MARITIME BLOG

CROSSING THE BAR
By Capt. Alan Hugenot - 25 July 2010

The recent death of two people on the San Francisco Bar was tragic. Many people have speculated about how this could have happened to an experienced skipper, but it did happen.

Actually, many of the deaths which occur each year on the San Francisco Bar happen to experienced skippers. Most often the problem is that although they have a great deal of experience, that experience does not happen to be with crossing the San Francisco Bar and they may not have any other experience crossing tidal estuaries on the west coast.

JUST WHAT ACTUALLY QUALIFIES AS EXPERIENCE? For example, a racing sailor who has sailed a boat in San Francisco bay for 20 years, may have spend three Saturdays every month sailing around the buoys at the local yacht club race, but other than learning the local tidal current patterns in that corner of the bay, and how the local wind shifts are affected by the local headlands, sailing around the buoys again and again is really only one day's experience repeated a thousand times.

Unless a person actually cruises different waters, and enters different ports and crosses numerous different bars, their experience dose not expand no matter how many years are involved. So we often see the person who has owned a boat 30 years and waited their whole life finally retire to so they can "finally go cruising", who sets off falsely believing they are actually more experienced than they are and almost immediately they are in "beyond their depth".

A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH SF BAR: The first time I went out the Golden Gate under sail, I was already a licensed Captain with many years experience sailing in the relatively sheltered waters of Puget Sound, the inside passage in British Columbia and Alaska, the Chesapeake bay and the Atlantic coast, Florida, Bahamas and the Caribbean. But, except for several times running the inlets in the North Carolina Banks, and entering the Columbia River during a flood tide, I had only made maybe a dozen actual bar crossings. Most of the ports I had visited over the years of my prior career were deep water ports which did not have estuaries and sand bars. 

So, I did not notice when I left SF bay that it was already past noon and that the ebb was running out against the wind. Then, as I passed Point Bonita and got out onto the SF Bar itself I encountered 12 foot rollers and breaking waves. It taxed all of my sailing abilities to keep the vessel under control. But, because I had learned enough in my prior crossings to know that I did not want to "broach to" which would allow the waves to attack me on the beam. Consequently, my experience had taught me the proper principles so that I knew the best course was to fight on towards the sea buoy until I could have enough sea room to make my left turn and put the seas on my starboard quarter (a dog leg turn).

If you want to know more about crossing bars read my article on the San Francisco Bar under white papers.

MARINE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 101

Photo by Capt Alan Hugenot (Sept 2003) taken from San Francisco YC during the MOET CUP as BMW Oracle leads Alinghi on the down wind leg toward Alcatraz.

15 February 2010
AMERICA'S CUP IN SAN FRANCISCO:
By Capt Alan Hugenot


For right now it is just great to have the silver cup coming home to the bay.

22 December 2009

RESIN INFUSION:

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

In nearly 40 years as a Naval Architect I’ve watched the wooden boat building technologies and traditions or the 19^th.century disappear and be rapidly replaced by composites technology which continually improves giving us monolithic resin infusion hulls which are nearly indestructible.

 

Specifically, I remember in the late 1950’s as I was starting Junior High, my uncles bought a company that built fiberglass over plywood runabouts of the Gar Wood variety. The previous owners of the boat company had foreseen the coming composite revolution, and decided to sell. I watched the thriving business my uncles had purchased wither in less than three years, as the less expensive composite hulls (which also took less maintenance) rapidly took away their market sector. 

 

Just 60 years ago, the span of my own lifetime, there were no fiberglass boats and for the first 30 years of this new industry, the best boats were always constructed using hand lay-up techniques. This created a better product than the faster chopped fiber techniques which created hulls with twice as many voids, but was cheaper and easier to do and the method of choice for manufacturer’s trying to shave a nickel off the cost.

 

But, even hand lay-up creates 8% voids even when done under the most stringent controlled conditions. That is why seasoned surveyors will mallet test even hulls they know come from the finest builders.

 

Yet, the need for lighter stronger hulls continued to drive this technology toward innovative techniques and in the early 1980’s vacuum bagging came into use reducing the voids to less than 2%. And also back then, in those production shops on Navy contracts which could afford the tooling (like Boeing Marine where I assisted in the installation of the fabrication facilities) pressure autoclaves were used which could get the voids down to nearly 0%. But this technology required male and female molds and autoclave ovens large enough to take the entire finished hull.

 

Then about 1990 two new but nearly identical processes came into the market. VARTIM (Vacuum assisted Resin Transfer Molding) and SCRIMP (Seeman Composites Resin Infusion Molding Process) which uses Infusion Resin Molding (IRM). Both of these processes allow the hull to be formed in one monolith, but at room temperature without the necessity of the autoclave ovens.

 

This allows the structure, framing and bulkheads to be integral parts of the original lay-up precluding the need for secondary bonding (tabbing). Where primitive vacuum bagging was done at 8 psi of vacuum, these new techniques are accomplished at 60 psi. The U.S. Navy uses this technique to build 188 ft mine sweepers and the British also use it to build 170 ft minesweepers. The SCRIMP literature reports that compressive strengths and tensile strengths for VARTIM and SCRIMP laminates are similar to those for autoclaved laminates. Which means these are laminates with nearly 0% voids.

 

Recently GENMARS has added a new variation similar to SCRIMP called VEC (Virtual Engineered Composites) which uses two sided molds, but adds the resin through injection rather than pulling it in with a vacuum like VARTIM this is again Infusion Resin Molding (IRM).

 

THE BOTTOM LINE; Using IRM or VARTIM systems allows one important advance known as MONOLITHIC CONSTRUCTION and because forming the frames and hull structure in one piece integral with the hull precludes the need to do secondary bonding it makes the hull nearly indestructible.

 

Hand laid up hulls can not be made in one continuous monolith, consequently secondary bonding is required to attach the framing, engine beds and bulkheads. In order to attach these structural components to the hand laid hull, secondary bonding (tabbing) must be used. Over the years due to the strains of moving in a seaway and the engine’s vibration, this secondary bonding notoriously fails causing the structure to separate from the hull. Over the years I have seen numerous older boats where all the tabbing had to be renewed.

 

But, SCRIMPS, VARTIM and VEC allow the framing, bulkheads and engine beds to be laid up as an integral part of the hull in one big monolith which is nearly void-less. This has three advantages:

            1. There are no built in failure points as happens with hand lay up and secondary bonding.

            2. Having only one step it reduces labor costs while creating a superior product with no   voids.

            3. There are no hazardous VOC’s emitted and no need to wear special suits and breathing apparatus.

 

At Sunseeker such innovative leading edge production techniques are being continually refined. At their Portland manufacturing facility Composite Technicians are trained in leading edge Resin Infusion processes in a rigorous training program taught at the cutting edge of innovation, which exceeds anything offered at the world’s technical institutes. This includes both formal classes and hands-on training. The curriculum includes Resin Infusion, Hand Lay-Up, and Secondary Bonding, and also teaches where each method will produce the superior product. Graduates are awarded the MVQ in Composites Technology.

 

At the Portland facility Resin Infusion is used to create the bulkheads, tank sides, floors (vertical framing at keel) and the ring decks. This careful combination of hand lay-up combined with resin infusion is the level of innovation and dedication which is necessary to continually provide the finest yachts that money can buy, as only Sunseeker does, Simply put, Sunseeker is often copied but never equaled. If you want to know more about these yachts which will exceed your expectations give me a call.

 

That’s how I see it.

 

For further reading on the history of Composites see Heart of Glass by Daniel Spurr (©2000 McGraw Hill)  and for more information on VARTIM-SCRIMP see Chapter 12 - How a Boat is Built in  Roger Marshalls book All About Powerboats (©2002 McGraw Hill) 

My business, throughout my career, has been helping owners get the vessel they want, with the follow through over the years of ownership that brings them the best possible boating experience BEYOND THEIR EXPECTATIONS. Give me a call at (914) 325-2525 or email me Alan@captainhugenot.com and we can get started with this.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

01 DECEMBER 2009

PROPELLER NUTS:

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

            What is the proper installation of propeller nuts and why: A excellent article appeared in the October/November 2009 issue of Professional Boatbuilder discussing the perceptions of the RIGHT WAY and WRONG WAY to install propeller nuts on boats.

 

            After the magazine published a cover photo (April/May 2009) showing the small nut being installed next to the propeller hub and the large nut going on last (which is in fact the proper ABYC/SAE approved installation) many industry professionals had questioned this configuration. In answer to this controversy, Steve D’Antonio discusses in the Letters/etc. column the several applicable standards which have provided guidance on the installation of propeller nuts as accepted by the ABYC. D’Antonio’s excellent article is timely and also quotes Dave Gerr’s description of the complete process for installing the nuts, taken from Gerr’s book The Propeller Handbook,which I have used as my propeller “bible” for years. Finally, the article provides an insightful discussion of the engineering and physics behind the placement of the smaller nut next to the propeller hub and the larger nut behind it, including a diagram taken from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard entitled Marine Propeller Shaft Ends and Hubs, SAE J-755, which clearly shows the smaller nut next to the propeller hub (i.e. SMALL NUT FIRST).

 

            Yet, what is astounding is the underlying statistics of how many professionals do not know the correct answer to this question as pointed out in the letter which D’Antonio’s article was responding to. In that letter James Sireci (an Engineer at Zodiac of North America) pointed out the principles of physics behind the ABYC/SAE approved method and how the second nut placed on the shaft, as it locks the first nut, somewhat relieves the pressure on that first nut. Actually, which ever nut is in second place will relieve the pressure on the first nut. Consequently, it is desirable to have that relief action occur for the smaller nut rather than relieving the larger nut. Keeping the larger nut unrelieved allows the largest thread area to remain completely engaged, and explains why the small nut must go on first.

 

            Yet, in Sireci’s own experience with the question,

 

“In the proper installation of a propeller, does the big nut go on first or does the small nut?”

 

            He found that answers from industry professionals are usually split 60/40 in favor of the BIG NUT FIRST. And, at boat yards when Sireci tallied which way the nuts were on dry docked boats he was able to examine he found the difference to be about a 50/50 split, with half the nuts installed properly and half improperly.

 

            I believe this mismatch between standard industry practice, as published in the standards, and what is actually done instead illustrates an, We’ve always done it that way, approach, which unfortunately prevails in many boat yards, not only with propeller nuts, but in many other areas as well.

 

            Especially, where recently hired and quickly trained technicians are driven by tight budgets and schedules, and may not have the necessary access to check the rapidly evolving standards, which have overtaken this industry in the last 20 years.

 

            In response to this evident training shortfall ABYC has recently undertaken a massive training initiative to provide the needed training to boat yard technicians. And, even this month announced a $200 reduction in tuition for all their training courses. But, training costs money and when boat yards are closing for lack of work, management may not be enthusiastic about large training expenses.  

 

That’s how I see it.

My business, throughout my career, has been helping owners get the vessel they want, with the follow through over the years of ownership that brings them the best possible boating experience BEYOND THEIR EXPECTATIONS. Give me a call at (914) 325-2525 or email me Alan@captainhugenot.com and we can get started with this.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

20 November 2009

MOISTURE METERS AND MAGIC WANDS

Don’t believe everything you read.

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

I read an ad for a moisture meter the other day, and as usual the marketing agent was stating half truths, although probably not intentionally. It may be that he just spends a lot of time talking to vendors who advertise moisture meters in his magazine. Since, I personally have a lot of respect for this particular writer, I won’t mention him by name, but frankly he needs to do a little more research on blisters, de-lamination and the truth about moisture meters before he writes about this again, and lends his name to his advertiser’s hype.

BACKGROUND: Before we discuss the misleading sales hype it is a fact that historically marine surveyors have been using hammers for hundreds of years to determine the condition of hulls. The term SOUND HULL comes from the RING which good wood, good fiberglass, good steel, and good aluminum will make. If it is UNSOUND it simply won’t ring, instead it will make a dull thud sound. But, it takes several years of Marine Surveying as an apprentice under an experienced surveyor to learn the subtleties of these sounds. Unfortunately, most new surveyors do not spend any time with a seasoned professional, they just go out with no experience hang a shingle and become competition for the experienced surveyor they should have apprenticed with. By short circuiting the learning process they perpetrate their inexperience on an unaware public.

Since the advent of radiography inspection during World War II, metal hulls began to be inspected radio-graphically, and more recently using ultra sound, which allows us to determine the thickness of the plates. These radio-graphic techniques are expensive often adding several hundred dollars to the cost of a hull inspection. Consequently, the standard practice is that if the surveyor using his hammer finds unsoundess, or evidence of corrosion, he would then call for the addition of a metal thickness test and use ultra-sound to determine the actual thickness of the plating. But, he will only when it was needed because the expense is too great when it is not needed.

Strangely, with the discovery of fiberglass blistering in the late 70’s which continued through early 90’s, there was an entirely unnecessary bottom replacement epidemic with whole boat bottoms being replaced which cost thousands of dollars, and which not incidentally made a windfall profit for boat yards. But, to carry out this enterprise the yard workers needed a way to determine when a hull, from which the gel-coat had been stripped, had finally dried out. This caused a secondary infection epidemic of moisture content measurement and the invention of the moisture meter.

Unfortunately, because the atmosphere surrounding the hulls contains moisture these tempermental devices only work accurately when penetrations are made so that the electrical resistance between the two penetrations taken through the actual hull laminate can be measured. But, without those penetrations, everything else done out on the surface to measure moisture content of the substrate is simply a WILD ASSED GUESS.

I actually own one of the older moisture meters which requires penetrations, and I use it when it is actually called for. But without the penetrations any exterior moisture meters will most often give inaccurate readings.

Unfortunately, the idea of having a meter do the survey rather than your trained ear makes sense to young novice surveyors, especially those who like rock music and have lost their hearing. Raised in a digital age they notoriously believe that the ring of a hammer is archaic, and something that only an old fart (like me) would believe in. And, they are partially correct. Hammers are archaic, but are still in use because they actually work. Hammers are like cooking your food over a heat source. Cavemen heated their food over a heat source also, and heating your food is archaic, but it’s still a good idea to at least microwave your food in order to kill the germs.    

Unfortunately, there are young surveyors and even some older ones (who just started surveying but happen to be over 40) who perpetrate the idea that without a moisture meter you can’t survey fiberglass, when the truth is that seasoned and experienced surveyors don’t even bother with moisture meters.

HERE IS THE SCOOP:

The marketing agent, hoping to sell moisture meters said,

When water migrates into a boat’s solid fiberglass it often leads to osmotic blisters, which in extreme cases, can cause delamination and weakening of the structure. In cored laminates (those that sandwich a core material such as balsa or synthetic foam between layers of fiberglass) water entry can add weight, reduce strength, and lead to astronomical repair bills.

 

This is a series of half-truths, which when strung together will scare novice readers into buying a moisture meter they don’t need. Here are the facts about those half-truths:

            1. FIRST, water cannot migrate into solid fiberglass, which is why excellent yacht designers use solid resin fiberglass at the turn of the bilge keel and strut foundations and anywhere a through hull will penetrate the shell.

            2. SECOND, Osmotic blisters require a cathode, that is an impurity within the laminate which draws the water in gives it an electron which changes its molecular structure and then because the water molecule is larger it can’t migrate back out of the gel coat. As this cathodes potential lessens it draws less and less water. (see my article on fiberglass blistering under white papers on this website)

            3. THIRD, no one has built hulls with balsa or synthetic foam cores since the early 1980’s, there are numerous synthetic materials that can be used instead which will not later rot out. Further while these delamination conditions have lead to astronomical repair bills in the past (in those years when the blister scare was at its height), these repairs are no longer overcharged, and no one reputable boat yard strips off the gell coat any longer. Now days they just repair the blisters, and often the small repair cost is far  less than the price of a moisture meter.

            4. FOURTH: Delaminations have a dull ring and a buzz when struck with a hammer (i.e. NO RING) also most delaminations are not the result of several blisters coming together to form a big void, but are instead the result of older hand lamination techniques on older hulls where the resin was rollered into the roving by hand and foreign particles got into the roving to form a cathod.

 

Also, in 1978-1982 vacuum bagging was invented and in the last 25 years it has been fully refined, so that today there are numerous resin infusion and vacuum assisted processes which all serious yacht manufacturers use in the lay-up. These new techniques result in less than 1% voids in the critical structural components. Consequently, without blisters for the moisture to hide in, there is no possibility of moisture content in the monolithic fiberglass composite hull, and hence no need for moisture meters, except in very rare instances.

 

That’s how I see it.

 

My business, throughout my career, has been helping owners get the vessel they want, with the follow through over the years of ownership that brings them the best possible boating experience BEYOND THEIR EXPECTATIONS. Give me a call at (914) 325-2525 or email me Alan@captainhugenot.com and we can get started with this.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

11 November 2009

SUNSEEKER MANHATTANS

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

The name says it all……..Manhattan

 

I have always loved Manhattan, even when I lived out on the Left-Coast in San Francisco, still my favorite other home has always been Manhattan, times-square, Broadway shows, Lincoln Center and the Upper West Side (Zabars). I even married a former Broadway actress. Finally, I just had to move to New York City.

Sunseeker has given this special name Manhattan (which establishes this mood) to a whole class of yachts, giving them an air of urban sophistication (Breakfast at Tiffanys, Audrey Hepburn, The Great Gatsby, perhaps long island sound on a Sunday, anchored off a beach house at Martha’s Vineyard) to this line of Fly Bridge Motor-yachts.

These Fly Bridge motor yachts are all of this….., real wind in your hair cruisers providing both racy speed boat performance at 32-34 knots…..But, also delivering on their twin interior decks the comforts you might normally expect to find only in your pent house on Central Park West. All, in a world cruising capable vessel.

As a retired Passenger Vessel Master, of course I love the Predators and the Sunseeker Yachts, especially the tri-deck 37 meter, Yet, the soft spot in my heart is reserved for the Manhattans (52, 60, 70) they are just that handy size for the owner who wants to be his own Captain. In fact one of my favorite small passenger vessels was a twin screw 70 footer that I used to operate several days a week for banquets and weddings. It was an older and more classic design, which lacked the elegant Sunseeker styling of the Manhattans, but operating it regularly taught me the handiness of that size yacht, which an experienced skipper can operate single handedly.

Sunseeker has taken this handy size and through innovative naval architecture created the best line of Fly Bridge Motor-Yachts in the world. Yes, I am prejudiced, but if you want to discuss why I believe these are the best in the world. Give me a call.

My business, throughout my career, has been helping owners get the vessel they want, with the follow through over the years of ownership that brings them the best possible boating experience BEYOND THEIR EXPECTATIONS. Give me a call at (914) 325-2525 or email me Alan@captainhugenot.com and we can get started with this.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

29 October 2009

INTERNATIONAL PIRACY

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Four days after British couple Paul and Rachel Chandler sent out a distress call near the Seychelles, their boat has reportedly reached the central Somalian coast. Later last night coast-based marine observers further reported that the yacht has been commandeered around 30 miles south of Hobyo to a location off Ceel Huur and north of Harardheere ? a notorious piracy stronghold.

A spokesman for the Somali pirates warned Britain not to try to rescue the couple: If warships surround us, we shall point our guns at the British tourists. They are old and we will take care of them. That is if we are not attacked.

The Chandler's relatives confirmed that the couple's only assets were contained on their boat  Lynn Rival, (which the pirates set adrift) and so there was no chance of any ransom demands being met by the hostages themselves. The pirates had separated them from their only worldly possessions.

We westerner?s believe that the world is governed by the Rule of Law and that things like piracy died out in the early 19^th century.

But. the fact is that the third world has always been ruled by the law of the jungle and when people are starving and a rich westerner in his yacht sails unarmed past a starving lawless country, of course the locals will take up piracy, if only to steal the food onboard.

Update 02 November 2009, The pirates are now trying to swap their hostages (the Chandlers) in exchange for some pirates that  have been previously captured.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15 October 2009

BECOMING A BELIEVER: My own training as a Marine Surveyor began when I was first employed as a Naval Architect & Marine Engineer at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (Bremerton, Washington) back in 1973, where the ships were made of steel and aluminum, and the small boats were made of wood and fiberglass. Naturally, these are the materials I learned about.

 

In this environment I never learned anything about concrete ship construction. And at that time there weren?t too many used ferro-cement boats on the market for me to survey.

 

However, by the late 1980?s and early 1990?s many of the ferro boats built in the 1970?s had survived 20 years and their owners, many of whom were in their 40?s when they built these boats began to retire from active boating, and the market began to have many ferro boats needing surveys.

 

Back in the mid 1980?s I was camping on Monterey Bay at Seacliff State Beach and pier. Where I discovered that the pier was actually the concrete (ferro-cement) tanker the S.S. Palo Alto which had been built during World War I by the San Francisco Shipbuilding Company in Oakland, California and launched  May 29, 1919.

With the war being over before her launch she was surplus at completion and was unused remaining docked in San Francisco Bay for over ten years until she was purchased by the Seacliff Amusement Company of Nevada and towed to Seacliff State Beach in Aptos, California. The ship was intentionally grounded in the bay in January 1930 and connected to the shore by a long pier. An arcade, dining room, dance hall and even a swimming pool were built on the ship.

Unfortunately, in the winter of 1931-32, with the stern grounded on the beach which is on a ledge of sand stone, and with the bow afloat in the water, a storm cracked the ship across her midsection. Then, as the depression worsened the Seacliff Amusement Company went out of business in 1932. The Palo Alto was stripped of all salvageable metal and fixtures and turned into a fishing pier. By 1948 the salt water had gotten to the steel in the cracked ngection and she was beginning to separate.

But, when I was looking at her after 60 years of total neglect the undamaged structure of the stern seemed to remain solid, and she just did not seem to be appreciably deteriorate except where cracks have allowed salt to get into the concrete. Today she is over 90 years old and has not received much maintenance since she was first launched.

 

My research into the S.S. Palo Alto revealed that she was made from cement manufactured in the Santa Cruz Portland Cement company plant in Davenport. The specifications being:
                1 part Portland cement
                2 parts aggregate (1/3 sand; 2/3 gravel)
                1 part water

She was commissioned in October 1920 with a length of 434 feet at 6,144 Gross Tons, 3,696 Net Tons, with a 2,800 horsepower triple-expansion steam engine by Llewellyn Iron Works, Los Angeles with a single screw. Her capacity was 1,300,000 gallons of crude oil, and her original cost of construction was $1,5 million.

 

Later in 1989 when I was cruising in Yankee Clipper off Powell B.C. I noticed a whole fleet of concrete ships being used as the breakwater there. As I researched further I found that the S.S. Peralta , an identical sister to the S.S. Palo Alto is still afloat as a beakwater at Powell, B.C. The. S.S. Peralta was purchased in 1924 and converted into a sardine cannery up in Alaska. 24 years later, in 1948 she was brought down to the reserve fleet at Antioch, CA, but was purchased ten years later in 1958 by Pacifica Papers to be used as part of a giant floating breakwater on the Powell River to protect its log storage pond, in the straight of Georgia.

 

Today, sShe still floats there 90 years after being constructed, alongside nine other concrete ships seven of which were built during World War II.

 

In 1942, the United States Maritime Commission contracted with McCloskey and Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to build a new fleet of 24 concrete ships. And with three decades of improvements in concrete technology this new fleet was lighter and stronger than its WWI predecessors. Still the majority of these ships have been used as floating break waters or sunk as permanent breakwaters.

 

Yet, none of them has broken up from deterioration, unless the hull was cracked in a grounding or stranding.

 

ANALYSIS: It surprised me that all these concrete ships seemed to remain indestructible after 60 to 90 years and yet they had received almost no maintenance. I know from my own first hand experience that steel, aluminum or wood vessels given the same neglect would have deteriorated and disappeared in less than 20 years. So, I began to seriously re-consider and research ferro-cement, and I was amazed with what I learned.

 

NEARLY INDESTRUCTIBLE: Ferro-cement is nearly indestructible when properly constructed, and it is very popular as a work boat construction material in Europe and the developing world. In France, today, there are several ferro-cement vessels still afloat which were built before 1855. Outside the United States ferro-cement construction is fairly standard, and in developing countries ferro-cement is economically competitive with steel, aluminum, wood, or fiberglass construction, simply because it is less expensive than steel, aluminum and FRP, and wood is now becoming more and more scarce.

 

ECONOMICAL: Further, ferro-cement boat construction only requires locally available materials and a large supply of hand labor. Consequently, local semi-skilled jobs can be created using ferro-cement construction without the need for extensive tooling or welder training, and the finished boats require only minimal maintenance.

 

Ferro-cement?s excellent suitability for boat construction is recognized by the U.S. Navy? s, Ferro-Cement Boat Building Manual (NAVSHIPS 0982-019-1010) issued by the Naval Ships Systems Command (now NAVSEA) in 1972. This three volume text covers the entire ferro boat building process, and forms an excellent basis criteria for marine surveys of ferro-cement boats. 

 

IMPERVIOUS TO WATER PENETRATION: The great advantage to ferrro-cement is that it is completely impervious to water penetration. It simply does not get wet on the inside, Consequently, when the mortar covering any embedded metals is of sufficient thickness (over 9 mm or 3/8?), tests have shown that the embedded metal is fully protected from chemical attack by the impervious cement, even when full immersed in a corrosive such as salt water. In other words ferro-cement is better protection than many paints.

 

Unfortunately, this fact is counter intuitive to most people. Most folks are not schooled in the physics and chemistry of structural cement, so they nearly all believe that cement gets wet all the way through when it is immersed in water. They never realize that the wet look is only on the surface when the cement is properly formulated.

 

Actually, when ferro-cement is properly mixed and formed, it becomes an impervious monolith that water cannot penetrate. As Joe .P. Hartog, the professional Naval Architect who designed many ferro-cement vessels stated clearly in a technical paper on ferro-cement which he published in 1988:

 

   ?Because well-made ferrocement is impermeable (waterproof), there should be no need for painting?. Quoted from UNDERSTANDING FERROCEMENT CONSTRUCTION, (?1988, ISBN: 0-86619-284-0)

Unfortunately, this popular mistaken belief (that water always penetrates clear through cement), creates an additional unfounded fear (which takes on the form of an urban legend along the waterfront), that the chloride (salt) dissolved in sea water will penetrate (soak) through a cement hull and attack any metals imbedded within the structure. But, this is also completely untrue.

 

BUYING FERRO-CEMENT BOATS: With the negative attitudes prevailing about ferro-cement boats, their prices are usually quite low so there are plenty of good purchases to be had. The only problem in buying one is the difficulty in doing a proper survey, and without a proper survey you can forget insurance.

 

There are two problems to overcome:

                1.  The lack of many experienced surveyors who understand ferro-cement, and

 

                2.  The difficulty of knowing what few clues to look for in the survey.

 

But, if the original builder has photos documenting the whole of the construction of the armature and the plastering, this is a big help. If they did mortar sampling and testing to assure the correct mortar strength this also helps to prove the quality of the initial construction.

If those historic clues are available, it is then just a matter of looking at the level of finish and fairness of the structure, the quality of the detailing of how things are attached to the structure, and if there are any visible clues to maintenance work that has been overlooked.

 

SURVEYING FERRO-CEMENT: The strength of ferro-cement structures depends two things:

1. The quality of the sand and cement mortar mix with the sand being clean and sharp. The cement must be fresh, and the mortar mix dry, which means ?well mixed using a minimum of water?. The mortar should be used as soon as possible after mixing, especially in warm weather?..and,

 

2.  The quantity of reinforcing material (usually common "chicken wire"). More wire results in a stronger structure, and high quality hulls require as many layers of wire as possible within the available thickness of the hull structure without locating any of the reinforcement too close to the exterior of the cement.  

 

THE UNDERWRITER?S PROBLEM: The main difficulty for insurance underwriters contemplating a ferro-cement boat policy is that the attending surveyor will be unable to verify whether the vessel was properly constructed 30 years earlier. The reinforcing steel matrix is locked out of sight in the concrete monolith of the hull, and cannot be examined even with x-ray technology.

 

Consequently, unless original construction photographs, with accurate material lists and laboratory testing results of the finished concrete are available, it becomes nearly impossible to determine if the hull was properly constructed. Yet, when these records are available a proper determination of the structural integrity can be made by a Marine Surveyor who also understands the physics and chemistry underlying ferro-cement construction, and knows what to look for.

 

REINFORCING MATERIALS - HARTOG?S ELEVEN LAYER MESH: The above photo taken in January 1975 during vessel construction shows that Hartog?s Eleven Layer Mesh was actually used to construct the vessel I surveyed 34 years later in October 2009. But without the original photo and the supporting receipts for the materials, I could not have verified the construction.

 

Hartog?s Mesh includes: (1) layer of expanded steel, (2) layers of ?? steel aviary netting, (1) layer of 1? steel aviary netting, (1) layer of ?? Dia. diagonally laid hi-tensile pencil rods, approx. 4? on center, (1) layer of 1? steel aviary netting. (1) layer of ?? Dia. diagonally laid hi-tensile pencil rods, approx. 2? on center, (1) layer of 1? steel aviary netting, (2) layers of ?? steel aviary netting, (1) layer of ?? welded steel mesh.

 

 

CEMENT MATERIALS: The ferro-cement used in this specific vessel was Chem-Comp cement by Permanente. This expansive cement eliminates any internal cracking because of its expansive characteristics, and sets with a compressive strength in excess of 9000 psi. It was carefully mixed with a Chromium Trioxide additive which eliminates hydrogen bubbles which normally form in the interior of the cement due to galvanic action with the steel while the cement is curing. This retardation of the hydrogen formation prevents oxidation (rusting) of the steel surfaces during concrete curing, which allows better adhesion of the cement to the reinforcing steel.

 

INSPECTION TECHNIQUE: After carefully examining the wire mesh grid lay-up as shown in original photographs of the construction, and also reviewed the certificates verifying the technique utilized to mix and form the cement, I then examined the original material lists for the steel reinforcement and wire grid. and also the Certification of Plastering, Mix, Methods and Procedures from the cement contractor as well as the strength testing results reported by the testing laboratory for the concrete flexural strength of the completed hull. Further, after completing the survey I personally interviewed the original builder to verify all the following findings:

 

1. Every precaution was taken by the builders to ensure the integrity of this hull during construction.

2. The Naval Architect who designed the vessel, Joe P. Hartog, actually oversaw the construction and made periodic visits to the building site, to verify construction progress (see Appendix 1).

3. The ferro-cement was mixed and poured under the direct supervision of Larry D. Craig of Ferro-Sea International who also provided a certification of the process (see Appendix 2).

4. The finished cement structure was strength tested and found to have a flexural strength of 7040 psi and a concentric strength of 7540 psi, after curing 113 days.

5. To prevent marine growths the hull exterior was expertly copper lined.

6. The hull has been properly maintained for the 32 years since it?s launching

7. The mortar cover thickness over the nearest reinforcement element exceeds the 9mm recommended by the 5^th International Symposium on Ferro-cement ?1994, and provides adequate protection from salt water incursion.

8. On site inspection revealed that, to date, there is no evidence of any deterioration in the hull structure, other than slight cosmetics.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

26 September 2009

PWC STUPIDITY

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

At the Surveyor?s Convention in Dallas last week I heard about an insurance case in which a Personal Water Craft PWC, doing 8-12 knots rammed into the side of a power cruiser what was doing 4 knots. The power cruiser being on the right had the right of way.

The driver of the rented PWC was uninsured and unhurt, but her passenger has some soft flesh injury (bruise).

The PWC passenger sued the power cruiser.

The power cruiser?s insurance company offered to settle for $3,000 but the plaintiff?s lawyer was adamant and refused to settle.

The insurance company spent $28,000 developing the illustrations (animation) paying experts etc. to show the problem to the jury. The jury awarded nothing to the plaintiff.

Moral: When a frivolous law suit is brought in most western states and frivolous being shown by the fact that the jury awarded less than the original settlement offer. Then the plaintiff AND THEIR LAWYER are responsible for court costs and treble damages,

The lawyer who took this stupid case had to pay restitution to the power cruiser?s insurance company and the courts of over $90,000.

Doesn?t that make you smile.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15 January 2008

PROFESSIONAL BOAT BUYING

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

So just what does a seasoned charter captain, who is also a naval architect & yacht surveyor look for when he sets out to buy a yacht for himself. Especially, after owning more than a dozen vessels during 40 years of boating?

 

Looking back, it seems that I have owned one boat or another since President Kennedy?s assassination. In fact, I am so accustomed to having a personal ?command? that I simply feel naked when I don?t have a yacht.

 

But, about three years ago I sold my 16^th personal boat, a carefully restored mahogany 33 ft cabin cruiser of 1961 vintage with twin Chrysler 318 engines. I parted with it during the Spring buying frenzy, which is always a seller?s market, and banked the profits. But, I did not replace it with a new boat because I had agreed to work a multiple year consulting contract out of town. Knowing that I wouldn?t be in the SF Bay area often enough to handle the maintenance and upkeep a boat needs.

 

Consequently, at the conclusion of the out of town in mid-September, I was aching for a new hull to call my own. Also, knowing that after labor day is always the best time to buy a boat when bargains can be had due to a shortage of customers, and moorages also open up as people haul their boats or trailer them home for the winter. Sellers who did not find a buyer the previous Spring and Summer know they will have to pay moorage until the buying season starts again next spring and are motivated to consider reasonable offer. My purchasing leverage was also enhanced by the fact that I had cash in the bank from the previous boat?s sale. So I moved quickly.

 

WHAT KIND OF BOAT

First, I established a price range. Since my total investment the previous vessel had been $27,000, and I wanted to re-invest at the same level, I set $25,000 as my upper limit. I also checked my liquid investments and available low percentage credit offers to make sure I had the liquidity available to come up with the cash a week after making an offer. Knowing your cash position is important. You don?t want to offer on a $50,000 boat hoping to put the $10,000 you have in savings as a down payment, and then get a loan for the rest, because when you get to the bank you may find that interest rates have risen and now you can?t qualify for a loan over $20,000. If you aren?t buying cash the lenders will always decide for you just exactly how much boat you can afford in the current market. To improve your buying position you should pre-qualify for a loan. You can contact your bank or Boat U.S. Boat Finance (at boatus.com) to find out how to become pre-approved.

 

Second, I chose to buy a vessel that was more than 20 years old. This is because when you ignore inflation and temporary market spikes like the dot-com boom, you will find that the real market value of boats always drops off over the first fifteen to twenty years, after which the value hits a stable plateau, and seldom drops any further. If you are careful you can purchase a boat which is at the bottom of its value bell curve. Later, as it becomes a ?classic? and many of the identical sister ships are scrapped or fall apart, it becomes a rare classic and it?s value starts to rise. The key here is to buy a well built hull from a yard with an excellent long term reputation which only built a few of each model. Unfortunately, mass produced boats like. Searays and Bayliners, simply don?t do as well in the ?classics? market because so many of them were built that they never become rare, and will remain a dime a dozen. But, with a carefully selected classic, after 30 years the market will start to rise again, and especially so with semi-custom fiberglass vessels. Consequently, although I love wood and nearly all my prior hulls were wooden classics, I decided to purchase a rare fiberglass classic because I no longer wanted to do all that restoration as I had in the past.

 

Third, I expect to get my money back plus a little bit more when I later sell a boat. so I thought carefully about the changing market forces currently surrounding boats. Take for instance, the looming end of the oil age. For the last twenty years sailboats have had an edge over powerboats on resale value, and now with the increasing cost of fuel, and mid-east oil selling for $100 a barrel, large horsepower boats may fall farther out of favor. Also at this stage of life, I?m not as spry as I used to be, and although most of my boats have been cutters, ketches and schooners sail no longer makes sense for me. So, I began to look for a group of power boats that would celebrate fuel economy. This moved me in the direction of trawler yachts which are built for long distance power voyages and so plan to use as little fuel as possible.

 

Fourth, I decided that I would prefer a single engine to provide even more fuel economy, so long as the hull could move at above 6 knots. I love the maneuverability of twin screws, but my roots began with single screw sailboats.  After a week of looking I began to narrow my sights to single engine diesel trawlers with room for a second couple to cruise with us.  

 

The last consideration was size. My last boat was 33 ft, and the majority of boats I have owned over the years have been 30 to 36 feet, so I knew I liked that approximate size. But, because I live in San Francisco itself, I also wanted to find moorage near the city so I settled on Sausalito, where I found that 36 ft moorages were hard to find but at 32 ft and under several were available. Since the parking situation in downtown Sausalito has reached epidemic stages, I chose clipper yacht harbor, in North Sausalito where there is available free parking for my guests, and booked a 30 ft berth before I bought the boat.  

 

Now, I was ready to look for the boat which had to be fiberglass, under 32 feet and a single engine diesel trawler with accommodations for four.

 

WHAT I LOOK FOR IN THE SPECIFIC BOAT

Now, I collected all the listings I could find for vessels fitting this description, on the internet and in the yacht sales publications. Of course, since the U.S. fiberglass market went to building pocket sized weekenders of tehe 24 ft variety, all of the long range (low horsepower with big fuel tank) cruising trawlers seem to be Chinese built, like Island Gypsy?s, Cheoy Lee Trawlers, and CHB Trawlers, and Nordhavn?s. As I isolated the available prospects I began to aggressively comparison shop. Since all the hulls of the same age from a particular yard will have nearly the same asking price, I comparison shop on the extras like nav electronics, autopilots, etc. Also, I have to look at each vessel to see who has the pristine interiors and whose need refurbishment, etc.

 

Now it is a good time to talk with the brokers, asking how long the vessel has been listed, have there been offers. And especially what has he verified about the boat?s prior owners. I like to find boats with one original owner. It is simple economics. If they have owned it for a quarter century, and bought it new, then they also took care of it. Even better is the fact that the dollar has dropped so far that if I offer them half of the market value it will still be five times what they paid for it a quarter century earlier. They will be pleased to ?make a profit? on the sale. 

 

I finally found a 1979 Cheoy Lee Trawler 28, with a single 80 hp Ford Lehman Diesel, with teak decks throughout and all fittings in stainless steel including the propeller. The first owner bought it new and took excellent care of it for 24 years, adding continuous electronic upgrades. It had a pathfinder radar, GPS, the original depth sounder and a fish finder which also gives depth, The original RDF, Benmar course setter, hydraulic steering a battery bank minder, etc. At age 83 he sold it to the interim owner, who mostly neglected it for three years and then listed it for sale. A year later with no buyers he had lowered his price on September first, a couple of weeks before I arrived. I looked closely at the moss growing on the north side of the canvas, and the decks which had not seen any teak oil in four years, and was amazed that the batteries were all nearly bone dry, each cell took over a pint of water. These are the things that drive buyers away. But all these were superficial and fixable with a little soap water and teak oil. Then, I began to investigate aboard to find spare engine water and fuel pumps and impellers, spare lube and fuel filters, spare fan belts, spare water purifier filters, extra batteries with portable charger and an electric dinghy motor, but no dinghy. All these were things the original owner of 24 years had placed aboard during its years of excellent maintenance.

 

The cold engine started on the first turn and did not smoke. The broker told me and I later confirmed with people on the docks, that the boat had not left the slip in over two years. Also, onboard records showed that last diesel fill up took place the month before he purchased the boat and yet the tanks had over 150 gallons remaining. It was apparent that not only had the interim owner never done any maintenance, but  he also had never used the boat. Consequently, not much could have gone wrong in the four years of neglect. I asked the broker if the seller was buying another boat. When he answered, ?No he seems to be busy remodeling a house ashore and wants to get out of boating?. I then knew that the seller wanted the cash out of the boat to do other things, and would probably jump at any reasonable offer.

I sorted through the boats documents, and found the registrations, all of them were in the envelope right back to his original registration, with the sales tax listed on it. I used simple division to quickly calculate what he had paid for it originally.

 

On the spot, I gave the broker a check for $2000 and said that in the morning I would deliver a firm offer, subject to survey. But first I had to go back to my office and determine my offering price.

 

Back in the office, using my surveyor?s pricing resources I found that with a little spit and polish she would dress out at a level called ABOVE BUC value, or 10% above market. Also due to the shortage of available boats in Northern California BUC allows an additional 10% premium above market. This means the fair market value when cleaned up was between $35,000 and $39,000 after I got her cleaned up. But, this guy only paid $25,000 for it four years ago. He had been asking $30,000 but had just dropped his price to $25,000 because in the unkempt condition he kept the boat he had seen no offers.

 

I sharpened my pencil weighted the odds of rejection and finally offered $21,500, which by my best instincts is 55% of its true market value. The following day he accepted the offer without making a counter offer. The salesman said the seller had not wanted to sell it for more, but was also in a hurry to finish the deal.

 

Two weeks after starting the search, I had a boat to fit in my moorage at just over half of fair market value.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

14 November 2007

14 November 2007

RULE 6, NO RADAR and IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR ?

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Any seasoned captain has bumped into a few rocks and shoals. Many may not admit it but anyone who can truthfully say I?ve never run aground simply hasn?t gotten any real experience operating boats. Also, after hitting a rock or running aground when you take the time to carefully analyze what took place it always comes back to PILOT ERROR. Blaming the circumstances is only and always just fooling yourself.  

 

This morning the pilot of the Cosco Busan, which struck the Oakland Bay Bridge a week ago is saying that his radar had mal-functioned. According to his statement quoted in the SF Chronicle, the radar went off line shortly after they left the dock, and then it went off line again as they rounded Yerba Buena Light, just a mile further on.

 

Frankly, if when my radar quits twice in the first mile out in pea soup fog, I stop immediately until I get it fixed. This seems to be a no-brainer. Go to dead slow, and head away from all known navigational hazards and slowly nose over to an anchorage at minimum speed to put the hook down until the radar is operational or the fog clears off. The radar is not to blame for the foolish decision to continue with no radar, and why did he continue at eleven knots into pea soup fog.

 

It also takes two full minutes for radars to energize and come back on line after being restarted.  At eleven knots the Cosco Busan was covering over a third of a mile in those two minutes with no radar. Although, the ship?s chart plotter was working the plotter will not show you where the other ships are at. So even with the chart plotter working there is an automatic risk of collision with no radar  

 

Further, the pilot was quoted as saying that, due to the radar failure he had to rely on a chart plotter with which he was not familiar. Consequently, the ship?s Captain was pointing out to the pilot the center of the bridge on the plotter. The Pilot then alleges that due to a language difficulty the ship?s Captain was pointing out the bridge tower instead of the center of the span.

 

Yet, even though he is at this point flying blind with no radar, and also unsure what he is reading on the unfamiliar chart plotter, when the Vessel Traffic Service radioed to say he was headed for the bridge tower this arrogant pilot disputed that fact.

 

He immediately radioed back that, ?According to my instruments I am proceeding for the center of the span?, and continues AT ELEVEN KNOTS into the pea soup fog.

 

Quite amazingly, he makes no move to slow down or consider that a risk of collision may exist, even though Vessel Traffic has questioned his course and intentions.

 

Just a few moments later, because he willfully ignored the decades of wisdom which is built into the Rules of the Road, his career is at an end.

 

IMPORTANT BACKGROUND: The International Regulations for Prevention of Collision at Sea (Rules of the Road or COLREGS) proscribe specific conduct for captains and pilots in restricted visibility. In fact, over a fifth of the rules regarding vessel operations are concerned solely with restricted visibility as follows:

 

RULE 6 regarding SAFE SPEED, clearly states that, ?Every vessel shall at all times proceed at A SAFE SPEED SO SHE CAN TAKE PROPER AND EFFECTIVE ACTION TO AVOID COLLISION and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances.? Now, it appears fairly obvious from the fact that the ship hit the bridge that she was proceeding too fast to effectively avoid hitting the bridge after it came into view. Also, whenever this rule is interpreted by Admiralty courts throughout the world, safe speed is defined as a speed which would allow the vessel to STOP IN ONE HALF THE VISIBLE DISTANCE.

 

In addition Rule 19(c) regarding CONDUCT OF VESSELS IN RESTRICTED VISIBILITY, states that, ?Under conditions of restricted visibility?.shall reduce her speed to the minimum at which she can maintain her course, and if necessary take all her way off?

 

But, going back to RULE 6 we find further that it states specifically, ?In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account?.. The state of visibility,?.. The proximity of navigational hazards?..The limitations of the radar equipment?

 

Yet, that is not all, RULE 7 regarding RISK OF COLLISION states that, ?Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT, THEN SUCH RISK SHALL BE DEEMED TO EXIST??PROPER USE OF RADAR SHAL BE MADE?..Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.?

 

It would seem that the minute the radar went out a risk of collision must be assumed to exist under the rules. Then when the Vessel Traffic radioed questioning the ship?s course we immediately have prima facie that the ANY DOUBT situation which the rules speak of now exists. The Rules state that a risk of collision MUST BE DEEMED TO EXIST whenever there is any doubt. Vessel Traffics questioning of his intention qualifies as ANY DOUBT. 

 

Finally, RULE 8 (c) regarding ACTION TO AVOID COLLISION, states that, ?If necessary to avoid collision or ALLOW MORE TIME TO ASSESS THE SITUATION, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.?

 

Consequently, it appears that all these above rules were completely ignored by this pilot. Yet, everyone of them seems to be screaming the same simple message SLOW DOWN !!!

 

The rules do reflect the combined wisdom of the maritime nations of the world developed over many years. To ignore them so cavalierly is arrogance.

 

Unfortunately, Captain Cota?s folly is not unusual. Commercial vessels the world over regularly plow ahead at full speed into pea soup fog. The reliance on radar and GPS seem to have made them feel infallible, especially when they are on the same route they have traveled many times before. But, anyone who has operated their radar in San Francisco Bay, on a clear weekend night in summer, when the radar really wasn?t needed, will have easily observed that while they could visually see two dozen fiberglass and wooden boats with their naked eye, at the same time only two or three of those boats actually show up on radar.

 

So, besides the chance of collision with the bridge, why wasn?t the pilot considering all the other small craft out there at 8:30 am? Most of those smaller craft are fiberglass and have minimal radar signatures even if his radar was working, and no vessel will ever show up on the chart plotter.

 

To proceed at eleven knots into pea soup fog while assuming that because they cannot see any other vessels that there must be none out there is well beyond irrational.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

11 November 2007

MULTIPLE PILOT ERRORS - COSCO BUSAN

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Final determination will be up to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but after reviewing Coast Guard reports and Vessel Traffic radio transmission records about the accident which spilled 58,000 gallons of heavy fuel oil into San Francisco Bay last Wednesday morning, it appears that the collision was entirely due to pilot error.

 

Also, the slow clean-up response appears to have been caused by the same pilot?s inattention to important details after the collision took place. Experts suggest several possible explanations, including pilot error, crew error, and mechanical or instrument failure. But, the facts now in, seem to point solely to pilot error and here is why.

 

FIRST, VESSEL TRAFFIC WARNED THAT THE SHIP WAS OFF COURSE: Friday, the pilot's attorney said that Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) similar to aviation air traffic controllers, which monitors commercial vessel movements in San Francisco Bay, notified the pilot of the Cosco Busan that he was off course shortly before the container ship hit the Bay Bridge tower. Vessel Traffic told the pilot by VHF radio (channel 14) that, "Your heading is (compass) bearing 235; what are your intentions?" But, unlike air traffic control the word control does not appear in the maritime Vessel Traffic Service title. This is because they are only an advisory service. They notify ships of each other?s presence and let the captains work it out. Consequently, they hasve absolutely no responsibility to give advice on courses. The fact that they called Cosco Busan was a courtesy to the pilot which was well beyond Vessel Traffic?s job description.

 

CHECKING EVERY INSTRUMENT: At this point, the pilot faces a critical decision which requires some action. He has just been handed a 50/50 situation. The Coast Guard?s instruments say he is off course, but, he believes his instruments say he is on course. Obviously, he has only a 50% chance that his reading of the instruments is more accurate. Immediate verification from alternate instruments is now imperative. Standard navigational practice in this situation to slow down or stop until verification of course can be achieved. But, the pilot takes no action and instead radios to tell VTS that he thinks he is on the correct course. Attorney John Meadows also stated that the pilot, Captain John Cota, immediately radioed back that the ship's instruments showed that he was on the correct heading. The pilot told the Vessel Traffic Service dispatcher, "I'm heading directly for the center of the span," At this point he had the option to execute a port turn and circle away from the bridge to the south.

 

NO INSTRUMENT ERROR: Since he was off course and hit the bridge it would seem that his instruments might have been giving the wrong reading. But, the facts now in indicate that there was no equipment failure. On Saturday Coast Guard Admiral Craig Bone, stated that, ?Our preliminary investigation shows no indication that there was anything mechanical wrong with the vessel?. But, according to Cota all the navigational electronics which he checked were reporting the same correct course, even though, as it turned out, he was on an incorrect course. Unfortunately, with no detectable mechanical failures, ?What remains?, said Admiral Bone, is human error..

 

STANDARD PROCEDURES: But, why didn?t the pilot follow standard procedure and check several instruments? For instance, two days earlier, when the commercial vessel I was piloting approached the Golden Gate bridge under similar circumstances (outbound in dense morning fog), I was also monitoring VTS Channel 14. I followed standard fog navigation procedures which are taught in radar collision avoidance classes (and which all merchant marine officers are required to retake every five years), I carefully checked several instruments simultaneously for confirmation of my ship?s course and speed. Then as we approached the bridge  I watched both the GPS chart plotter and the radar display. In the dense fog I was unable to visually see the bridge span or the towers, so I carefully checked the radar and the chart plotter for consensus that they both agreed on my location, course and speed. Such checking of all instruments is simply standard ?by the book? navigational procedure. Yet, the fact of Cota?s radioing back immediately, indicates that he did not check all the available instruments for confirmation, instead he argued ?I?m on course?.

 

CONSULTING THE RADAR: As a licensed UNLIMITED radar observer, I know that navigational radars show the bridge towers as distinctly darker areas than the rest of the span, and the radar also shows exactly where the ship is headed. Simply consulting the ship?s radar would have shown the pilot that collision with the bridge tower was imminent. But, apparently, he did not look there to confirm his course and speed.

 

UNRECOGNIZED URGENCY: Just the suggestion from Vessel Traffic that you are off course should be taken very seriously. Vessel traffic does not normally question the course and speed of commercial traffic. Their function is to monitor traffic to inform captains of collision situations by telling captains when they appear to be in harm?s way, but responsibility for all course and speed decisions remains with the pilot. If Vessel Traffic thinks you are off course, they will check their calculations again to make sure before calling you. Consequently, when they do call to say you are off course the automatic assumption should be that they are correct and you are wrong. The proper action then is to back all engines and stop the vessel completely until you can carefully verify that you are not headed for a collision. Especially, when the bridge is completely hidden by pea soup fog. Clearly faced with a 50/50 situation, the pilot did not recognize the urgency and instead of prudently stopping and rechecking everything he tosses the dice and strangely decides that the instrument he is looking at is correct, and the instrument Vessel Traffic is looking at is wrong.

 

THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE PROBLEM: Finally, the human error might have been caused by the ship?s crew and not the pilot. In fact, there is much discussion of possible language problems between the Chinese speaking helmsman and the English speaking pilot. Yet, this appears to have no bearing on the case. The fact that the Coast Guard questioned his incorrect course heading in English, and the English speaking pilot responded that he had checked the instruments himself and that he was on course would seem to remove any possible language problems. Indeed, it appears from the records provided that the pilot never gave a helm order to change course, or an engine stop order which could have been mis-interpreted by the crew.  

 

SLOWNESS TO REPORT LEAK: The pilot?s next error compounded the extent of the damage from the spill. Unfortunately, the language of his verbal accident report to VTS minimized the extent of the damage. According to Meadows, Cota said in his statement to the Coast Guard  investigators that, after striking the bridge he promptly notified the Vessel Traffic Service of what had happened. I immediately notified VTS (Vessel Traffic Service) on Channel 14 that we had contacted the fendering system,  But, he apparently made no comment about an oil spill or the need for skimming equipment. Limiting his report to saying that ship has contacted the fendering system, which is the protective barrier around the base of the bridge tower, with no mention of any oil leaks could be interpreted as, We bumped the bridge slightly.

 

Yet, the actual damage is much more severe. The collision actually sheared most of the fendering system off the bridge tower, and cut a gash over 100 feet long in the side of the vessel rupturing one of his fuel tanks which began immediately gushing bunker C heavy fuel oil into the bay.

 

Under standard procedure his next move should be to ask for a report of the damage from the ship?s crew, and to relay an accurate report of such damage to VTS and the Coast Guard so that they can mobilize the proper response. Anytime you sustain a collision you check all damaged areas for leaks to insure that you are not sinking.

 

After the collision the pilot proceeded to a safe anchorage and anchored his vessel. But, he makes no move to rig an oil containment boom around his vessel even though he has just had a collision. Though he notices an oil sheen on the water he does not radio for oil clean up services. Apparently, even though it has been some time since the collision he is still unaware that there is a 100 foot hole in the side of his ship gushing heavy bunker C into the bay. Yet, according to Capt. Peter McIsaac, president of the San Francisco Bar Pilots, who had boarded a pilot boat and headed for the Cosco Busan, coming aboard as she passed Treasure Island, oil was pouring out of a gash in the ship. I've never seen oil going into the water like that, McIssac said.

 

According to the pilot?s statement, it was only after anchoring that he finally noticed there is an oil slick, I observed a sheen on the water and instantly reported that to VTS. Cota said, as reported by Meadows, Prior to my leaving the ship, no response vessels were seen.  Cota went on to state that, Once at anchor, I was relieved by Capt. Frank Hoburg, (a senior bar pilot) who immediately started notifying various agencies that deal with oil spills, Apparently, the idea that as pilot he should have been calling those response vessels had not yet occurred to Cota. But, it was not lost on Captain Hoberg and was the first action he took.

 

The Coast Guard log shows that the first notification of the collision arrived at 8:30 a.m., with the VTS contacting the Coast Guard and reporting the incident. A Coast Guard patrol vessel arrives about a half hour later at the scene. The first environmental response team had arrived in the area to begin skimming operations by 9:50 a.m. Finally, at 10:39 a.m., full-scale containment operations finally began more than two hours after the collision. This delay in commencement of the oil recovery operation was compounded by the pilot?s (Cota?s) delay in reporting the oil spill until after the vessel was anchored, and not calling the response vessels, but leaving that for his relief to accomplish.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 October 2007

Local Knowledge Can Save Your Life

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Living near the Golden Gate bar, which is one of the most dangerous pieces of water in the world, and being a Coast Guard Volunteer, as well as a local charter skipper, I am privy to the details of the deaths at sea which occur every year within sight of San Francisco. Most of these deaths happen because experienced sailors visiting the area do not take the time to carefully study the local conditions before trying to sail here.

 

But the same is true on every coastline. Peculiar local conditions which strangers do not know about can sneak up on even the most experienced sailors. Here on the Northern Californian coast this lack of local knowledge causes the capsizing of as many as three yachts each year in the steep seas which mount up every afternoon in normal fair weather, during the afternoon ebb just off the mouth of the Golden Gate. These hazardous conditions are something that locals know to avoid, but visitors are totally unaware of, unless they read the Coast Pilot very carefully.

 

The crew of these stricken vessels are often very experienced world cruising sailors, who may have many years at sea on other waters. Yet, unaware of the local phenomena, they confidently believe they will have an easy passage.

 

A couple of years ago a case occurred which illustrates how this happens. A 20 foot sailboat operated by a skipper unfamiliar with the Northern California coast was making a passage from Half Moon Bay into the Golden Gate. Leaving Pillar Point Harbor in the morning the gentle seas along the Montara coast that morning gave no warning of what lay ahead.  

 

Six hours into the cruise, and half an hour from the Golden Gate, the boat got into the rollers off San Francisco?s Ocean Beach, just south of Point Lobos. These large rollers extend out more than a half mile from the beach where the crescent shaped bar which guards the mouth of the SF Bay is only 5 fathoms (30 feet) deep, These unforeseen rollers capsized their boat around 2:23 pm. Bystanders on the beach reached the Coast Guard by 2:40 p.m., and they immediately dispatched two Coast Guard 47 foot motor lifeboats from Station Golden Gate six miles away. Also, a Coast Guard HH-65 helicopter with surf divers aboard was dispatched. The SF Fire department?s surf rescue team also responded within five minutes of receiving the call. Two survivors were rescued by fire department divers and taken to UCSF Medical Center where they were treated for hypothermia. However, the third man who was only 22 years old was never found. Several witnesses reported to authorities that they had seen the vessel roll over in the surf and sink beneath the waves. Observers said that the small craft capsized suddenly in the large steep seas and filled with water sinking almost immediately. According to Coast Guard reports the missing man was somehow tethered to the boat.

 

Yet, all this was avoidable. Three hours earlier, or three hours later would not have been during the ebb, and there would only have been gentle waves. The high winds and steep seas that capsized the boat were predictable. It was a fair weather sunny day when normal afternoon onshore winds automatically occur due to the temperature differential between the water and the land. The sun warms up the land by mid-afternoon, which causes the air over the land to rise. The high pressure, colder air over the sea always rushes in to fill the void of reduced pressure creating the stiff afternoon breeze. By 2 p.m. every afternoon winds are blowing onshore at 18 to 20 knots everywhere on the Bar outside the Golden Gate. When the tide also happens to be running out during the ebb it creates steep seas on the bar. Inside the Golden gate this is what creates the wonderful 25 to 30 knots in ?the slot? which makes good sailing winds off the St Francis YC so predictable.

These were safety conscious boaters with proper lifejackets and harnesses tethering them to the boat. They had left San Diego a couple of weeks before and were making their way up the Pacific Coast to British Columbia. So they already had 450 miles of Pacific Coast sailing behind them, which means that they were no longer novice sailors even if they had been at the start. Two weeks at sea on a coastwise passage is more hands on experience than most pleasure sailors get in five years of weekend sailing. From those details it is clear that they knew how to handle this vessel in an 18 - 20 knot breeze under all normally expected conditions. Yet, they unknowingly arrived in the hazardous area of the San Francisco Bar at exactly the time of maximum ebb current when the normal local conditions are always hazardous every afternoon.

 

Normal conditions on the Northern California coast are not what people from elsewhere will normally expect, and the same is true of most of the world?s unfamiliar coasts.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE IS INDISPENSIBLE:  Several decades back, when I was a newly licensed merchant marine Captain, one of my mentors was that seasoned veteran, Captain John E. Kelly of West Seattle?s Sea Scout Ship Yankee Clipper. John had first signed aboard as a crew member of that ship back in 1938, and later became a Ships Officer aboard warships during the Second World War. So, it was after nearly 50 years at sea that John shared the secret of successful passage-making with me.

 

When you have to make a passage off a strange coast read all you can about it, but do not forget as you make each port, to visit with all the other skippers, especially aboard the local fishing boats, and with people who are going the opposite direction along the coast. Pick the brains of those who have recently been where you are heading, to perfect your local knowledge before you set out

 

,It isn?t what we know that sinks ships,?.it?s what we are unaware that we need to know,?. which does us in.?

  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

01 October 2007

Getting the Drift in Current Vocabulary

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

It is surprising how many people do not know the difference between the stages of the tide (as in high tide or low tide) and the tidal currents (as in flood and ebb). It is a commonly held belief that word ebb is synonymous with low tide and flood is synonymous with high tide. I often hear the phrase The tide was at max ebb, being used to describe the time of low tide. When they should have simply said, It was low tide or the tide was all the way out. Saying that the tide was at its max ebb, actually means that the tide was moving out at its fastest current, and this maximum current actually occurs when the tide is only about half way out.

 

Learning the best time to take a boat across the bar at the mouth of an estuary like the Columbia River or the Golden Gate, is impossible without first learning the basic vocabulary. Avoiding the worst conditions requires timing your crossing to suit the tides and currents, and that means knowing the difference between a tide and a tidal current.

 

FIRST: EBB AND FLOOD DO NOT REFER TO LOW AND HIGH: They are instead directional adjectives, which indicate the direction of the tidal movement. The tide was at ebb, means that the current was going out. it was during the ebb, means that it happened while the tide was going out. Flood, on the other hand means that the current was going in, and maximum flood is the time when the incoming current reaches its maximum velocity. Maximum flood occurs about half way between the time of low tide and the time of the next high tide. Maximum flood is not, as many people assume, a condition that occurs when all the tide is in. That condition of the tide being all the way in is known as high tide. At the time of high tide, or shortly thereafter the current becomes slack, which means it is neither ebbing nor flooding but just standing still.  High slack usually occurs 30 minutes to an hour after high tide. The tide then turns and begins to ebb. It continues to ebb until low tide, which occurs approximately six and a quarter hours after the time of high tide. Once the basic vocabulary is understood boaters can begin to figure out when these various stages of the tides will occur, and with that information they can plan their crossings for the best conditions.

 

Unfortunately, most of the forces exerted on the tides are caused by the moon, which complicates the time calculation because the moon takes 24 hours and 56 minutes to make a complete transit. Normally this means that tomorrow the tides will be about an hour later than they were today, and about an hour later than that the following day. Added to that gain of 56 minutes a day, the sun also exerts an influence on the tides, but the sun makes a transit in 24 hours. The lesser pull of the sun retards or advances the times of the tides slightly. The combination of these forces gives us the varying heights of the tides. Once, we understand all the terminology it should be simple enough to look up the time of high or low tide in a tide table, and the times of maximum flood and maximum ebb in a tidal current table.

 

But, if you have ever been to the Bay Model in San Francisco and watched that demonstration of the tidal currents flooding into the bay and ebbing out again, then you probably know that the highs and lows arrive at different places in the bay at different times. At some locations the highs and lows can be as much as two hours later than they are at the Golden Gate. Added to that is the fact that the maximum depth of the tide could be quite a bit higher or lower that it was at the mouth of the bay. To calculate these times, heights and current velocities for the various locations around the bay requires using the tidal offset tables. These were developed by years of observation at each tidal reference point listed in the chart. The Coast and Geodetic Survey, a government agency that preceded NOAA, collected and compiled all this data and created the tidal offset tables.

 

However, after we understand this calculus we don?t need to actually figure it out any more. Instead we can go on the Internet and find it already calculated for us, at the site listed below. Many of savvy racing skippers use this info which shows the currents movement for each hour to plan their strategy before each race. By looking at the predicted current flows and knowing the local current patterns from experience they can determine which side of the race course will be favored with an assist from the tidal current if the predicted wind direction occurs during the race. 

 

MORNING FLOODS HAVE LESS WINDS: Finally, when we have this data at our fingertips we can plan a bar crossing for a time when both the currents and the winds will be most favorable. Due to the diurnal effects of the sea breeze in the day time and the offshore breeze at night there is not much onshore wind before 11 am, but there is always a lot of wind in the afternoon.

 

Using this to advantage means that all your bar crossings should be planned for the times around slack water. At the mouth of an estuary the flood currents are slightly slower than the ebb currents. So if you plan your bar crossing for the last half of the morning flood, and if possible do it just before high slack, you know you will have very little onshore wind, and the tide will be running in the combination of these two forces means relatively smooth water. The flood runs in for about 6 hours so there is always a high slack occurring between 2 a.m. and 2 p.m.

 

On the Pacific coast, because of the prevailing westerly winds, do take precautions to avoid crossing during an afternoon ebb. During an afternoon ebb the tide will be going out whikle the sea breeze is blowing onshore, and the combination of these opposing forces creates steep seas in the estuary. For example, if the maximum ebb is running out at 4 knots and the wind is blowing in at 16 knots you have 20 knot wave conditions, which create steep seas. On the other hand, if it were an afternoon flood and the tidal current was setting in at 4 knots and the wind was blowing in at 16 knots you would only have a 12 knot sea condition.

 

For U.S. Tide Information, go to http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ports.html then pick your location from the list of tidal reference points.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24 September 2007

LICENSING PLEASURE BOATERS IS NOT THE ANSWER

(Fourth Post):  Fourth post in a four part set, latest post on top

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

After all this discussion of the rules of the road, and what new boaters don?t know because they haven? taken the class available. It is appropriate to explain the ?normal? misconceptions and why they are not readily understood by new boaters. So, here is a review of what most novice boaters do not know:

 

RIGHT-OF-WAY MISCONCEPTIONS: Since the majority of boaters never took a boating safety course and so never actually studied the Rules of the Road, they just operate with what they heard from other boaters. Unfortunately, in the gossip about Right-of-Way which is making the rounds of the docks there are several misconceptions regarding just who actually has the right-of-way between different types of vessels.

 

For instance: while most boaters can quote the essence of Navigation Rule 18 on Right-of-Way responsibilities between vessels fairly well, which loosely interpreted seems to say Powerboats are required to give way to sailing vessels, and sailing vessels are required to give way vessels engaged in fishing. But, that loose interpretation gets grossly misapplied by almost everyone

 

RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FISHING VESSELS: Sport fishermen love this misapplied rule and will quote it often, because at first glance it seems to say that sport fishing vessels are King, and everyone else on the water has to stay out of their way. Unfortunately, such belief is founded on abject ignorance, yet because of its widespread acceptance you often see small fishing vessels in mid-channel impeding the progress of sail boats and commercial vessels, with the fishermen actually believing they have a right to be there blocking the thoroughfare. The sad truth is that these deluded souls have used their own definitions for what a ?vessel engaged in fishing? is, and because of this mistake, they actually think that they have the right of way. A closer examination of Rule 3 regarding general definitions, says that the term, Vessel engaged in fishing means only commercial vessels with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus, which restrict maneuverability, but the rule specifically does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability. In other words SPORT FISHING VESSELS ARE NOT ENGAGED IN FISHING EVEN WHEN FISHING and have no more right of way than any normal powerboat. Taking it further it is soon found that the Navigation Rules actually say that ALL SPORT FISHERMEN MUST KEEP OUT OF THE WAY OF SAILING VESSELS, and give proper right of way to all crossing power vessels or be in violation of the rules. Yet, This is exactly opposite of what most ignorant fishermen seem to think is the law.

 

SAILBOAT RIGHT-OF-WAY: Rule 9 - Narrow Channels, says A vessel of less than 20 meters (65 feet) in length, OR A SAILING VESSEL (presumably of any length) shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway and in Rule 10 ? Traffic Separation Schemes, it says: A vessel of less than 20 meters (65 feet) in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a power driven vessel following a traffic lane.? This virtually means that all sailing vessels have no business claiming right of way in a channel or vessel traffic scheme, unless they are themselves over 65 feet.

 

Rule 10 also says, Inshore traffic lanes (between the traffic lane and the beach) shall not normally be used by through traffic (commercial traffic) which can safely use the appropriate traffic lane within the adjacent traffic separation scheme. However, vessels of less than 20 meters in length (65 feet) and sailing vessels (presumably of any length) may under all circumstances use the inshore traffic zones. Basically, this means a power driven ferry by law, must use the traffic lane if practical, and when he does the sailboats must stay out the traffic lane and out of the ferry?s way. The rule as stated is encouraging smaller boats to use the area between the edge of the traffic lane and the beach.

 

POWERBOAT RIGHT-OF-WAY: Power boaters need to consider that all this applies to them as well. If your power boat is under 20 meters (65 feet) you will also have to stay out of the way of vessels over 65 feet who are in the traffic lanes. Most experienced boating people observe Rule 8 the General Prudential Rule ? Action to Avoid Collision, and will try to steer well clear to avoid a collision situation. But, should a collision happen, then all the rules will be applied by your insurance company and the maritime lawyers with a vengeance.

 

VIOLATING THE RULES: Under the penalties (33 USC 1608 & 33 USC 2072) it says, Whoever operates a vessel subject to the Navigation Rules, in violation of the Navigation Rules, shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $5000 for each violation. This means that if the sport fishermen don?t keep out of the sailboat?s way they can be fined up to $5000 for each violation, and the dead fisherman after the encounter with the commercial vessel would owe a fine of $5000. Ouch! That?s right, only commercial fishing vessels, which are at that moment, restricted in their ability to maneuverability due to their fishing gear, have any right of way over sailboats or other craft.

 

This finishes the four part post?.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

22 September 2007

LICENSING PLEASURE BOATERS IS NOT THE ANSWER

(Third Post): Third of four parts, latest post on top

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

HANDS ON POWERBOAT TRAINING: There is nothing like having a mentor when learning a new skill. When we learned to ride a bicycle, we spent a long time with training wheels and our parents running alongside until we ?got the feel of it? and built up our confidence. It was the same with driver?s training, and boy did we sweat that Drivers Test at the DMV. So why is it then, that most people have never taken a real ?hands-on?, underway, powerboat training course?

 

As I stated in the prior posts, marine insurance companies report that more than a third of their claims are filed within the first 12 months of a policy being issued. The majority of these claims come from first time policy holders (translate new boaters), who had a collision with another boat, or with the dock while still in the marina. And, fully two thirds of all boating claims each year are filed within the first 24 months of the policy, and again nearly all were from bumping into other boats or docks in the marina.

 

After taking the classroom boating safety courses taught by the U.S. Power Squadron and the U.S. Coast Guard, it is essential to get some hands on underway training to learn the boating skills of docking, anchoring and ship handling, which can only be mastered during underway training with an experienced captain.

 

Yacht delivery skippers often provide Hands-On Boater Training in Basic Powerboat Operations and also in Coastal Cruising. For over 20 years I personally offered a three day coastal cruising seminar, aboard my yacht or the student?s yacht.

 

That seminar starts in SF Bay, travels through the Golden Gate and offshore to anchor in Drake?s Bay, near Point Reyes for the night where we watch some navigation videos and so some chart plotting. The following day we visit the Farallon Islands for lunch and then cruise down coast to Half Moon Bay. Where we tie up at the municipal docks and go ashore for supper at Ketch Joanne?s Restaurant. The third day we return to SF Bay through the Golden Gate on the morning Flood. This seminar allows for two crossings of the San Francisco Bar (including calculating the currents and wind conditions), anchoring the vessel in a coastal anchorage in Drake?s Bay, three separate dockside training sequences (once in San Francisco on departure, twice in Half Moon Bay while arriving and departing, and once more on arrival in San Francisco). The course also includes the necessary coastal piloting, charting and GPS work. At completion the student qualifies as a Coastal Boat Skipper, and is presented with a signed and dated certificate.

 

Similar seminars are offered by delivery skippers in most large port cities throughout the country, So why not take advantage of them.

 

More tomorrow?..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

20 September 2007

LICENSING PLEASURE BOATERS IS NOT THE ANSWER (Second Post): second post of four parts, latest post on top

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

SECOND - RATHER THAN A LICENSING LAW: I believe it is time to create a minimum qualification for boat operation. Not a law requiring captain?s licenses for pleasure boaters. But, instead, the insurance companies (and maybe the banks lending the money to buy the boats) should require boat owners to have a completion certificate from a valid boating safety course prior to issuing any insurance policy or loaning money on the purchase of a boat.

 

One curious fact is this: Marine insurance companies report that more than a third of their claims are filed within the first 12 months of a policy being issued. The majority of these claims come from first time policy holders (translate new boaters), who had a collision with another boat, or with the dock while still in the marina.

 

And, further, fully two thirds of all boating claims each year are filed within the first 24 months of the policy, and again nearly all were from bumping into other boats or docks in the marina. One has to wonder if these claims come from the same two thirds of the boating public that never took a boating class?

 

But by simply working together with the individual state legislatures the Marine insurance industry could quickly solve this problem:

?         First, the States should make it illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to operate a power boat of any horsepower. They do that with cars already.

?         Second, the States should also make it illegal for anyone under the age of 12 to operate a non-motorized sailboat or rowboat.

?         Third, the insurance companies should simply REFUSE to issue an insurance policy for a motorboat unless the owner has a completion certificate from the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Boating Skills and Seamanship Course, or the U.S. Power Squadron Boating Course. They already won?t issue a Car Insurance policy unless you have a driver?s license, so what is so difficult here?.

?         Finally, the policy should only cover accidents which occur when the boat is operated by that insured owner, or another adult (over the age of 16) who also has a completion certificate from the boating class. 

 

This is only logical. Most of us took driver?s training before we got our car driver?s license, so why not require at least as much to promote pleasure boating safety.

 

Currently, the insurance companies merely give a 10% to 15% discount on insurance premiums to boating safety course graduates. Finally, personal water craft operators are now required by law in California to complete a boating safety course,??. but only after they get ticketed for a violation??. Why not just require this basic education for everybody up front.

 

Continued tomorrow????.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

18 September 2007

LICENSING PLEASURE BOATERS IS NOT THE ANSWER

(First Post):

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

This is a long subject which I am going to cover over four posts:

 

FIRST - A STORY THAT ILLISTRATES THE PROBLEM: The other day we passed a bass boat anchored in the middle of the shipping channel of the San Joaquin River, unaware that it is illegal to anchor and fish in a navigable channel.

 

The main channel is reserved for commercial vessels only. Rule 9 - Narrow Channel Rule of the Navigation Rules is very specific:

?A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway?. And it also says, ?Every vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow channel.? 

Courts interpret that as ?Only commercial vessels which have lost power can anchor in a channel and only as an emergency move?.

 

We also noticed a large cargo ship, about a mile away approaching up river at 16 knots accompanied by two tugs. At 16 knots the ship would close the distance in less than four minutes. We diverted our course into the shallow waters just outside the main channel, as required by law to allow the commercial ship, constrained by her draft, to have sufficient room to maneuver in the narrow channel.

 

But, the bass fishermen literally asleep at the helm, just remained anchored dead center in the channel with the cargo ship bearing down on them at 16 knots !!!!

 

Both fishermen saw the cargo ship coming, but did nothing??Maybe remembering something fuzzy they heard at the pub once about, ?Fishermen have the right of way?, and so were thinking, ?He has to go around us?, and never realizing that the narrow channel prevents the ship from going around them.

 

Under the law, the cargo ships captain is the up bound vessel, and because the fishermen are not showing a black ?anchor ball? he is forced to assume that they are not anchored and are in fact underway, and so are going to follow the rules and move to the side of the channel, as all vessels under 65 feet legally must do.

 

But, the anglers just sit there like drunk drivers parked on a railroad crossing.

 

About three minutes from collision, the ship sounds five short whistle blasts. This is the internationally recognized ?danger signal?, but, because they don?t know what this signal means they keep fishing. And, just like the railroad train whistling at a crossing, he will not stop because he cannot stop.

 

Finally, at about a quarter of a mile out, now less than 60 seconds from collision, theship whistles the five blasts again, but quite a bit more urgently.

 

Suddenly, the fishermen realize that their lives are in imminent danger, and with the lines still over the side one of them scrambles to get the anchor in, as the other tries to get the motor started.

 

Luckily, the motor kicks to life on the first pull and they manage to surf aside on the ship?s bow wave, narrowly saving their own lives.

 

But, as the ship disappears up river, the fools finally stop yelling and shaking their fists, and then amazingly they begin to again reset their anchor at the center of the railroad crossing !!

 

Any professional mariner will tell you something like this happens about four times every day, and most would like to see a pleasure boat operator?s licensing law?

 

Actually, only one third of boaters are responsible enough to have actually taken a Power Squadron or Coast Guard Auxiliary safe boating class before trying to skipper a boat. But, it is the un-responsible two thirds who refuse to make a study of it and go boating strictly for fun (usually toting a six pack) who create all the problems.  Continued tomorrow????.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 August 2007

BOAT HAULING, SLINGS & SAFETY

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Seeing the spectacular photos of the boat falling from the slings into the water (posted on MadMariner last week). illustrates that if the slings were merely tied together, or if they had been using enough slings to properly support the vessel?s structure, this accident would have been avoided. Yet, it is up to the boat?s owner and their Marine Surveyor, who is acting as the owner?s agent, to insist on certain safety practices, but, some yards feel that, This is my yard and we?ll do it my way. Unfortunately, that kind of attitude eventually creates an owner?s response of I?ll see you in court.

 

The slings should always be tied together. This is supposed to be a standard practice, but in my experience, which includes all three U.S. coasts, during haul outs on slings, they tie the slings together at less than a third of the yards unless you actually insist. The Yard Manager may tell you, ?We always tie the slings together?, with an indignant tone of voice. But, all too often he is unaware that his lift foreman is not doing this. This accident happened in a foreign port where they don?t have the same safety standards. But even in a US yard, you or your Surveyor should be there for the haul to insist that foreman stop the rig just before the hull finally clears the water, and ties the slings together.

 

The forces tending to cause the slings to separate are initially minimal, and if the slings are properly placed, so that the boat is successfully lifted out of the water without slipping, these forces only occur later when the lift is in horizontal motion rolling through the yard. Honestly, nothing will happen 99 percent of the time, even without tying the slings together. But, there are exceptions. The slings on the boat in the photo were subject to these horizontal forces when the boat was swung out over the side and began to slip. Yet, these forces are slight in the beginning and it only takes a minimal amount of restraint to keep the slings in place. However, once they start to separate then the process accelerates and results in what happened in the photo.

 

Another neglected safety item which shows up in the photo is the number of slings. This was a large hull an anytime the boat is over 35 feet in length, the hull is so heavy that using only two slings will create point loads which may damage the hull structure. The boat in the photo was estimated to be 65,000 lbs, so each sling was carrying 32,500 lbs. The unloading crane operator would check to see that his two straps could support that load with proper margins of safety, but, he does not have the naval architectural or structural background to adequately project how a 32,500 lb point load will affect the keel. At a minimum this would have caused a weakening of the keel itself right at the base of the keel, so the boat was already damaged before it fell. I have seen many new GRP hulls with dents in the keel where the straps were placed during the last haul out.

 

Most travel lifts in the US have a third or fourth strap location on the lifting strong-back on each side. But, to put these extra straps on, requires the lift to be idle for about 15 minutes before and after your haul. Time is money, and that half hour is long enough for the yard to haul and place another boat up on the hard, so they are very reluctant to do this extra work even though they have already charged you for your boats extra length.

 

So you must insist. For boats over 35 ft three straps should be required, for boats over 50 feet four should be the norm. Also, if the boat is of wooden construction a 30 footer needs three straps and a 40 footer will need four. Wooden boats over 45 feet should not be hauled with straps but should be dry docked or hauled on a marine railway.

 

Later, when the boat is set on the hard, before the slings are removed, the owner and his surveyor should also observe the keel block installation and the setting of the supports. And make sure that the bilge supports are chained together with the corresponding support on the other side. This is so that they also don?t begin that slow shifting outboard similar to the straps slipping off. This shifting is caused later as you or yard workers move about in the boat during the work, your movements set up forces laterally that cause the supports to shift until the boat finally falls. Many shipyards do not chain them together unless you again insist, and some will adamantly only chain the forward bilge supports together arguing that the rear supports can?t slip sideways because they are under a horizontal portion of the bilge. But, if you have a modified deep vee hull there is no portion of the bottom that is horizontal forward or aft.

 

The people on board in this photo demonstrated the difference in safety thinking in foreign countries, and  reminds owners to be especially careful in any foreign yard or port during any lifting operation. In the US there would never be anyone on board during a lift, simply because industrial safety codes do not allow that sort of endangerment of workers. This is why you, as the owner have to insist on extra straps and tying them together, because in a US yard, it is only your boat that will get damaged if these extras are not done, and the yard has insurance for that sort of claim.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

06 August 2007

SEA LEGENDS: Floating Obstructions, Leviathans, and Sea Monsters

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Previously, (blog 16 July 2004), I posted on this oft repeated myth of submerged shipping containers floating  just below the surface.

 

Disinformation seems to have more cachet than the naked truth, especially if it is a little scary and can be discussed in the pub after the cruise. Yet, never in 40 years at sea have I actually encountered a case of the real McCoy, an actual submerged container strike.

 

Yes, it has happened on rare?.very rare occasions, and has been properly reported in the news. But, when you consider the tens of thousands of vessels cruising the world?s oceans every day, and that the number of verified container strikes can be counted on one hand, it is obvious that the odds of you falling overboard mid ocean and being swallowed by a whale, are actually more likely than your chances of hitting a container.

 

Yet, there never seems to be a shortage of self-minted experts passing rumors off as truth at every yacht club, ship?s chandlery or waterfront dive. So, an amazing amount of good solid disinformation on many subjects abounds on the waterfront and is generally accepted as learned wisdom.

 

Horror sea legends have been making the rounds for decades about unsuspecting yachts sinking in mid-ocean after striking a floating container, or running into a floating log off the Canadian coast which shattered their hull.

 

But, if you take any time to think about it, there is no one that you personally know who has ever even met anyone else who actually survived such a crash with a floating container. Surely, if there was such a survivor they would make the boat show speaking circuit for at least a few years, but none ever has.

On-the-other-hand, it could be that no one ever lived to tell about it because, ?dead men tell no tales???., but, isn?t that?s the same reasoning the rumor mongers were using about sailors who had supposedly sailed off the edge of the earth, before Columbus put a stop to that waterfront myth.

 

Honestly, in my Blog on 10/05/2002, I actually wrote the following words.

 

?Then 3 to 4 days west of San Francisco they struck a solid object in the sea. They were running along in 30 knots of wind and 12 foot seas making about 7 knots, when WHACK they slowed to about 2 knots as something went under them, which felt like a speed bump. They sustained a dollar sized crack on the bow, and later in drydock found out that one blade of the propeller, which wasn?t turning at the time, had been bent over 90 degrees, only a minor scrape down the port side bottom indicated what they might have  struck?

 

But, simple analysis of the way that this item struck the hull forward and then aft with a simple scrape down the side of the keel is similar to the reaction of a vertical deadhead tree or piling. Floating at the surface. ?? As it is struck it moves downward, then floats back to the surface aft and makes a second strike??..I have investigated several hull strikes of mysterious submerged objects by both commercial and pleasure craft, only to find that the mysterious objects were vertical deadheads (wooden objects either trees or pilings), but in each case they did not result in shattered hulls and sinkings.,

 

Truthfully, in my 40 years at sea and over 130,000 cruising miles I have never sighted one of these rumored floating containers. After several decades on the U.S. North Pacific coast and the waters off British Columbia I have seen thousands of floating logs, but I have never personally struck one, not even when cruising at night.

 

In the final analysis it seems that all the available evidence for these deadly collisions with floating containers, and deadheads comes from the hear-say of sooth-sayers with less sea experience and who were non-participants. So, just how much of this disinformation hype is to be believed?

 

But, recently when I came across the following in an e-mail from the Single-Handed TransPac fleet as they made their way across the North Pacific to Hawaii in July of 2000, I thought I finally had the evidence I had been searching for. The E-mail came from 1,100 nautical miles off shore half way through the race.

 

Mark Deepe aboard Alchera wrote that another yacht Koinonia had come, ?across something yesterday that makes every single-hander shudder - a huge steel floating mooring buoy for a ship, covered with tires, just cut loose and drifting around. Jim popped his head out of the cockpit just in time to see this massive thing go by. If he had hit it square on, it could have been a serious situation?. Mark went on to say,?That's one of my biggest worries, hitting a large solid object, particularly lost shipping containers. I once read a report about how many lost containers were floating around in the ocean at any one time and it was a scary number. Hit one of those at speed and there's a good chance you're going down.?

 

Eureka !!! Finally, I had found real proof in mid-ocean of the legendary floating nightmare.

 

But, after a few moments of infatuated euphoria, feeling like an anthropologist who has found the missing link, I realized that, although the e-mail?s author had mentioned his own personal dread of floating containers, and the other skipper had seen a scary steel object floating in mid-ocean, this still wasn?t one of those legendary death trap submerged steel containers???

 

 No, instead it was merely a mooring buoy which had gone adrift. In fact, it had only reminded him of the feared floating container, and was not in fact the genuine article.

 

After a little more level headed thinking I realized that there was another problem. Mooring buoys are designed to float forever, and this one had accidentally gotten adrift from its mooring. A cargo container, on the other hand, is not designed to float. Also, the mooring buoy was fully visible floating on the surface. Frankly, it just was not at all like the haunting, semi-submerged, floating container villains which spawn so many unverified sea legends.

 

THEY DON?T FLOAT: Internet research revealed that containers are not built to float. They are weather-tight to keep out the elements of wind and spray, but not water-tight. Consequently, nearly all of them sink almost immediately. Their ventilation openings prevent air from being trapped inside. If a container does continue to float after being lost overboard it would be a rare occurrence caused by the buoyancy of the cargo that it happens to contain. Since many things are shipped packed in Styrofoam the cargo could be buoyant enough to float the container for a period of time. However, while Styrofoam seems to be bulky when we unpack our latest computer, it is actually full of great voids. If you break up the Styro it all fits in a little bag. Consequently, in each packing crate there is not enough styrofoam to float the heavy object being shipped, much less the steel shipping container. So except in rare cases, the truth is that as the cardboard and paper packing becomes waterlogged there would soon be insufficient buoyancy remaining in the Styrofoam to keep a container afloat after a day or two.

 

NOT THAT MANY ARE LOST: according a number of careful studies published on this subject, less than 2000 containers are lost each year worldwide, and the majority sink in 24 to 48 hours. Occasionally, one could stay afloat for a month or more. But, there are a total of 97,745,706 square nautical miles of ocean worldwide, even if all containers that are lost annually each stayed afloat for an average of one week, then on any given day there would be only 38 containers floating in the world?s oceans. But, that is only one container in every 2,572,255 square nautical miles. Looking at it another way, the United States has an area of 2,732,619 square nautical miles so there would be only one floating container in each piece of ocean the size of the entire United States.

 

Now, what are the chances of your 10 foot wide boat, hitting that 40 foot long container, in an area the size of the United States. Statistically, your chance of hitting it is simply non-existent. So, next time you hear a braggart in the grille room with ten years experience sailing on weekends puffing about how, ?he almost hit a floating container?, e-mail him this article and call his bluff.

 

FLOATING LOGS: On the other hand, floating logs, or dead heads seem to be a clear and present danger sighted by almost every pleasure boater of wide experience. I have never struck one, but the several persons I have interviewed who struck dead heads only tell of damage to their boat, bent propellers, scratches to the hull, and none speak of catastrophic collisions, sinking or death.

 

Most floating logs would strike a boat hull at an angle and glance off with a loud and scary thump. Also floating logs tend to lie across the direction of the swell pattern, spending most of their time in the troughs of the waves. Consequently, if you are not plowing directly into the waves or heading directly downwind which is never a good course, you will strike any floating log with a glancing blow, which won?t do more damage than a large scratch.

 

REAL DEAD HEADS (not the singing group): Most floating logs escape from log booms and are already dressed for the mill with roots or branches already trimmed off. The only floating log to actually fear is a huge tree washed out to sea in a storm with a heavy rock filled root ball which might be floating vertically just below the surface. That vertical submerged tree, when struck, would not glance off and might hole your bottom. Similarly a broken off piling that had some concrete or other weight on one end causing it to float vertically, could also become a nearly immovable object. But, even here the damage may be merely negligible.

 

For instance I interviewed a commercial captain who was operating a large dinner cruise vessel on SF Bay in Raccoon Straight on the north side of Angel Island in 1997 when he hit such a floating piling in a vertical position. This occurred off Ayala Cove in over 100 feet of water, and he was making about 6 knots with his steel hulled, 185 foot ship. The bow struck the piling a glancing blow, and the piling was pushed down by the ship?s bow, leaving only a scratch on the hull. Then, the piling resurfaced under the ship?s shaft where it caused the stuffing box to start leaking. The only result was a significant leak in the propeller shaft stuffing box, which the bilge pump could easily handle. All of this was easily repaired, but did require a drydocking. No one was even knocked down or injured by the collision, and the dinner cruise could continue un-abated, but with the bilge pump coming on and off more than normal.

 

Consequently, even as a boating journalist covering the news, I have never heard a credible, verified incident of anyone hitting a floating container or even sighting one, and of the dead head collisions I have been able to investigate, none qualify as even approaching disaster status. But, wherever there are seafarers, I suppose there will always be sea stories of leviathans and sea monsters prowling the deep.  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

31 July 2007

ALUMINUM HULL PAINT SYSTEMS

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

The choices in bottom paints for aluminum hulls are more dependent upon the boat?s prior paint history, and its compatibility with the new paint system being considered. This is because, copper is not compatible with an aluminum hull. Copper is more noble than aluminum, and the aluminum loses electrons to the copper when the boat is immersed in salt water. This incompatibility causes problems if the prior primer and barrier coatings were improperly applied. And, generally speaking, the problems are the same no matter what kind of aluminum the boat is made of because both 5052 series (usually used for inland boats) and the 5086 series (usually found on ocean boats) have the same corrosion resistance characteristics.

 

For many years we enjoyed anti-fouling paints specially formulated for aluminum and steel hulls which used TBT (tri-butyl-tin), a wonderful biocide which killed all the marine growths, and lasted from four to eight years, between bottom paint jobs. But, it also killed all the marine growths in the marina and the surrounding waterways as well, so it is now permanently banned for use on pleasure boats by most maritime nations due to the toxins it introduces into the marine environment. Although, TBT is still approved for use in U.S. waters on larger commercial vessels over 24 meters (81 feet) long, we are left with only two choices for our aluminum pleasure boats.

 

The best choice is a modified epoxy, co-polymer incorporating cuprous-oxide which is longest lasting and has the best anti-fouling characteristics, but which requires a new white metal hull or one that has been sand blasted down to bare metal. Then we begin with a proper epoxy barrier coating followed by a paint similar to Interlux Fiberglass Bottom Coat, or Interlux Super Bottom Coat. These contain enough copper to last two or three years, with out renewal, and recently Interlux introduced their Micron 66 with Biolux.

 

Going this route, with a barrier coat followed by a copper paint requires a well constructed and functioning zinc galvanic protection system. We can?t use this copper without a proper barrier coat, and a good zinc system, because the copper is a more ?noble? metal than the aluminum and if left unprotected the aluminum hull deteriorates instead of the copper bottom paint sluffing off.

 

The second choice, which is the only economical choice for use with a previously painted boat, unless we want to sand blast down to bare metal and add a barrier coat, is a soft sluffing paint like Trilux II. Trilux II, uses a Copper Thiocyanate, which is more compatible with aluminum, but only lasts about a year, and must be renewed annually.

 

To find out if the prior paints on a used hull  are compatible involves investigating your hulls prior paint history. This is best done by contacting the previous owners. They should have paint receipts from the last haul out, which will tell you what is on the hull. If that is information is not available, then you need to scrape off the bottom paint to see what is underneath. Another idea is to fined out where he had it painted and determine which paint systems they were using in those years.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

25 July 2007

BOTTOM PAINT - MARINE ANTI FOULING

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Bottom paints have changed so much in the past few years that when it is time to renew the bottom paint you may find the choice difficult at best. Different paints have different purposes, and with a wood or fiberglass hull the choice of bottom paint type is based on how you plan to use the boat which is discussed later.

 

But, the first thing to understand with antifouling is biocides. Should you use copper bottom paint, and does it pollute the environment?. Well, honestly, except for very expensive silicone paint systems like Interlux Intersleek, used by commercial vessels, almost every bottom paint available is actually a copper bottom paint. Copper is the only effective deterrent to marine growths & barnacles, which it is still legal to use in U.S and most foreign waters. The only other substance ever used in garden variety, anti-fouling paints was TBT (tri-butyl-tin). It is now banned by most maritime nations.

 

Today, we?re left with two choices in copper bottom paints, water permeable (leaching) and impermeable (ablative) or self-polishing. These are available in four types of paints; sloughing (pronounced SLUFFING) soft rosin paints, vinyl-based sandable hard rosin finishes, modified epoxy finishes, and the newer water based paints, which are available in both ablative (self-polishing) paints, or as hard, water permeable (leaching) finishes.

 

Traditional anti-fouling paints contain copper or copper oxide powder, which is dispersed in a vehicle that cures by combining with oxygen in the air. To make it fluid enough to be painted on solvents are added. These solvents evaporate before the oxidizing cure of the paint begins. The curing occurs while the paint seems to be dry but still feels ?tacky?. It is important to follow the manufacturer?s instructions for time between coats. If the second coat is put on too soon, the first coat never cures and may not perfectly adhere.

 

Almost all paint systems available on the market, except some of the vinyls, are modifications of this basic, oil based resin vehicle. These products are described as alkyd, oil, modified epoxy or hard epoxy finishes, with no distinct dividing lines between types.

 

Even the more recent water based paints, still use an oil-based resin as the vehicle, the water is merely the solvent with droplets of the oil-based resin suspended in the water. After application, the water solvent evaporates, the resin will coalesce, and the paint cures. Once cured the water based paints are just as waterproof as petroleum solvent paints (oil based). The great difference is that they provide easier clean-up and reduced emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC?s).

 

SURFACE PREPARATION AND HOW TO APPLY THE COATS: Here again I must refer you to the manufacturer?s instructions. Each paint is completely different from the others in its chemistry and in how it reacts with the hull, the water, and the marine organisms. Therefore, while most can be applied with a brush, each paint does have a unique method of application which needs to be followed for optimum results. For this article I have relied on my personal knowledge and experience with Interlux paint systems, as applied to aluminum hulls, but over the years I have used Woolsey, Pettit, Awlgrip and West Marine?s paint systems, all of which have similar products and results. My current mahogany cruiser has a red ?Trinidad? modified epoxy bottom paint manufactured by Pettit.

 

Interlux Fiberglass Bottom Coat, or Interlux Super Bottom Coats are properly applied over an epoxy bottom coat. This is done by giving the prior bottom paints a pressure wash, then degreasing with Solvent Wash 202, sanding with coarse to medium grit emery cloth, or better yet  sandblasting to white metal. Next remove all the sanding residue, priming with one cost of Interprotect 200E, fairing smooth with Watertite filler, and repriming with four coats of Interprotect 2000E. Followed with the chosen bottom coat. Availabel in red, white, blue and black.

 

Trilux II is properly applied by giving the prior bottom paints a pressure wash, then degreasing with Solvent Wash 202, sanding with coarse to medium grit emery cloth, remove the sanding residue, prime with Primocon, fairing smooth with Watertite filler, and re-prime with Primocon, before applying three coats of Trilux II. Available in red, white, blue & black.

 

Hopefully, these recommendations are helpful, but they remain general in nature, and because marine fouling organisms vary geographically, paints that perform well in one location may perform much worse 20 miles up the same coast. Consequently, it is always best to rely on your local yard foreman?s years of experience. If you read up on bottom paints before you talk to him you will be better able to understand what he is telling you.

 

For more information on aluminum painting systems read chapter 14 of Boatbuilding with Aluminum by Stephen F. Pollard (c.1993, International Marine/McGraw-Hill) I also recommend the Interlux Boat Painting Guide, available in the paint department at your chandlery.

 

IDEAL PAINT SYSTEMS FOR NON-METALLIC BOATS: Which bottom paint is best for you depends on two things, what you use your boat for, and whether you keep it in the water when it is laid up.  Use caution when changing bottom paint systems. Do read the paint manufacturer?s instructions, before your make your purchase, and if the new paint is not compatible with the old, plan to strip all the paint off down to a bare hull before starting with the new paint system.

 

LARGE CRUISING MOTOR YACHTS: In colder climates where motor yachts are hauled out for the winter, the conditions are ideally suited to old fashioned soft sloughing paints, which are the least expensive, and can be renewed each spring before launch. The least expensive ones, which last about one season, are the most economical, but also the most labor intensive because you  need to renew them each year.

 

In warmer climates most cruising power vessels stay in the water all the time. Consequently, They are better suited to a modified epoxy, and one, which has been formulated to last several seasons. Such paints will have a slower biocide release, with enough copper for two or three years, like Woolsey Neptune, Pettit Trinidad or Trinidad SR, Interlux Fiberglass Bottom Coat or Super Fiberglass Bottom Coat. Of course these will cost more than the one season variety

 

CRUISING SAILBOATS: Will follow the same recommendations as for large cruising motor yachts above. If hauled out for winter storage for longer than two months, then the annual renewal of a sloughing paint is best. But, if kept in the water all year then a modified epoxy with a multiple year life is in order.

 

TRAILERABLE SPORT FISHING BOATS & POWER CRUISERS: Since these vessels will be stored on trailers out of the water, and subject to scraping on trailer rollers and having repeated pressure washings, they can?t use the less expensive paints. Old fashioned sloughing paints are too soft, and even modified epoxy leaching paints will lose their effectiveness if left out of the water for a couple of months. Consequently, vinyl-based paints, which provide a smooth sandable finish, like VC Offshore (Teflon), or Woolsey Vinelast are what is called for.

 

Vinyl paints are not only hard, but also tough and difficult to remove, which makes them ideal for trailerable boats. Again, if you have already used other paints, you can not switch to vinyl without stripping down to a bare hull. The solvents in the vinyl are so strong they will lift most other paints.

 

TRAILERABLE RACING & CRUISING SAILBOATS: Vinyl-based paints, which provide a smooth sandable finish, like Woolsey Vinelast, or Interlux Baltoplate Racing Finish or Interlux VC Offshore (Teflon), are the thing for racing hulls. With these you have the same concerns as discussed above for trailerable power boats.

 

If your local government restricts emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC?s), as they do in California and Michigan, you may want to use one of the newer water based hard leaching paint like Woolsey Hydrocoat (Teflon).

 

TRAILERABLE SAILBOATS WITH EXTENDED IMMERSION: If you plan to put your boat in the water for a 90 to 120 day racing season, and still want some anti-fouling capability without losing your hard racing finish. Look into Interlux VC-17m, a thin-coat, Teflon and copper ?speed skin? paint, which has limited anti-fouling capabilities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

17 July 2007

Cruising Boat Insurance 101

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Getting the lowest price with boat insurance may mean you are also buying the minimum coverage. Pleasure boat insurance from insurers like Allstate, State Farm, and Farmers, may cost less, but may not be real marine policies. Insurers who are expert in car and home policies may not provide complete marine coverage. Auto or home insurance coverage is heavily controlled and standardized by State and Federal laws, but boat insurance policies are not standardized, and coverage can vary widely depending upon who sold the policy and how well informed the buyer was.

 

Car and homeowner?s insurance companies have always insured boats under 26 feet which they see as an appendage to the car similar to a camping trailer. They offered attractive premium saving options of adding the boat policy to the existing homeowner?s policy. But recently, these same companies began marketing policies for larger cruising boats. But, any premium savings are lost when you later have a marine damage claim, because home owner?s add-on policies often limit, or simply don?t provide, normal marine related coverage which are standard on real marine policies, like ?salvage recovery? (see below).

 

Such coverage differences become acute, when you are cruising to Mexico or the South Pacific, but there are real ocean cruising insurance companies, which provide excellent coverage world wide. Even if you never leave U.S. Waters, you should buy a real marine policy.

 

The best marine policy will depend a lot on what you plan to use your boat for. Blue Water Insurance Co. (www.bluewaterins.com 800-655-9224 west coast 800=866-8906 east coast) sells great coverage for cruiser?s that is expandable to cover the whole world when you want to cruise foreign. Heritage Marine Insurance company (www.heritagemarineinsurance.com, 800-959-3047) and Hagerty Marine Insurance (800-762-2628, www.hagerty.com) understand classic wooden boats, which the auto companies actually think are a bad risk.

 

Average boaters, using their fiberglass boat only in U.S. waters, and occasionally in Canada or the Bahamas, should begin looking for a policy at, West Marine Insurancewww.westmarine.com (800) 937-8895, or Boat US Insurance. www.BoatUS.com  (800) 395-2628. Both of which understand special needs of boaters, and offer policies satisfying the criteria listed below. 

 

When you buy a policy also check up on the insurance ?carrier?, which is the actual underwriting company providing the coverage and not the one selling it. You can check this with AM Best ratings at www.ambest.com/ratings Look for an A rating or better. And consider the following items when shopping for boat insurance:

 

1.     Consider agreed value vs. cash value. These are the two main choices for boat insurance and depreciation is what sets them apart. An ?agreed value? policy costs more but it pays more. It will cover the stated value of the policy in the event of a loss. For example, a total loss on a $50,000 agreed value policy would pay you $50,000. More importantly, a partial loss on an agreed value policy, replaces most items on a ?new for old? basis, with little or no depreciation. An ?actual cash value? policy costs less but will only pay up to the actual cash value at the time the boat or property was lost. Depreciation is factored in on all losses. This type of policy is better suited to less expensive boats or when you aren?t concerned with a total loss.

 

2.     Next consider ?salvage coverage?. If you have an ?agreed value? policy, stay away from those that limit salvage coverage. That is the amount that may be paid to a salver to reward him for saving your boat from peril and bringing it safely to a repair yard. You want a policy that provides salvage coverage up to the same amount as the boats ?agreed value?, and also does not subtract these salvage dollars, or the policy?s deductible from the total amount available to fix the damage. Under admiralty laws the salver is often entitled to the total value of the vessel. For example, a $50,000 agreed value policy should have $50,000 available to salvage the boat from the bottom of the ocean and then pay up to $50,000 for repairs. Otherwise you would end up short when replacing or repairing the boat because the admiralty court may require you to use some of your repair funds to pay off the salvage costs first, before you can begin repairs. Marine policies added to a homeowner?s policy almost always specifically avoid this risk.

 

3.     ?Hurricane deductibles?: Some policies also have ?hurricane deductibles? which are a significantly higher deductible for salvage and/or repairs related to named storms or hurricanes. Be sure that this dollar amount is acceptable to you; otherwise you could come up short again.

 

4.     Lastly, one size does not fit all. An older classic wooden sedan cruiser has entirely different requirements than an aluminum fishing boat, or a fiberglass racing sail boat, or a steel mega-yacht. Each has its own requirements, and these must be explained to you in understandable terms, in the policy. Do you need fuel spill coverage, hurricane haul-out assistance, and what about lightning damage? A good marine insurer will be expert in all of these things.

 

NOVICE BOATERS AND OLDER WOODEN BOATS: Experienced marine insurance companies will simply not insure boats over 30 years old, and many also refuse to insure older wooden boats, unless they belong to a very select group of clients, made up of experienced boaters, who own true classic yachts, most of whom are also members of the Antique and Classic Boat Society.

 

Also, no marine insurance companies will insure novice boaters who recently purchased a ?fixer-upper? older wooden boat, and for good reason. To keep their policies affordable insurers need to keep their claims at a minimum. Boat insurance claims statistics show that 60% of all claims come from new boaters during their first year of insurance, and 30% more come from boaters who are in their second year on the policy. That?s 90% of all claims from boaters with less than three years experience. As a result experienced marine companies simply will not insure folks with less than three years boating experience.

 

Instead of buying any older wooden motor yacht, with all maintenance they require, novice boaters should consider instead buying a 20 ft trailerable fiberglass runabout. Such a boat would better suit their limited budgets and they can save on moorage by keeping it in the garage or back yard, and they can insure it with a rider on their homeowner?s policy. Later, after they have acquired three years of insured ownership and operation of that ?starter boat?, they will be able to qualify for a real policy on a larger yacht. The insurance companies will be willing to take a risk on them because they will fit the profile of someone that is a good insurance risk. Also during the three year wait, they will have plenty of time to complete all the boating safety courses offered by the US Power Squadron or the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. At which point they will actually begin to be a qualified boater.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

13 June 2007

SIZE MATTERS

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

           

Get any group of boat owners talking and, the question often comes up, Which hull is better, a catamaran or a mono-hull?

 

Believers from both religions will recite their favorite gospel on how their chosen hull shape ? catamaran, tri-maran or mono-hull ? is obviously superior, as foretold by the ancient prophets. But the real answer is one that the zealots don?t like: it depends on what you want to do with the boat.

 

In my experience as a naval architect, neither hull is flatly superior. One of my recent tasks was to provide technical consultation for a design competition involving a multi-mission coastal patrol craft, which pairs off a mono-hull against a tri-maran. Our consensus is that the best hull form depends on the mission. When the work is offshore, the mono-hull performs best. When the work is inshore on lakes, bays and sounds, the tri-maran is a better match.

 

As a commercial captain, I skippered numerous craft of both types and found that neither hull is superior for all conditions on all waters. Instead, all hull forms are distinctly different animals, and each is designed to excel in different conditions.

 

Trying to determine which is superior is similar to debating whether pelicans or sea gulls are the better bird. Pelicans are great at fishing, but gulls are more useful for picking through garbage or decorating parked cars. On every city beach lurk some folks who are enraptured with the gulls, and ignore the pelicans. Likewise, many mono-hull lovers have never been aboard a multi-hull and tend to ignore them out of hand.

 

Unfortunately, die hard believers from both camps, ignorant of the virtues of the opposing hull form, and overlooking the evidence, often blindly imagine that all boaters have goals, needs and performance desires that match their own. And their arguments can be prejudicial.

 

An honest technical appraisal will show that the final decision as to the optimum hull form has little to do with speed and cost, two issues that tend to dominate the debate. Rather, the size of the vessel, its intended use and the waters on which it operates are the most important factors. And among those three, size is the most important.

 

There is nothing more exhilarating than sailing a small cat along a beach in an off-shore breeze, where the water is flat and the wind is strong. The performance is magnificent, and that kind of excitement can only be achieved in a small lightweight cat. But, as the fetch of the wind lengthens and the wind speeds increase, so do the rollers, and small cats can be difficult to operate in heavier seas.

 

To get the optimum ride, we might move up to those excellent Australian-bred International 18 Skiffs. These slightly heavier hulls utilize all the best features of catamarans and mono-hulls, with outriggers and hiking crewmembers, and they are designed to handle higher seas and stronger winds. But if the winds increase above 25 knots, or if we move into open ocean for a more extended passage, a large and heavily-built mono-hull is by far the best choice. People who favor ultra-light designs like to point out that their vessels cost less, and that the successful solo-circumnavigation racers are all ultra-lights, many of which are multi-hulled. But these boats also wear out after just one or two racing seasons, and most distance cruisers need vessels that will last a bit longer.

 

On the other hand, mono-hull people tend to cite the safety and performance their heavy hulls afford in a storm, but conveniently ignore the advantages of speed and a stable platform, which multi-hulls so easily provide on the calmer inshore waters. And isn?t that where most of us spend the majority of our cruising?

 

In summary, it is my opinion that nothing out-performs a large power cat for cruising on a river delta or protected inland bay. But for extended ocean cruising off shore, or inland sailing in a heavy chop, nothing keeps up with a large sailing mono-hull.

 

Personally, I?d like to own several of each.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

06 June 2007

Call of the Sea

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

           

My adolescent daughter got me to thinking one day as we were returning home from an afternoon cruise on a vintage 127-foot wooden schooner. As part of a crew of volunteers, we had hoisted 7,000 square feet of sail by hand to reach a thoroughly-enjoyable 13 knots across a fresh breeze. Near sundown, as we drove across the bridge over the San Francisco Bay, she looked out the window at a fleet of dinghies racing around the buoys and asked a pointed question.

 

Why would anyone want to do that? she mused. It just isn?t?grand?like the schooner.

 

Watching the wet fanny crowd in the dinghies, I had to agree that the competition was less than grand. It also begged an obvious question: why do we take up boating? It can?t be because we enjoy mucking out the bilge, changing the oil, swapping fuel filters, fighting rust and corrosion or any of the other myriad of chores we all do so often. So what is it really?

 

I learned to sail in similar dinghy fleets and, as a wet seat of the pants skipper, I get the appeal. Yet, I also understood the wisdom in my daughter?s question. Hadn?t I named my first dinghy Man-o?-War? Hadn?t I imagined that its short 12 feet as a ship-of-the-line, alongside Lord Admiral Nelson?s 74-gun ship HMS Victory? Hadn?t I read dozens of C.S. Forrester?s Horatio Hornblower novels as a teenage sailor, waiting for the week to pass between Friday night races?

 

To me, ?grand? has always been part of the equation, even when my circumstances were not. I have always been struck by the passion of the epic voyage, complete with visions of Jason of the Argonauts returning home as a wizened old man. I wanted the honor and reputation that comes with being a great sailor and an old salt.

 

Unfortunately, few of the activities conducted by the local yacht clubs, one-design fleets, world-class racing circuits and the America?s Cup provide much of that.

 

When the first America?s Cup was won, it was the racing sailors themselves who designed a better boat, sailed it across the Atlantic from New York to the Isle of Mann and then won the race around the island. This was the stuff of hero legends. But, in today?s ocean races, the crew is subjected to an endurance test in order to prove whose ultra-light equipment can last long enough to get across the finish line. Forget about the grand salons in the majestic schooners that raced in the early part of the last century. Most racers don?t even have proper bunks, heads or and showers anymore. In America?s Cup racing, the owners no longer even sail the boats. Instead, they scour the globe to find the best racing sailors to send in as ringers, while they watch through binoculars and video displays from the clubhouse or the fantail of a megayacht. It isn?t much better on the local level. Winning a Laser competition on a man-made reservoir or a keelboat race on the bay doesn?t stir my blood. Admittedly, the camaraderie after the race in the clubhouse grill room can be fun. But, a similar time can be had at any weekend rave, without the expense of buying and maintaining a Farr 40.

 

In the end, the call of the sea that I heard was never about winning. It was about the passion of the sailing itself, and there remains one aspect of boating that is still able to deliver that golden fleece: the process of buying your own boat, making it ready for passage and setting sail in the spirit of Joshua Slocum, who completed the first solo circumnavigation in 1898. Most people call it cruising, and it is a doable dream. I tend to envision far off international ports, what old mariners called sailing foreign. But, maybe you think about Mexico?s west coast, the islands of the Caribbean or the ICW.

 

Whatever the vision, it has arguably never been more attainable. Modern boats and equipment afford an unsurpassed level of comfort and safety at prices that, though they may occasionally inspire profanity, make boating more accessible than it ever has been before .If you are like most of us, there is a great deal of work to be done between now and the day when you cast off your lines. There are skills to learn, projects to complete and problems to fix. And that is what this column is about: practical skills and information that will help get you on the water and keep you safe when you are there.

 

It may not be what drew you to boating, but there may just be some grandeur in changing the oil and the filters after all. If you?ve been following your dream by sailing foreign, or are working towards that dream, log on and tell me your thoughts.

 

Check out www.joshuaslocumsocietyintl.org about single-handed circumnavigations (62 people have done it alone over the last 110 years, and also check out www.circumnavigatirsclub.org regarding  circumnavigations who did not go alone. This 102 year old society has 960 current members.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

08 January 2007

NO HONOR AMONG THEIVES

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

What has happened to honor and courtesy? In our hurry up overscheduled world, it seems   everyone is in such a hurry, that their first thought is, me first. When you go to change lanes on the freeway, don?t use your turn signal to indicate the lane change. If you do, the cars in the other lane will habitually speed up so as not to let you in. Even if the other driver is distracted and talking on the cell phone, they will automatically speed up if you indicate a lane change. But, when they speed by moments later, after cutting you off, if you look over you will discover that they look like normal kind people, who would not have acted that way if they met you in business or at a party. Is everyone so overscheduled, or is our state so overcrowded that people feel they need to cut in front just to survive?

 

Sometimes that freeway commuter attitude carries over into boating, and there are boaters who forget common courtesy when they are out on the water. Boaters are out to have fun and maybe they have had a few beers and are trying to unwind. But, it pays to be courteous when you are out in your boat because you never know who it is your being discourteous to.

 

For example, a few weeks ago on a Saturday night, I was motoring up to the ship yard dock where my power cruiser was scheduled for an early haul out to suit high tide the following morning. The sign at the shipyards finger slips said DOCKS FOR SHIPYARD ONLY, but there was only one berth left because boaters wishing to join the Saturday night beer crowd at the local pub, had illegally parked in all the open berths. My adult daughter and I were a bit tired after a 57 mile run down from the delta at slow speed on one engine, because the second engine was overheating.

 

We motored in close to the slips to check the lines of the other vessels tied up to the shipyard docks, which sometimes cross over to the opposite dock, and might be in our way. Observing that my intended berth was clear, Using both engines I then began to turn around and back into what was the only remaining slip.

 

But, while I was turning to back in, a large sailboat crowded past me and into the slip where I was intending to dock. As he did so the skipper said, Well you had your chance.

 

Being myself a lifetime sailor and having also owned power cruisers as well as sailboats for the last 20 years, I know the ignorance, which lies on both sides of the stink boat/sailboat divide. And, this sailboat skipper was obviously clueless to the fact that motor yachts sometimes back into a slip. But, he was also overly anxious to get to the pub for another beer, and there was only one of those illegal slips left. So, he barged recklessly ahead.

 

My daughter, visiting from out of town said, Are they always this rude in San Francisco Bay? I responded that it was obvious from his lack of manners that he was not SF born and bred. Indeed, as we noticed from his transom, his hailing port was not my beloved city. Then, left with no choice but to tie up in the entrance to the boat lift I did so.

 

As we next came alongside on the other side of the same finger slip that he was tied to, Mr. Personified Rudeness, was now beginning to realize that I was a shipyard client with the right to park there, and that he was parking illegally. Now, he came over and offered to assist with our dock lines. But, I politely refused, knowing that volunteer dock line handlers often have no idea what you are trying to do, that sailors most often do not understand twin screw docking operations. And, usually if you throw them your line they just make it fast immediately, which often results in the boat getting scratched. So as is my usual policy we did our own line handling.

 

As I finished cleating the bow line to the dock, he approached me to say, Gee, I thought that you had decided not to dock after you nosed in. 

 

Yeah, sure.  I said, thinking to myself, Does he really think I did not just now see him cut between me and the dock, and had he had already forgotten that he yelled You had your chance? But, then maybe he had already consumed enough brewsky to make him oblivious to his own actions.

 

You know, I said, We are actual shipyard clients on the schedule to be hauled, and we are not just coming in to illegally park and get a beer. And, like the sign says these docks are for SHIPYARD ONLY.

 

Yeah, but we?ll only be here a little while and then leave, he replied, as he finished locking up his boat and headed for the bar. As if he envisioned that any legitimate shipyard clients should wait off the docks for a couple hours until he finished a pitcher or two.

 

It was about five minutes later, as I locked up my boat, that Mr. Rudeness came sprinting down the dock. Hey, it just dawned on me, he exclaimed, Aren?t you Captain Hugenot, I recognized you from your picture on your column.

 

Yes, I said, as a matter of fact that?s me.

 

Oh, I read your column all the time, he gushed as he introduced himself. Of course, I immediately and purposefully forgot his name, and even what he looks like. Maybe, I will be able to meet him again under different circumstances, and by my forgetting his name I will be able to give him the benefit of the doubt the second time around.

 

So, next time you are out in your boat, and you start to get mad at another boater, or want to cut them off so you can get to the last remaining slip, remember the boating world is very small, and you will probably see that other boater again somewhere else. Or, they might even be someone you would like to meet. So don?t ruin your chances of a friendship by not taking the time to be courteous and honoring the other boaters rights. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

15 April 2006

WINTER CLEAN UP CHORES

Capt. Alan Hugenot.

 

REMOVING THE CHALK DUST

Last week while surveying a 1976 Ericson sloop, the prospective buyer wiped his hand across the cabin roof and found white dust on his hands. In 30 years of California sun a good deal of chalking had taken place. This chalking is caused by ultra-violet deterioration. Of course he wanted to know what to do about it. ?Should I get some Comet or Ajax and a nylon scrub pad and go after it he asked??

 

This is a normal reaction for folks who are used to cleaning sinks with those chlorinated cleansers. But, unfortunately most household cleansers have grit, usually made of sand, which helps them scrub. That grit will scratch the surface of gel coat. Instead what you need is a polishing compound. The thing to use on all fiberglass, even on your fiberglass shower stall at home is Bon Ami. You buy it at the grocery store where it is sold in a gold can with a little chick on the side. The motto under the chick says ?hasn?t scratched yet? and that is the secret. As your grandmother knew this ancient product is made of egg shells and not sand. It will remove the chalk, and polish your gel coat without scratching it. You could use a professional rubbing compound which is for sale at the automotive store, but while it polishes it also removes gel coat and you may buff down to an under-layment which is not the same color. Bon Ami will take a little longer but the results are so much better. I have been using it on my fiberglass boats for over 30 years. The gloss will return as you remove the loose eroded surface of the gel coat.

 

In rare cases the hull has been buffed down before, with a rubbing compound, and you may find that as you clean the chalk off you easily begin to scrub through the white color, exposing a darker substrate. If the gel coat becomes transparent like this before you see the gloss return, then it is time to repaint using a two part epoxy paint.

 

CLEANING BOAT CANVAS: Another survey client asked me how to clean boat canvas. Simply use a hair shampoo or dish detergent to clean canvas or acrylic, and a vinyl cleaner to clean vinyl. First, take it off the boat, spread it on a flat surface, and get out the soap hot water and a scrubbing brush. There are several canvas cleaners on the market like Star Brite Canvas Cleaner.

 

MILDEWED CANVAS can be cleaned by mixing up some chlorine bleach and water. Three tablespoons of bleach to a quart of water is sufficiently caustic. Spray it on with a pistol grip sprayer, then let it soak for less than five minutes and rinse it off with the fresh water hose. Generally, it won?t harm the color nor the fabric, if you make sure to rinse it off completely. If it stays on too long it can degrade the waterproofing in the fabric. You just want to kill the mold. The mildew stain removers available at boating stores only remove it from vinyl, they are mostly ineffective with canvas.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

01 February 2006

RITE?S OF SPRING VARNISH?

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

The first warm weekend of Spring always means that it is varnish time, and there is nothing quite as much fun as taking the time to perfectly work piece of wood in varnish. There is a pleasure to this work not often found, except among artists. Yet, in our time critical world most of us do not have time to indulge in the joy and art of extensive varnishing. Here is a way to keep up a real varnish finish, without a lot of effort. It only requires steady maintenance one Saturday every six months. So, if you aren?t satisfied with the yellowed look of polyurethane, or the orangeness of a synthetic finish like Cetol, or WoodPro, here is a different idea, which requires only slightly more effort. If you start now you can have your boat ready by March first.

 

CREATE THE ORIGINAL SEALER AND FOUR COAT VARNISH FINISH:

1.     Hand sand down to bare wood using 60 or 120 grit sandpaper.

2.     Seal all cracks and flaws in the wood, with wood filler putty, bleach all dark spots with Te-Ka A & B wood bleaching system.

3.     Finish sand by hand with 220 grit, and wipe down with mineral spirits and a lint free rag.

4.     Varnish with ONE SEALER COAT of Spar Varnish, that has been thinned 15 to 25% with fast drying thinner like Toluene (sold as Toluol at Ace Hardware), let dry at least 4 hours.

5.     When dry DO NOT SAND, but wipe down with mineral spirits.

6.     Apply one PRIMARY COAT that has been thinned 10 to 15% with fast drying thinner like Toluene and let dry at least 8 hours.

7.     Apply two SECONDARY COATS of full strength un-thinned varnish, properly sanding with 220 grit paper, wipe down with mineral spirits between coats, let dry 12 hours.

8.     Hand sand with 320 grit and minimal effort to merely roughen the surface.

9.     Apply one FINISH COAT of full strength varnish, let dry 24 hours before sailing.

 

SECOND - CONTINUING MAINTENANCE REFRESHER COATS:

Annually or every six months, depending on how healthy you varnish looks, do the following:

1.     Clean the bright work completely with fresh water and Murphy?s Oil Soap.

2.     Wipe down the entire surface with isopropyl alcohol, or mineral spirits.

(If the bright work has been waxed, use Tolulene or Xylene solvent to wipe down).

3.     Light sand with 320 grit, and minimal effort to merely roughen the surface.

4.     Vacuum the surface to remove all dust and grit.

5.     Wipe down again with mineral spirits.

6.     Fill any spots where the varnish is worn with a coat of un-thinned varnish.

7.     Apply one coat of varnish that has been thinned 15 to 25% with fast drying thinner (Toulene), and let dry.

 

Each boating season there after, repeat the refresher coat with light sand and one coat of thinned varnish, once or twice each year. If you continue this minimal maintenance refresher coat annually, always sanding off as much varnish as you put on, the varnish will always look perfect, never getting too thick nor too thin, and you can maintain this same varnish finish for 20 years. As the Ultra Violet from the sun attacks the outside layer of varnish, you keep cleaning it off with your light sand and then your light varnish coat restores the surface luster.

 

THINGS TO REMEMBER: When stripping old varnish use a scraper, whose shape allows you to have a perpendicular angle of attack. Wet the surface of the wood because wet wood lets go of its varnish easily. It is sometimes also useful to use a wood chisel held at the same perpendicular angle. Finally, when the bulk of the varnish is removed, sand down with 120 grit to get a smooth surface. Use clear spar varnish, and read the manufacturer?s directions and precautions for all varnishes and thinners, and apply according to directions. There is no reason to use a badger hair brush, foam brushes work just as well and will never loose a hair into your new varnish. Plus you can throw them away when finished which reduces your clean up, and you also won?t have any brush cleaning solvent to dispose of at the local hazardous materials dump. Use mineral spirits to clean your badger hair brushes and remove any varnish from your hands and then wash with soap and water. Do not use Toulene or Xylene for hand cleaning, because they are adsorbed through the skin and can cause cancer. Dispose of used thinner in a proper oil disposal, or hazardous waste disposal system. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

05 January 2006

Adding a Bilge & Fire Pump Can Be Fun

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

There are two things that can truly ruin your day when out boating, a fire or a sinking. So I am always amazed when I see the minimal pumping facilities on most yachts.

 

YOU CAN?T CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AT SEA: The complacency which most pleasure boaters have towards fires at sea, is actually fostered by our shore-side reliance on our City Fire Departments. They teach us in their public education programs, that in case of fire we should call the fire department on 911, get everyone out of the building, and not try to fight the fire ourselves. In town this saves lives because the trucks usually roll up within 5 minutes and begin professionally fighting the blaze.

 

Unfortunately, at sea the only way to save lives is to fight the fire yourself, which is the exact opposite of what we have been taught by the city fire department. On a boat there is no where to go ?outside the building?, and the fire company can?t get to you ever.

 

Professional ship?s engineers reason that a reliable fire & bilge pump is more important than a reliable main engine. Their lives might one day depend on those pumps. If the main engine gives out, you can drop an anchor and wait for a tow. But, if you can?t keep the hull afloat, and can?t keep it from burning out from under you, then your haven?t a prayer. The Coast Guard requires all deck hands and engineers on passenger vessels to be trained in fire fighting by putting out actual fires under shipboard conditions, breathing smoke and working in confined spaces as hose teams. When was the last time you held a fire drill on your yacht?

 

WHAT ABOUT THOSE COAST GUARD REQUIRED FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? Many boaters believe that all they need is the proper number of Coast Guard required dry chemical fire extinguishers. But, that is actually just the minimum required by law. My boat always has at least twice that many and of various kinds including a large foam extinguisher. Yet, most boaters have never practiced discharging an extinguisher at a real fire. When a new extinguisher is only $12.99 you have to wonder why people find it so hard to practice with one. For just $12.99 you can train yourself. Go out on the patio some morning before the wind comes up and make a small wood fire in a portable barbeque. Then discharge your dry chemical fire extinguisher on it, and see if you can actually put it out. Don?t worry about the clean up, you can just hose the dry chemical onto the edge of the lawn, it is inert and very much like talcum powder, it will make the soil temporarily more base than acid, and it might temporarily yellow the grass.

 

Now, remember to discharge the extinguisher at the base of the flame, you will find out that extinguishing a real fire is not easy. You will also learn that a couple of dry chemical extinguishers are not going to put out any real fire. This practice with the extinguisher should actually make you more fearful of boat fires, because you will see how ineffective extinguishers actually are, and it will shock you out of your complacency.

 

WHAT IF YOUR HULL GETS HOLED. Those feeble automatic bilge pumps, which most yachts come with simply won?t be able to keep up with the incoming water. That 2000 gallons per minute (GPM) pump in the bilge can only push 2000 GPM against an open discharge. If there is any hydraulic lift, like from the bilge up to the waterline, then it will suddenly only pump about 5 GPM. So most of those pumps lack the capacity to handle any real leak. Additionally, those electric pumps quit when the bilge water rises to the first wiring terminal, which is all too often in the automatic switch connection just below the cabin sole. Even if it is wired with solid wire clear to the battery, it will quit when the batteries themselves are submersed in the rising seawater.

 

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT: My personal solution has always been to rig my diesel engines with ducted air intakes, taking air from above the main deck. This allows my diesel to keep running even when the engine itself is underwater, and then I install an engine driven pump, which can move 60 GPM. And rig the piping from that pump so that it can pump the bilges or put out a fire from hose bibs on deck. It is a pretty simple business to add a belt driven pump to your engine compartment, and provide all this added protection, and it costs less than your annual boat insurance premium.

 

Jabsco makes a belt driven 62 GPM pump that has a manual clutch lever, which allows the belt to free wheel until you need the pump. You can manually engage the pump, by flipping a lever, while the engine is already running. And suddenly you are pumping a real 62 GPM over the side. This unit sells for under $700 (Jabsco No. 6590-0005).

 

Be careful when ordering the pump, because Jabsco also sells a similar 62 GPM pump unit with an electrical clutch, which can be engaged by a remote switch on the bridge. However, think this through, that electric clutch will require battery power to stay engaged. And what we are trying to install here is a totally non-electrical mechanical pumping system that still runs when the electricity shorts out.

 

THE PUMP SUCTION INSTALLATION: Using a Y-valve in the pump suction, install the piping to provide supply piping from an existing seawater intake, other than the engine sea water intake, and also from a suction strainer in the bilge. I like to use silver brazed copper tubing on my fire main systems, but you can install this piping using standard 1-1/4 inch PVC sewage hose from West Marine,

 

FIRE HOSE & NOZZLES: For fire hose I like to use a short 8 to 15 foot length of garden hose, with a standard garden nozzle on it. The hose does not have to actually reach the fire, but only has to go far enough that the water stream from the hose nozzle can reach the fire. Keeping the hose small will make it convenient to have attached to the hose bib.

 

FIRE DRILLS: After you get it all installed, hold periodic fire drills and practice actually charging the hoses by turning on the pump. When you haul in the anchor, it is great fire practice to wash the mud off the anchor chain using the forward fire hose station. Remember those crew members

in the passenger service, who are actually trained firefighters, they hold fire weekly drills so that when the emergency comes they will be familiar with how the equipment works.

 

SUMMER WATER FIGHTS: Wherever I cruise in the warm summer months, there is always a water balloon fight. It seems that after a race, and when rafting up or anchoring together in the delta, when the heat of the afternoon arrives, the natural thing for all sailors to do is to begin to lob water balloons at other boats. However, in my personal experience having a full pressure hose station on the main deck forward and another aft, complete with nozzles, is similar to being a battleship with two 16 inch gun turrets. Once the other boats realize you can blast them with a continuous stream of cold seawater, and never have to stop to fill more water balloons, they will think twice about disturbing your siesta with a water balloon barrage. Was it Teddy Roosevelt who said, Talk softly and carry a big pump.

CROSSING BARS

14 November 2007

RULE 6, NO RADAR and IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR ?

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Any seasoned captain has bumped into a few rocks and shoals. Many may not admit it but anyone who can truthfully say I?ve never run aground simply hasn?t gotten any real experience operating boats. Also, after hitting a rock or running aground when you take the time to carefully analyze what took place it always comes back to PILOT ERROR. Blaming the circumstances is only and always just fooling yourself.  

 

This morning the pilot of the Cosco Busan, which struck the Oakland Bay Bridge a week ago is saying that his radar had mal-functioned. According to his statement quoted in the SF Chronicle, the radar went off line shortly after they left the dock, and then it went off line again as they rounded Yerba Buena Light, just a mile further on.

 

Frankly, if when my radar quits twice in the first mile out in pea soup fog, I stop immediately until I get it fixed. This seems to be a no-brainer. Go to dead slow, and head away from all known navigational hazards and slowly nose over to an anchorage at minimum speed to put the hook down until the radar is operational or the fog clears off. The radar is not to blame for the foolish decision to continue with no radar, and why did he continue at eleven knots into pea soup fog.

 

It also takes two full minutes for radars to energize and come back on line after being restarted.  At eleven knots the Cosco Busan was covering over a third of a mile in those two minutes with no radar. Although, the ship?s chart plotter was working the plotter will not show you where the other ships are at. So even with the chart plotter working there is an automatic risk of collision with no radar  

 

Further, the pilot was quoted as saying that, due to the radar failure he had to rely on a chart plotter with which he was not familiar. Consequently, the ship?s Captain was pointing out to the pilot the center of the bridge on the plotter. The Pilot then alleges that due to a language difficulty the ship?s Captain was pointing out the bridge tower instead of the center of the span.

 

Yet, even though he is at this point flying blind with no radar, and also unsure what he is reading on the unfamiliar chart plotter, when the Vessel Traffic Service radioed to say he was headed for the bridge tower this arrogant pilot disputed that fact.

 

He immediately radioed back that, ?According to my instruments I am proceeding for the center of the span?, and continues AT ELEVEN KNOTS into the pea soup fog.

 

Quite amazingly, he makes no move to slow down or consider that a risk of collision may exist, even though Vessel Traffic has questioned his course and intentions.

 

Just a few moments later, because he willfully ignored the decades of wisdom which is built into the Rules of the Road, his career is at an end.

 

IMPORTANT BACKGROUND: The International Regulations for Prevention of Collision at Sea (Rules of the Road or COLREGS) proscribe specific conduct for captains and pilots in restricted visibility. In fact, over a fifth of the rules regarding vessel operations are concerned solely with restricted visibility as follows:

 

RULE 6 regarding SAFE SPEED, clearly states that, ?Every vessel shall at all times proceed at A SAFE SPEED SO SHE CAN TAKE PROPER AND EFFECTIVE ACTION TO AVOID COLLISION and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances.? Now, it appears fairly obvious from the fact that the ship hit the bridge that she was proceeding too fast to effectively avoid hitting the bridge after it came into view. Also, whenever this rule is interpreted by Admiralty courts throughout the world, safe speed is defined as a speed which would allow the vessel to STOP IN ONE HALF THE VISIBLE DISTANCE.

 

In addition Rule 19(c) regarding CONDUCT OF VESSELS IN RESTRICTED VISIBILITY, states that, ?Under conditions of restricted visibility?.shall reduce her speed to the minimum at which she can maintain her course, and if necessary take all her way off?

 

But, going back to RULE 6 we find further that it states specifically, ?In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account?.. The state of visibility,?.. The proximity of navigational hazards?..The limitations of the radar equipment?

 

Yet, that is not all, RULE 7 regarding RISK OF COLLISION states that, ?Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT, THEN SUCH RISK SHALL BE DEEMED TO EXIST??PROPER USE OF RADAR SHAL BE MADE?..Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.?

 

It would seem that the minute the radar went out a risk of collision must be assumed to exist under the rules. Then when the Vessel Traffic radioed questioning the ship?s course we immediately have prima facie that the ANY DOUBT situation which the rules speak of now exists. The Rules state that a risk of collision MUST BE DEEMED TO EXIST whenever there is any doubt. Vessel Traffics questioning of his intention qualifies as ANY DOUBT. 

 

Finally, RULE 8 (c) regarding ACTION TO AVOID COLLISION, states that, ?If necessary to avoid collision or ALLOW MORE TIME TO ASSESS THE SITUATION, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.?

 

Consequently, it appears that all these above rules were completely ignored by this pilot. Yet, everyone of them seems to be screaming the same simple message SLOW DOWN !!!

 

The rules do reflect the combined wisdom of the maritime nations of the world developed over many years. To ignore them so cavalierly is arrogance.

 

Unfortunately, Captain Cota?s folly is not unusual. Commercial vessels the world over regularly plow ahead at full speed into pea soup fog. The reliance on radar and GPS seem to have made them feel infallible, especially when they are on the same route they have traveled many times before. But, anyone who has operated their radar in San Francisco Bay, on a clear weekend night in summer, when the radar really wasn?t needed, will have easily observed that while they could visually see two dozen fiberglass and wooden boats with their naked eye, at the same time only two or three of those boats actually show up on radar.

 

So, besides the chance of collision with the bridge, why wasn?t the pilot considering all the other small craft out there at 8:30 am? Most of those smaller craft are fiberglass and have minimal radar signatures even if his radar was working, and no vessel will ever show up on the chart plotter.

 

To proceed at eleven knots into pea soup fog while assuming that because they cannot see any other vessels that there must be none out there is well beyond irrational.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

11 November 2007

MULTIPLE PILOT ERRORS - COSCO BUSAN

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Final determination will be up to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but after reviewing Coast Guard reports and Vessel Traffic radio transmission records about the accident which spilled 58,000 gallons of heavy fuel oil into San Francisco Bay last Wednesday morning, it appears that the collision was entirely due to pilot error.

 

Also, the slow clean-up response appears to have been caused by the same pilot?s inattention to important details after the collision took place. Experts suggest several possible explanations, including pilot error, crew error, and mechanical or instrument failure. But, the facts now in, seem to point solely to pilot error and here is why.

 

FIRST, VESSEL TRAFFIC WARNED THAT THE SHIP WAS OFF COURSE: Friday, the pilot's attorney said that Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) similar to aviation air traffic controllers, which monitors commercial vessel movements in San Francisco Bay, notified the pilot of the Cosco Busan that he was off course shortly before the container ship hit the Bay Bridge tower. Vessel Traffic told the pilot by VHF radio (channel 14) that, "Your heading is (compass) bearing 235; what are your intentions?" But, unlike air traffic control the word control does not appear in the maritime Vessel Traffic Service title. This is because they are only an advisory service. They notify ships of each other?s presence and let the captains work it out. Consequently, they hasve absolutely no responsibility to give advice on courses. The fact that they called Cosco Busan was a courtesy to the pilot which was well beyond Vessel Traffic?s job description.

 

CHECKING EVERY INSTRUMENT: At this point, the pilot faces a critical decision which requires some action. He has just been handed a 50/50 situation. The Coast Guard?s instruments say he is off course, but, he believes his instruments say he is on course. Obviously, he has only a 50% chance that his reading of the instruments is more accurate. Immediate verification from alternate instruments is now imperative. Standard navigational practice in this situation to slow down or stop until verification of course can be achieved. But, the pilot takes no action and instead radios to tell VTS that he thinks he is on the correct course. Attorney John Meadows also stated that the pilot, Captain John Cota, immediately radioed back that the ship's instruments showed that he was on the correct heading. The pilot told the Vessel Traffic Service dispatcher, "I'm heading directly for the center of the span," At this point he had the option to execute a port turn and circle away from the bridge to the south.

 

NO INSTRUMENT ERROR: Since he was off course and hit the bridge it would seem that his instruments might have been giving the wrong reading. But, the facts now in indicate that there was no equipment failure. On Saturday Coast Guard Admiral Craig Bone, stated that, ?Our preliminary investigation shows no indication that there was anything mechanical wrong with the vessel?. But, according to Cota all the navigational electronics which he checked were reporting the same correct course, even though, as it turned out, he was on an incorrect course. Unfortunately, with no detectable mechanical failures, ?What remains?, said Admiral Bone, is human error..

 

STANDARD PROCEDURES: But, why didn?t the pilot follow standard procedure and check several instruments? For instance, two days earlier, when the commercial vessel I was piloting approached the Golden Gate bridge under similar circumstances (outbound in dense morning fog), I was also monitoring VTS Channel 14. I followed standard fog navigation procedures which are taught in radar collision avoidance classes (and which all merchant marine officers are required to retake every five years), I carefully checked several instruments simultaneously for confirmation of my ship?s course and speed. Then as we approached the bridge  I watched both the GPS chart plotter and the radar display. In the dense fog I was unable to visually see the bridge span or the towers, so I carefully checked the radar and the chart plotter for consensus that they both agreed on my location, course and speed. Such checking of all instruments is simply standard ?by the book? navigational procedure. Yet, the fact of Cota?s radioing back immediately, indicates that he did not check all the available instruments for confirmation, instead he argued ?I?m on course?.

 

CONSULTING THE RADAR: As a licensed UNLIMITED radar observer, I know that navigational radars show the bridge towers as distinctly darker areas than the rest of the span, and the radar also shows exactly where the ship is headed. Simply consulting the ship?s radar would have shown the pilot that collision with the bridge tower was imminent. But, apparently, he did not look there to confirm his course and speed.

 

UNRECOGNIZED URGENCY: Just the suggestion from Vessel Traffic that you are off course should be taken very seriously. Vessel traffic does not normally question the course and speed of commercial traffic. Their function is to monitor traffic to inform captains of collision situations by telling captains when they appear to be in harm?s way, but responsibility for all course and speed decisions remains with the pilot. If Vessel Traffic thinks you are off course, they will check their calculations again to make sure before calling you. Consequently, when they do call to say you are off course the automatic assumption should be that they are correct and you are wrong. The proper action then is to back all engines and stop the vessel completely until you can carefully verify that you are not headed for a collision. Especially, when the bridge is completely hidden by pea soup fog. Clearly faced with a 50/50 situation, the pilot did not recognize the urgency and instead of prudently stopping and rechecking everything he tosses the dice and strangely decides that the instrument he is looking at is correct, and the instrument Vessel Traffic is looking at is wrong.

 

THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE PROBLEM: Finally, the human error might have been caused by the ship?s crew and not the pilot. In fact, there is much discussion of possible language problems between the Chinese speaking helmsman and the English speaking pilot. Yet, this appears to have no bearing on the case. The fact that the Coast Guard questioned his incorrect course heading in English, and the English speaking pilot responded that he had checked the instruments himself and that he was on course would seem to remove any possible language problems. Indeed, it appears from the records provided that the pilot never gave a helm order to change course, or an engine stop order which could have been mis-interpreted by the crew.  

 

SLOWNESS TO REPORT LEAK: The pilot?s next error compounded the extent of the damage from the spill. Unfortunately, the language of his verbal accident report to VTS minimized the extent of the damage. According to Meadows, Cota said in his statement to the Coast Guard  investigators that, after striking the bridge he promptly notified the Vessel Traffic Service of what had happened. I immediately notified VTS (Vessel Traffic Service) on Channel 14 that we had contacted the fendering system,  But, he apparently made no comment about an oil spill or the need for skimming equipment. Limiting his report to saying that ship has contacted the fendering system, which is the protective barrier around the base of the bridge tower, with no mention of any oil leaks could be interpreted as, We bumped the bridge slightly.

 

Yet, the actual damage is much more severe. The collision actually sheared most of the fendering system off the bridge tower, and cut a gash over 100 feet long in the side of the vessel rupturing one of his fuel tanks which began immediately gushing bunker C heavy fuel oil into the bay.

 

Under standard procedure his next move should be to ask for a report of the damage from the ship?s crew, and to relay an accurate report of such damage to VTS and the Coast Guard so that they can mobilize the proper response. Anytime you sustain a collision you check all damaged areas for leaks to insure that you are not sinking.

 

After the collision the pilot proceeded to a safe anchorage and anchored his vessel. But, he makes no move to rig an oil containment boom around his vessel even though he has just had a collision. Though he notices an oil sheen on the water he does not radio for oil clean up services. Apparently, even though it has been some time since the collision he is still unaware that there is a 100 foot hole in the side of his ship gushing heavy bunker C into the bay. Yet, according to Capt. Peter McIsaac, president of the San Francisco Bar Pilots, who had boarded a pilot boat and headed for the Cosco Busan, coming aboard as she passed Treasure Island, oil was pouring out of a gash in the ship. I've never seen oil going into the water like that, McIssac said.

 

According to the pilot?s statement, it was only after anchoring that he finally noticed there is an oil slick, I observed a sheen on the water and instantly reported that to VTS. Cota said, as reported by Meadows, Prior to my leaving the ship, no response vessels were seen.  Cota went on to state that, Once at anchor, I was relieved by Capt. Frank Hoburg, (a senior bar pilot) who immediately started notifying various agencies that deal with oil spills, Apparently, the idea that as pilot he should have been calling those response vessels had not yet occurred to Cota. But, it was not lost on Captain Hoberg and was the first action he took.

 

The Coast Guard log shows that the first notification of the collision arrived at 8:30 a.m., with the VTS contacting the Coast Guard and reporting the incident. A Coast Guard patrol vessel arrives about a half hour later at the scene. The first environmental response team had arrived in the area to begin skimming operations by 9:50 a.m. Finally, at 10:39 a.m., full-scale containment operations finally began more than two hours after the collision. This delay in commencement of the oil recovery operation was compounded by the pilot?s (Cota?s) delay in reporting the oil spill until after the vessel was anchored, and not calling the response vessels, but leaving that for his relief to accomplish.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 October 2007

Local Knowledge Can Save Your Life

By Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

Living near the Golden Gate bar, which is one of the most dangerous pieces of water in the world, and being a Coast Guard Volunteer, as well as a local charter skipper, I am privy to the details of the deaths at sea which occur every year within sight of San Francisco. Most of these deaths happen because experienced sailors visiting the area do not take the time to carefully study the local conditions before trying to sail here.

 

But the same is true on every coastline. Peculiar local conditions which strangers do not know about can sneak up on even the most experienced sailors. Here on the Northern Californian coast this lack of local knowledge causes the capsizing of as many as three yachts each year in the steep seas which mount up every afternoon in normal fair weather, during the afternoon ebb just off the mouth of the Golden Gate. These hazardous conditions are something that locals know to avoid, but visitors are totally unaware of, unless they read the Coast Pilot very carefully.

 

The crew of these stricken vessels are often very experienced world cruising sailors, who may have many years at sea on other waters. Yet, unaware of the local phenomena, they confidently believe they will have an easy passage.

 

A couple of years ago a case occurred which illustrates how this happens. A 20 foot sailboat operated by a skipper unfamiliar with the Northern California coast was making a passage from Half Moon Bay into the Golden Gate. Leaving Pillar Point Harbor in the morning the gentle seas along the Montara coast that morning gave no warning of what lay ahead.  

 

Six hours into the cruise, and half an hour from the Golden Gate, the boat got into the rollers off San Francisco?s Ocean Beach, just south of Point Lobos. These large rollers extend out more than a half mile from the beach where the crescent shaped bar which guards the mouth of the SF Bay is only 5 fathoms (30 feet) deep, These unforeseen rollers capsized their boat around 2:23 pm. Bystanders on the beach reached the Coast Guard by 2:40 p.m., and they immediately dispatched two Coast Guard 47 foot motor lifeboats from Station Golden Gate six miles away. Also, a Coast Guard HH-65 helicopter with surf divers aboard was dispatched. The SF Fire department?s surf rescue team also responded within five minutes of receiving the call. Two survivors were rescued by fire department divers and taken to UCSF Medical Center where they were treated for hypothermia. However, the third man who was only 22 years old was never found. Several witnesses reported to authorities that they had seen the vessel roll over in the surf and sink beneath the waves. Observers said that the small craft capsized suddenly in the large steep seas and filled with water sinking almost immediately. According to Coast Guard reports the missing man was somehow tethered to the boat.

 

Yet, all this was avoidable. Three hours earlier, or three hours later would not have been during the ebb, and there would only have been gentle waves. The high winds and steep seas that capsized the boat were predictable. It was a fair weather sunny day when normal afternoon onshore winds automatically occur due to the temperature differential between the water and the land. The sun warms up the land by mid-afternoon, which causes the air over the land to rise. The high pressure, colder air over the sea always rushes in to fill the void of reduced pressure creating the stiff afternoon breeze. By 2 p.m. every afternoon winds are blowing onshore at 18 to 20 knots everywhere on the Bar outside the Golden Gate. When the tide also happens to be running out during the ebb it creates steep seas on the bar. Inside the Golden gate this is what creates the wonderful 25 to 30 knots in ?the slot? which makes good sailing winds off the St Francis YC so predictable.

These were safety conscious boaters with proper lifejackets and harnesses tethering them to the boat. They had left San Diego a couple of weeks before and were making their way up the Pacific Coast to British Columbia. So they already had 450 miles of Pacific Coast sailing behind them, which means that they were no longer novice sailors even if they had been at the start. Two weeks at sea on a coastwise passage is more hands on experience than most pleasure sailors get in five years of weekend sailing. From those details it is clear that they knew how to handle this vessel in an 18 - 20 knot breeze under all normally expected conditions. Yet, they unknowingly arrived in the hazardous area of the San Francisco Bar at exactly the time of maximum ebb current when the normal local conditions are always hazardous every afternoon.

 

Normal conditions on the Northern California coast are not what people from elsewhere will normally expect, and the same is true of most of the world?s unfamiliar coasts.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE IS INDISPENSIBLE:  Several decades back, when I was a newly licensed merchant marine Captain, one of my mentors was that seasoned veteran, Captain John E. Kelly of West Seattle?s Sea Scout Ship Yankee Clipper. John had first signed aboard as a crew member of that ship back in 1938, and later became a Ships Officer aboard warships during the Second World War. So, it was after nearly 50 years at sea that John shared the secret of successful passage-making with me.

 

When you have to make a passage off a strange coast read all you can about it, but do not forget as you make each port, to visit with all the other skippers, especially aboard the local fishing boats, and with people who are going the opposite direction along the coast. Pick the brains of those who have recently been where you are heading, to perfect your local knowledge before you set out

 

,It isn?t what we know that sinks ships,?.it?s what we are unaware that we need to know,?. which does us in.?

  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

01 October 2007

Getting the Drift in Current Vocabulary

by Capt. Alan Hugenot

 

It is surprising how many people do not know the difference between the stages of the tide (as in high tide or low tide) and the tidal currents (as in flood and ebb). It is a commonly held belief that word ebb is synonymous with low tide and flood is synonymous with high tide. I often hear the phrase The tide was at max ebb, being used to describe the time of low tide. When they should have simply said, It was low tide or the tide was all the way out. Saying that the tide was at its max ebb, actually means that the tide was moving out at its fastest