the Gypsy Moth debacle

[Sea Devil]

I spent last night thinking about the skipper and mate of Gypsy Moth and wondering what experience they actually had for being put in command of a boat making such a voyage?

Had they ever sailed in the South Pacific before?

If so had the ever sailed around the Tuamotu islands before?

This young 'crew' they had - did they have any sailing experience at all?

If not then were they crew or passengers - a commercial charter?

Was it a sensible 'stunt' to send inexperienced passengers / crew into such dangerous waters?

Was the entire 'round the world' cruise with inexperienced crew in a very small boat a well conceived idea?

My memory of visiting Gypsy Moth was that she was pretty small - a single handers boat - possibly room for 2 or 3 .... so how many of this 'crew' were there in addition to the Skipper and Mate?

Assuming this crew were being 'trained' then who considered it wise that they should be trained in some of the most dangerous waters in the world?

Were the skipper and mate on a time schedule?.. there is bad weather in those Atolls like anywhere in the world and I personally remember sitting in one lagoon for 10 days waiting for a window to go... So was Gypsy Moth required to be in Tahiti by a certain date?

There are a lot of questions that I think need answering about a possibly ill conceived publicity stunt that sent an old fashioned boat with a trainee crew into a situation that fortunately resulted in some damage but no loss of life.

So I really think it is somewhat unfair to publicise the sacking of this skipper and crew without giving out the details, facts of this incident.
Who judges the judges ?

Michael

 

[Tisme]

All very well, but why start a new thread for what is no more than a continuation of the thread which is already discussing this?

 

[Sea Devil]

Because other than mine the last 8 posts on that thread were off subject!

also I wondered what others thought about the concept of training or very young passengers in such dangerous waters and how much consideration had been given to this aspect of the voyage/publicity stunt..

Michael

 

[Tisme]

If everyone started a new thread every time a bit of thread drift started we would have thousands of threads with no more than one or two postings!

I guess that I'm now being guilty of being "off topic" so you may as well start another thread on GM ! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[john_morris_uk]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming this crew were being 'trained' then who considered it wise that they should be trained in some of the most dangerous waters in the world?

[/ QUOTE ] In whose opinion are these some of the most dangerous waters in the world? The pilotage techniques might be different to those of the English Channel. The charting might not always be as accurate.

Seamanship and experience might be the words you are looking for. However, I do not believe that you need to have sailed those waters before to have the relevant experience and seamanship to safely cruise there.

I note that in this months YM there is another story of someone destroying their boat by driving her onto a reef whilst relying on their plotter that they new to be innacurate. This is not directly related to the GMIV story except that possibly a modicum of seamanship and caution would appear to have prevented both accidents.

I am usually very reluctant to be critical of others (there but for the grace of God go I...), but I was a bit annoyed when I read both accounts at what seemed to have happened. Sailing in tropical waters is not like sailing in Western Europe...

 

[Sea Devil]

[ QUOTE ]
In whose opinion are these some of the most dangerous waters in the world? The pilotage techniques might be different to those of the English Channel. The charting might not always be as accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if you ask anybody who has sailed around the world you will find that they think the Tuamotus are very dangerous. In fact before the advent of GPS very few yachts passaging from the Marquises to Tahiti would venture near them - left them a long way to port...

In all honesty, leaving weather issues aside, these are really difficult atolls to sail around. the entrances to the lagoons often difficult to locate with currents of up to 9 knots flowing in and out. likewise the surrounding coral reefs - frequently miles long.. These strong - mainly uncharted currents also flow between the atolls. Things like depth sounders are useless because the coral comes straight up from hundreds of feet... Sometimes the only time you know there is a reef is because a bit of a bush or a palm tree rising out of the sea. You have to have somebody on the bows a lot of the time wearing Polaroid glasses watching the water colours changing... Eyeball navigation is difficult if the sun is in the wrong position, GPS as I said is inaccurate because much of the area is incorrectly charted. If you don't believe me read the pilot books... I certainly consider the area to be Dangerous and challenging.

Michael

 

[Benbow]

Yes, but isn't seamanship all about knowing and managing the risks. These hazards were not unexpcted acts of god. They are known about - you know about them. They were patently not managed properly.

 

[Sea Devil]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but isn't seamanship all about knowing and managing the risks. These hazards were not unexpcted acts of god. They are known about - you know about them. They were patently not managed properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly the question I am raising - should the owners/management have put this particular skipper and mate in command of an old fashioned yacht with young people who apprarently had little or no crewing experience.

I am merely asking the question if the 'appointed' skipper and crew :-

Had they ever sailed in the South Pacific before?

If so had the ever sailed around the Tuamotu islands before?

This young 'crew' they had - did they have any sailing experience at all?

If not then were they crew or passengers - a commercial charter?

Was it a sensible 'stunt' to send inexperienced passengers / crew into such dangerous waters?

Was the entire 'round the world' cruise with inexperienced crew in a very small boat a well conceived idea?

To turn round and publickly blame the skipper and mate for all the debacle may be absoulty fair - they were bloody fools and not caperble of doing the job in such demanding conditions which everybody knew about.. They were incompetant - possibly - probably - but who appointed them?

Or is my argument totally unfair and all responcibility should be taken by the skipper and crew on this leg of this publicty stunt?

I don't know - but the whole thing smacks of getting the 'blame' laid quickly on the couple least able to defend them selves... or maybe I am totally wrong here.. I frequently am wrong about lots of things but this story makes me feel uneasy!

Michael

 

[Benbow]

I think there is something very special about the role of a skipper which is quite different to the situation in a typical business setting. The skipper must take on the responsibility of day-to-day and week-to-week decisions without reference to his ‘manager’. The skipper cannot be hamstrung by the need to consult his boss, and I think the corollary is that his manager usually cannot take the blame for a cock-up.

I have been involved in appointing skippers and running vessels in this type of activity. It is always very clear that in matters of ‘policy’ it is up to the organisation to lay down the rules – eg alcohol policy, child protection etc etc. Failings there should rightly be laid at the door of the skipper’s boss. But the decisions on running the boat must be the skippers. If the managers tell the skipper to take the boat to a given port for a given time, it is the skippers job to keep the vessel and crew safe. If that involves saying ‘No that is not safe’ then no-one will argue with him.

So unless there was a screw-up in the appointment and the skipper/mate were simply not up to it, then I feel that the blame for this probably lies on the vessel not ashore.

 

[Sea Devil]

I think what you posted is very well reasoned and have no problem at all with it except I do feel that the circumstances of this 'voyage' into areas that are not as frequently sailed is special. [ QUOTE ]
So unless there was a screw-up in the appointment and the skipper/mate were simply not up to it, then I feel that the blame for this probably lies on the vessel not ashore.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are doing a Trade Winds circumnavigation which is not overly challenging a voyage, the Tuamotus are one place where you make the personal decision as to if you want the 'experience' the risks involved or not - Pirates in the Red Sea approaches are another - or Cape Horn. The questions I am asking are was sufficient consideration taken at management level as to if this was a suitable area to take an inexperienced crew and did the skipper and mate already have experience of sailing in this area around these coral atolls?

When you appoint a skipper and mate to a small yacht they by the nature of the 'job' are probably not going to have the experience that the Captain/Master of a Merchant ship has. It is an area where the Qualifications obtained in the Solent/Atlantic crossing type sailing be little use in such an area. Therefore the management may be giving a young and the case of South Pacific area, inexperienced people responsibility beyond their ability?? I am only saying maybe? Time pressures were the cause (partly) of the sinking of The Free Enterprise and I seem to remember the 'authorities' also blamed management for that added pressure - of am I wrong?

Michael

 

[poter]

Difficult one michael.....

Although all the relevent facts are not out in the public domain yet, the fact that they were in, as you put it, a dangerous part of the world, is in itself a requirement for local knowlege especially as the captain & mate were in charge of a young crew.
But I also have some difficulty in putting the complete blame with the captain, the onshore directors of this publicity stunt would IMHO have some culpability, in that they, one assumes, set up the passage & appointed the captain, so some of the blame must surely lie with them???

And why was any responsibilty laid with the mate?? are the prosecutors saying the mate could influence the captain??



poter

 

[Benbow]

I agree, its a complex situation and we don't know the full details.
But

[ QUOTE ]
When you appoint a skipper and mate to a small yacht they by the nature of the 'job' are probably not going to have the experience that the Captain/Master of a Merchant ship has.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can assure you from personal experience that when you advertise a position such as this, you will get 40-50 applications. Half will be from a well known Solent based sailing academy who, rather worryingly, believe their 02H certificate is sufficient experience for such a job. Of the rest, 5 or 6 will be outstandingly well qualified with a great deal of relevant experience and you will be making the decision largely on personal qualities rather than assumed seamanship. And it’s a funny thing about such skippers; they rarely have any problem at all in telling the ‘office’ to get stuffed if they believe they are being asked to do something unreasonable!

(Someone whose experience was solely as master of a merchant ship would join the 02H’s in the bin.)

 

[Sea Devil]

I agree with all you say.

I have however several friends who work as charter skippers in the Caribbean and they do take risks to 'position' the boat for the next charter. Go out in conditions and move the boat to make certain their employer does not loose money by the boat not being there.... There are commercial pressures put on skippers and indeed mates.

My problem is with the way all this was announced. The organization running this Gypsy Moth publicity junket employed 3 experts - took them to Tahiti paid them, bed and boarded them then published a statement saying that the entire debacle was because of the action of the Skipper and Mate. (How come the Mate??)

This was done very fast - the blame was allocated instantaneously by people employed by the very company that could, and I repeat only could, be considered culpable as a contributory factor. The speed and publicity of all this makes me feel very uncomfortable and I am not normally one for conspiracy theories.

Ok there needed to be a debrief. Clearly some decisions were bad or the yacht would not have gone on the reef. But such a 'shotgun' court reaching a verdict and instantly dismissal of the offenders???Did they have someone to organise their defence? I suspect not. Even a court martial has a defence council - another officer.

It did not need publicising. The decision to dismiss the skipper and mate could have been replaced by a decision to obtain another skipper and mate to take over which anyway is not necessary as the Gypsy Moth is en route to NZ and will not sail again for a while...

Just got an uneasy feeling that whilst the Skipper and Crew are made to carry 100% of the responsibility the organisers of this publicity stunt can claim to be whiter than white.

If the decision to blame the skipper and crew can receive international publicity why not publish the report in full.. Pretty cowardly it seems to me.

I appear to be the only person on this YM forum to feel concern - so maybe I am totally wrong? Again!

Michael

 

[snowleopard]

By whose standards is a 53 ft boat 'very small'? And one that has been round the world in the Southern Ocean?

Hundreds of boats are circumnavigation right now. 99% of the skippers will be doing it for the first time so by definition they are sailing in waters they have never been to before. Are you saying they should stay home?

Should we only take experienced crew when sailing offshore?

Do you work in the Health & Safety industry?

 

[Benbow]

[ QUOTE ]

Just got an uneasy feeling that whilst the Skipper and Crew are made to carry 100% of the responsibility the organisers of this publicity stunt can claim to be whiter than white.

If the decision to blame the skipper and crew can receive international publicity why not publish the report in full.. Pretty cowardly it seems to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, point taken.

We are wildly speculating about what happened (well I am!). And the company's actions appear to support our theories. But I agree it does seem to have been done with unseemly haste.

 

[Sea Devil]

By small I was just remembering visiting it in dry dock beside the cutty sark.. It was pretty narrow and I am not sure how many 'crew' - passengers it could reasonably hold..As you know most crews in circumnavigation are mainly 2 handed and have got to the South Pacific gaining experience all the time and the majority have done considerable cruising before setting out.

I am not clear where this new Skipper and Mate took over in Gypsy Moth?
Going offshore as you very well know is not difficult and frequently undemanding most of the time.
Taking a boat into a dangerous area like the Tuamotus is an altogether different ball park. It is not the sort of thing you can possibly learn on an Atlantic circuit except perhaps the Bahama's and Cuba but even that cannot prepare you for the Atolls in that extensive and poorly charted area. You need to experience it to full appreciate how demanding it is - do not want to repeat earlier posts. But of course it is doable and of course it is possible to cock it up.

Clearly this happened but the question I am asking is this summary court martial convened, and all members paid for, by the owners, finding of 100% fault of Skipper and Crew totally just?

I am just asking the question..... Like with the spirit of free enterprise sinking were time pressures put on this Skipper and Mate. Did they have representation at this drum head court martial? Were they sufficiently experienced and knowlageble enough to be given this command.

This is not you or me sailing off into the sunset at entirely our own risk and with our own time schedule. It is a commercial publicity stunt and perhaps, perhaps the organisers have underestimated the difficulties and dangers and put the entire blame on this couple who do not have the resources to put up any defence?
Michael

 

[Guest]

The thing that seems to me to have been rather shoddy is to have announced it so publicly, which seems to me a little unnecessary. It must be very distressing for those involved. The only reason that I can think of why it should be announced so publicly is to get a load of extra publicity when public interest in the project was perhaps waning a little. Or perhaps I am being too cynical?

 

[poter]

[ QUOTE ]
By whose standards is a 53 ft boat 'very small'? And one that has been round the world in the Southern Ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think michael was saying that, only that the accommodation in his memory was not large. I tend to agree she was not exactly beamy with loads of spare bunks, A fine yacht to be sure, but not a teaching platform for say 4 or 5 young inexperienced crew.

The verdict was done in haste & the employer/organiser was judge & jury, never a a good combination.

It really smaks of corporate mangement saving their own skins!!!

poter

 

[Guest]

As someone that has been to Rangiroa and chose that atoll as the only one to visit because it is the best marked and easiest to navigate. It is no more difficult than the channel islands. The leading marks are huge and most of the atoll of interest is tree lined. The exit route around the top has some currents but the next atoll is so close that it is just like doing the needles. You just make sure you are in the centre. We found it more dangerous inside due to other yachties and a storm.

The whole concept of giving youngsters a chance on GMIV is wonderful and if I was at home I would have offered any help.

However, what I can not understand was the skippers logs from the days before the incident. Inaccuracies and in my view lunacy. They have now been removed from the site.

As for me sailing it is my choice of what risks I take. When I had someone else's child on board then I would stay safe always. Sorry of it is boring but there are better ways to entertain youngsters.

I also would love someone to explain how you actually get a boat on top of a reef in such a small tidal range area, and without a storm.

 

[Tisme]

[ QUOTE ]
I am asking is this summary court martial convened,

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't a court martial. The employers are fully entitled to dismiss staff who they believe are not up to the job. It's a straight forward employment matter.