jimbaerselman
Well-Known Member
\'Greek Wreckers\'
An article is published on your website on 'Greek Wreckers'. It's an attention getting headline - for a very one-sided article. http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20080729151937cbnews.html
I have emailed the following to the editor.
Sir,
The article about Greek wreckers in CB is a piece of very sloppy reporting. I suspect the writer's reasonable sympathies towards damage to a lovely old vessel overwhelmed his critical faculties.
I say this because:
1. The incident did not take place off the west coast of Zante if your photo is to be believed. The background is of Alikes, on the East coast.
2. Alikes is very exposed to the regular northerly winds, which usually blow up to F4 or 5 in the afternoons. When there are gales forecast, an onshore F7 is almost a certainty with a quite considerable surf onto the shallow shelving beach. First question you correspondent did not ask - why did the vessel not depart when the forecast was received 48 hours beforehand?
3. 'A swinging mooring', 'a pink pick up buoy'. Whose mooring was this? The laid moorings in the small sheltered area just south of the harbour area are only designed to cater for <10m excursion boats. They would certainly not suit a large, high windage yacht. And if he had laid his own mooring, it was obviously inadequate. What a missing pink pick up buoy (or 'cut' pick up buoy rope) has to do with this is a mystery to me. The article quotes 'dragging', rather than any parting rope. And one would not secure with a pick up buoy rope anyway. The conclusion suggested, that this caused the wreck through deliberate sabotage, does not stand up.
4. 'The engine would not start, in spite of having two one year old batteries'. The comment suggests (we don't know) that the batteries had both been run down. So the probability is that he didn't keep one battery solely isolated for engine starting, and didn't routinely check battery states.
5. It apears there were only two aboard. That's light crew for a vessel this size unless both are very well experienced and good seamen.
All of these items are the responsibility of the skipper, and are four linked causes of the accident. Based on the article 'facts', I'd label the accident as caused by multiple lapses of good seamanship, not sabotage.
That he didn't get help is another issue. First, did those ashore capable of helping actually receive the message? Second, in a gale, could they have helped anyway? And third, had he done anything to rile the locals? (pick up excursion passengers, moor/anchor partly in the way of the ferries).
Once he abandoned the vessel, it was fair game - not for wreckers, but for salvage. He probably did not realise this. Learn the rules of the country you're visiting. However, I can quite understand that emotion takes over at this stage, and the facts all become distorted, paranoia sets in. Your correspondent's job was to sift between the facts and the opinions and to weed out any false conclusions. In my opinion, he failed. But that's only my opinion. I'd like to be proved wrong.
An article is published on your website on 'Greek Wreckers'. It's an attention getting headline - for a very one-sided article. http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20080729151937cbnews.html
I have emailed the following to the editor.
Sir,
The article about Greek wreckers in CB is a piece of very sloppy reporting. I suspect the writer's reasonable sympathies towards damage to a lovely old vessel overwhelmed his critical faculties.
I say this because:
1. The incident did not take place off the west coast of Zante if your photo is to be believed. The background is of Alikes, on the East coast.
2. Alikes is very exposed to the regular northerly winds, which usually blow up to F4 or 5 in the afternoons. When there are gales forecast, an onshore F7 is almost a certainty with a quite considerable surf onto the shallow shelving beach. First question you correspondent did not ask - why did the vessel not depart when the forecast was received 48 hours beforehand?
3. 'A swinging mooring', 'a pink pick up buoy'. Whose mooring was this? The laid moorings in the small sheltered area just south of the harbour area are only designed to cater for <10m excursion boats. They would certainly not suit a large, high windage yacht. And if he had laid his own mooring, it was obviously inadequate. What a missing pink pick up buoy (or 'cut' pick up buoy rope) has to do with this is a mystery to me. The article quotes 'dragging', rather than any parting rope. And one would not secure with a pick up buoy rope anyway. The conclusion suggested, that this caused the wreck through deliberate sabotage, does not stand up.
4. 'The engine would not start, in spite of having two one year old batteries'. The comment suggests (we don't know) that the batteries had both been run down. So the probability is that he didn't keep one battery solely isolated for engine starting, and didn't routinely check battery states.
5. It apears there were only two aboard. That's light crew for a vessel this size unless both are very well experienced and good seamen.
All of these items are the responsibility of the skipper, and are four linked causes of the accident. Based on the article 'facts', I'd label the accident as caused by multiple lapses of good seamanship, not sabotage.
That he didn't get help is another issue. First, did those ashore capable of helping actually receive the message? Second, in a gale, could they have helped anyway? And third, had he done anything to rile the locals? (pick up excursion passengers, moor/anchor partly in the way of the ferries).
Once he abandoned the vessel, it was fair game - not for wreckers, but for salvage. He probably did not realise this. Learn the rules of the country you're visiting. However, I can quite understand that emotion takes over at this stage, and the facts all become distorted, paranoia sets in. Your correspondent's job was to sift between the facts and the opinions and to weed out any false conclusions. In my opinion, he failed. But that's only my opinion. I'd like to be proved wrong.