prudent for them to be in readiness, so that
one's vessel is better prepared for the un-expected. Is this un-wise?
> You sound like a very nervous person, or perhaps you have a very large or awkward boat.
How I sound in disposition, or the vessels I sail, is not an issue
here. Neither is my ego an issue. Un-readiness is the issue. You
have challenged my assertion that at various "tight" points in a
passage "it is foolhardy to have crew on board but unready for
action." I maintain that it is unwise for a shorthanded vessel to
have crew abed at points in a passage where an increase in hazards may
be expected.
(FWIW, I'm accustomed to sailing on vessels where even the skipper can
cook an egg, and where even the cook bring the boat alongside or moor,
and where the loss of the navigator would present the vessel with
embarrassment but no hardship.)
> Entering or leaving harbour in a Centaur is no more demanding or dangerous
> than parking in a multi-storey car park - probably less so, in reality.
>
I have respect for the Centaur's easy handling - it can at times be
managed by crew alone without the skipper, but the issue here is not
the predicable "hazards" of Centaur handling. The issue here is a
vessel's readiness for unpredicable hazards. The issue here is
whether, at the "pinch points" of a passage, a shorthanded vessel is
safer if crew is kept below abed in a state of unreadiness, or whether
'tis safer that crew should be ready for what might be un-expected.
Although, in the matter of the unexpected, I concede that most
skippers, tho' not all, have powers of clairvoyance.
> 2) So I'd have to get my 'crew' on deck and in readiness just to watch me go
> about round a buoy? For what purpose?
No, as I have said earlier, admiring the skipper's single-handing
prowess is not the purpose of having the crew in readiness. The
purpose of crew readiness is to aid in the event of unforseen failure
of the skipper's clairvoyance. Nothing more than that.
>
> 3) I already do that if it looks interesting (like the warship that came
> straight at us 12 miles south of Plymouth last July) but I don't expect her
> to actually *do* anything other than 'ooh' and 'aah' - that's my department,
> not hers.
> Anyway, what could any crew do - what would be their purpose on a
> little boat like a Centaur? It's easier and quicker to go about
> single-handed than it is with crew in that tiny cockpit.
>
Sightseeing is fine, it is not under discussion. Avoiding a close
quarters situation with another vessel while on passage is hardly a
break in routine requiring the rousing of off-watch crew, ... apart
from the interest of sightseeing.
However, being in danger of imminent sinking, with crew abed ....
See my comments from above :- "You keep using the word 'crew' on this
thread - however, if the person you have on board is a passenger I
think you should tell us. There is no dis-honour ... ". Then our
discussion here on the safety a crew's skills can add to short-handed
sailing can cease.
> Do you keep your lifejacket on at all times when on deck, or in the cockpit,
> while at sea? How about your safety harness?
What I do, or what you do, in the matter of harnesses and lifejackets
is not an issue here. The use of these items has been widely written
about and is widely discussed by yachtsmen. The issue here surely is
how best the combined skills of crew and skipper of a short-handed
vessel - or any vessel - can ensure those items do not need to serve
their purposes.
Now you really must forgive me - I have said as much on this thread as
I need on the prudent use (and building up?) of a crew's skills. I
have enjoyed the discussion, but I can add no more. How all of us
sail our vessels is up to each of us - I am sure the aim we all share
is to do it in safety whatever befalls us, and to cope safely in spite
of what befalls us. My assertion is that it is the totality of the
skills used on board that will make that possible. This is not a new
concept.
Regards to all
prjones
Alastair
<snip>
>
>Now you really must forgive me - I have said as much on this thread as
>I need on the prudent use (and building up?) of a crew's skills. I
>have enjoyed the discussion, but I can add no more.
Thank goodness for that, Can I go back to bed now? I am not supposed
to be on watch for another three hours.
--
Alastair
Lemain
"prjones" <prj...@rya-online.net> wrote
> Now you really must forgive me - I have said as much on this thread as
> I need on the prudent use (and building up?) of a crew's skills. I
> have enjoyed the discussion, but I can add no more. How all of us
> sail our vessels is up to each of us - I am sure the aim we all share
> is to do it in safety whatever befalls us, and to cope safely in spite
> of what befalls us. My assertion is that it is the totality of the
> skills used on board that will make that possible. This is not a new
> concept.
Yes, I feel the same. I'm quite sure that we both think very carefully
about safety and give it due consideration but the way we operate our
vessels depends on the vessels, our own skill, the skill of the passengers
or crew, and the conditions. I look forward to other discussion in the
future. Must go, my 'crew' is calling <g>