Neeves
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Diving on anchors
- Thread starter Neeves
- Start date
NormanS
Well-Known Member
Further to this notion of "learning how anchors actually work": I don't need to know precisely how my anchor " works", any more than I need to know how the TV "works" when I switch it on.
Before anchoring, I make sure that the boat is in a sensible place, in terms of shelter, depth, and as far as I can ascertain by eyeball, fishfinder, chart, reputation, or previous knowledge, the type of bottom. It is then up to the anchor to do what anchors are supposed to do. I don't think that my peering over its shoulder, is going to make it perform any better.
Before anchoring, I make sure that the boat is in a sensible place, in terms of shelter, depth, and as far as I can ascertain by eyeball, fishfinder, chart, reputation, or previous knowledge, the type of bottom. It is then up to the anchor to do what anchors are supposed to do. I don't think that my peering over its shoulder, is going to make it perform any better.
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
In the Caribbean I used to swim with a mask and snorkel to boats anchored near us to check their anchors the majority were not set properly, American boats were the worst with hardly any chain out.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
We are not alone!
Anyone who is able to work out how an anchor works will make a fortune (and remove 'character' from boating forum
).Claims and dreams are free.
Jonathan
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
I suggest that the majority could have been set properly if the correct method had been used.
thinwater
Well-Known Member
My knee jerk reaction was critique the notion that you can really know what the bottom is like. Some places that is true, someplace not remotely so, particularly for folks that go off the beaten path. Most places I anchor the chart is a joke book.
But he hit on something vital here. When I buy a car, I care FAR less what it looks like than whether it will start every morning for a long time, without me knowing anything about it. Same with my TV, computer, furnace, and so forth. Perhaps the highest calling of an anchor is to set every single time, in all conditions. Perhaps it is not about maximum holding power per weight. The way I see it, the best it can do in good sand or mud is irrelevant to most of us, since a properly sized anchor will hold a lot. What matters is the worst it is likely to do when the bottom is sub-optimal. Weed. Very soft mud. Hardpan. Cobbles.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of Fortress for many people; you do have to understand how it works to get the best from it. A few other anchors may suffer from this same flaw.
Chain fits this mentality; it helps any anchor and reduces the need to understand the situation. Whether the weight penalty is acceptable depends on the size of the boat, the crossover point being perhaps 28-33 feet, depending on the boat and the region.
So really, Norman stated the nuts of it. I want an anchor that works without me knowing.
RupertW
Well-Known Member
So do we all but in reality some seabed and obstacles means you are completely vulnerable no matter how perfect your technique or your gear. The only question is, if you had the chance, would you find out or like the anti-divers just trust to luck.
Clear warm water and it's just easy to find out, and then take action when you inevitably find out occasionally that your well dug in anchor is just an illusion. But that's a very uncomfortable thought so human nature makes us want to dismiss as unimportant anything that we cannot do. And this thread surely shows that trait.
thinwater
Well-Known Member
^^ So it comes down to risk assessment, as it always does.
* What will I drag into? A mud bank way up a creek isn't so bad. Will tide leave me stranded?
* Is there wave exposure?
* Will I be leaving the boat?
* What weather do I expect?
* What information do I have about the bottom? This can come from the way the set felt and any general knowledge of the area.
* Can I power set effectively?
* What is the nature of my ground tackle?
* Have I set two anchors?
Add it up an decide. If the wind is 0-5 knots up a creek, no worries. If the bottom is variable, there a rocks down wind, it's gusty, and you want to go into town... not so much.
* What will I drag into? A mud bank way up a creek isn't so bad. Will tide leave me stranded?
* Is there wave exposure?
* Will I be leaving the boat?
* What weather do I expect?
* What information do I have about the bottom? This can come from the way the set felt and any general knowledge of the area.
* Can I power set effectively?
* What is the nature of my ground tackle?
* Have I set two anchors?
Add it up an decide. If the wind is 0-5 knots up a creek, no worries. If the bottom is variable, there a rocks down wind, it's gusty, and you want to go into town... not so much.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
For some of us in somewhat higher latitudes than the relatively warm Med, diving to look at our anchor is just not realistic. We can only make the best use of all the information available to us, regarding the quality of the bottom. Possibly because we cannot get the reassurance of actually seeing the anchor in use, we take extra care in choosing our position? It is extremely unusual for me to feel "uncomfortable" when anchored.
GHA
Well-Known Member
:encouragement:
For a "practical" forum there are a few heads in the sand - if the water is clear how can you argue against having a look? Are they not even interested in checking if the real world is similar the one constructed in your head from various snippets of data . Lots of times not possible obviously but a few here seem very reluctant even to just entertain the thought that having a look might actually be a good idea.....
Maybe why the concept of science, checking if things are the way you think they are, took tens of thousands of years to appear ..
Dougal
Well-Known Member
it has NOTHING to with "heads in the sand". Thankfully, we are not all alike and different things interest different people. Just because someone doesn't think and "do"' just exactly as you (global you, not you personally) do, neither makes them a lesser person, nor having their head in the sand. It makes them different
thinwater
Well-Known Member
If we transported the the "warm and clear" sailors to "brown and cold" waters, would they buy wet suits and observe anchors by feel (remembering that you have to swim down the chain to find the anchor)?
If we transported the "brown and cold" sailors to "warm and clear" waters that lack good, comfortable mud, would they learn to swim or would they simply be relaxed on hardpan?
I'm guessing most would change practices, to some extent. I wonder if their favorite anchor would change?
If we transported the "brown and cold" sailors to "warm and clear" waters that lack good, comfortable mud, would they learn to swim or would they simply be relaxed on hardpan?
I'm guessing most would change practices, to some extent. I wonder if their favorite anchor would change?
CAPTAIN FANTASTIC
Well-Known Member
I am in Agii Apostoli, which is opposite Evia; during summertime we get ski jets and speedboats, so diving can be risky sometimes. But visibility is co good, often the anchor can be seen from above.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
:encouragement:
For a "practical" forum there are a few heads in the sand - if the water is clear how can you argue against having a look? Are they not even interested in checking if the real world is similar the one constructed in your head from various snippets of data . Lots of times not possible obviously but a few here seem very reluctant even to just entertain the thought that having a look might actually be a good idea.....
Maybe why the concept of science, checking if things are the way you think they are, took tens of thousands of years to appear ..
I hope you're not including me in "heads in the sand". I would refer you to #62, where I included " eyeball". Often, particularly with a sandy bottom, but with weedy patches, eyeballing is the best way. Often my instruction to my wife, who attends to anchoring, is, "Anytime here, where you see a clear patch". The water may be too deep to see precise detail, but the contrast between sand and weed is obvious.
noelex
Well-Known Member
I sail both “warm and clear” and “brown and cold”, as many cruising sailors do.
When in warm and clear I frequently dive on the anchor. My primary motivation is an interest in anchor performance, but without this interest I would take a look anyway. If going for a swim why not? I cannot understand the argument that this can be detrimental to other skills, on the contary seeing what the anchor has actually done can only help interpret what is happening when setting the anchor.
In brown and cold I rarely dive on the anchor and when I have done so it was only because of my interest in anchors, although brown and warm does not put me off so much, and sometimes using using camera equipment I can see what is going on in brown and cold.
I believe that by understanding how my (and other anchors) behave in different substrates, how they set with different setting techniques, how my anchor and others rotate to a change in direction of force, how anchors responds to various scopes etc etc is vital if you want to understand anchor performance.
As others do, I try and share this information because even if you cannot see your own anchor, an accurate knowledge based on real observation rather than manufacturers’ hype helps understand what is likely to be happening on the seabed.
Anchor design and anchoring techniques have changed significantly over recent years. I am sure there will be marked further improvement. The ideal anchor that will hold in any wind, in any substrate and at any scope is still a long way from reality, but the first step for those interested in anchors is understanding how existing anchor designs perform. This is very hard to do if you will not open your eyes.
When in warm and clear I frequently dive on the anchor. My primary motivation is an interest in anchor performance, but without this interest I would take a look anyway. If going for a swim why not? I cannot understand the argument that this can be detrimental to other skills, on the contary seeing what the anchor has actually done can only help interpret what is happening when setting the anchor.
In brown and cold I rarely dive on the anchor and when I have done so it was only because of my interest in anchors, although brown and warm does not put me off so much, and sometimes using using camera equipment I can see what is going on in brown and cold.
I believe that by understanding how my (and other anchors) behave in different substrates, how they set with different setting techniques, how my anchor and others rotate to a change in direction of force, how anchors responds to various scopes etc etc is vital if you want to understand anchor performance.
As others do, I try and share this information because even if you cannot see your own anchor, an accurate knowledge based on real observation rather than manufacturers’ hype helps understand what is likely to be happening on the seabed.
Anchor design and anchoring techniques have changed significantly over recent years. I am sure there will be marked further improvement. The ideal anchor that will hold in any wind, in any substrate and at any scope is still a long way from reality, but the first step for those interested in anchors is understanding how existing anchor designs perform. This is very hard to do if you will not open your eyes.
Last edited:
Neeves
Well-Known Member
Unless you are going to go into anchor production you are preaching to the wrong audience. It is the anchor makers who need to know how anchors work - if we are to see improvements in design.
The only person who looked and investigated anchor performance and published his findings was John Knox, of (now) Knox Anchor fame. Much of the rest of so called interpretation seems to miss so many simple fundamentals - its a joke.
So - unless anyone is willing to put their observations into practice - and learn how their improvements work (or not) I find it dangerous nonsense.
Jonathan
Neeves
Well-Known Member
The Whitsundays are possibly Australia's most popular cruising ground (the sailing is stunning the scenery to die for (maybe inappropriate word?) with The Reef also being popular - but The Reef does not have the concentration of yachts, private and charter.
Both are the ideal location for swimming to 'cool off', the climate is tropical, the water is warm, the waters are sheltered (by the reef) and the marine life stunning. Many people who visit are on holiday to relax, have a drink or 2 and enjoy the 'escape'.
I would not swim there, despite sage advice.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...d-in-swimming-no-go-zone-conservationists-say
Possibly with good reason.
The article appears to cover much of Queensland's tropical coast - and possibly covers the coasts of the Northern Territory and the northern part of Western Australia - which is only about 50% of the island's coast (total length about 13,000nm) - but, I quote:
'with some sensible precautions you can swim and dive in most parts of Australia with minimal risk from sharks.'
??
As I have said I think some advice on anchors and anchoring is ill informed and positively dangerous.
Jonathan
Last edited:
noelex
Well-Known Member
I have clocked up many hundreds of dives in the Whitsundays. It was one of our favourite cruising grounds when our sailing was (mostly) limited to Australian waters so I am not advocating something I am not prepared to do myself.
I think your constant focus on sharks sends the wrong message. The dangers snorkelling are from collisions with boats (especially jet skis), drowning, being swept away by currents, shallow water blackout, and medical emergencies (such as a heart attack while in the water). These risks are only only small and I doubt recreational snorkelling is any more dangerous than sailing for example.
It is beyond the scope of a post like this to outline the safety precautions you should take snorkelling, but my suggestion would be to focus on minimising the above sort of dangers. Don’t become paranoid about sharks.
I think your constant focus on sharks sends the wrong message. The dangers snorkelling are from collisions with boats (especially jet skis), drowning, being swept away by currents, shallow water blackout, and medical emergencies (such as a heart attack while in the water). These risks are only only small and I doubt recreational snorkelling is any more dangerous than sailing for example.
It is beyond the scope of a post like this to outline the safety precautions you should take snorkelling, but my suggestion would be to focus on minimising the above sort of dangers. Don’t become paranoid about sharks.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
Don't tell me (I've made my decision) - You tell that to the woman and 12 year old girl, still, in Brisbane Hospital.
Obviously the environment has changed since you were in the Whitsundays.
3m tiger sharks - note the plural - appear to be..... common
Jonathan
Obviously the environment has changed since you were in the Whitsundays.
3m tiger sharks - note the plural - appear to be..... common
Jonathan
RichardS
N/A
Are we seriously having a debate on Practical Boat Owner about whether or not we should dive to check our anchors because of the risk of shark attack? :nonchalance:
Personally, I'm more worried about Sub-Aqueous Extra-Terrestrial Alien attack so perhaps we should address that? :encouragement:
Richard
Personally, I'm more worried about Sub-Aqueous Extra-Terrestrial Alien attack so perhaps we should address that? :encouragement:
Richard