YM exclusive interview with Charlie Sturrock of Liquid Vortex.

[Simondjuk]

He say's they had a 12-24hr weather window which they pushed to the absolute limit. It seems they bet on getting to Dover by 6-7am with the weather coming through mid-morning.

That's not what the forecasts told him or what he acknowledged in his Tweets.

The Shipping Forecast issued by the Met Office on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at 0505 GMT on Monday 2nd of January 2012. Humber, Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth - West, backing south or southwest, 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 or severe gale 9 later. Squally showers, rain later. Moderate or good, occasionally poor.

That means that all day they'd had access to a forecast which gave them the potential of a F9 by 1705, just two and a half hours after they left.

The Shipping Forecast issued by the Met Office on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at 1240 GMT on Monday 2nd of January 2012. Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth - West or southwest 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 to storm 10 later. Squally showers, rain later. Good, occasionally poor.

That means that the last forecast before they left was predicting up to a F10 by 0040 on the 3rd January, just ten hours after they left.

Which means he had a 2 1/2 hour window to be in a F9 and a 10 hour window to be in a F10, not the 12 to 24 hour window he states.

This information was all available to him before departure, and he was clearly aware of it because he Tweeted about it.
He can change his story but he can't change the now archived Tweets.

 

[photodog]

I will say one more time just in case you don't get it, although you should, since you quoted yourself above. I don't care what you think! I am only interested in the skippers thoughts.

Then why did you bother to post here?

 

[photodog]

That's not what the forecasts told him or what he acknowledged in his Tweets.

The Shipping Forecast issued by the Met Office on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at 0505 GMT on Monday 2nd of January 2012. Humber, Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth - West, backing south or southwest, 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 or severe gale 9 later. Squally showers, rain later. Moderate or good, occasionally poor.

That means that all day they'd had access to a forecast which gave them the potential of a F9 by 1705, just two and a half hours after they left.

The Shipping Forecast issued by the Met Office on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at 1240 GMT on Monday 2nd of January 2012. Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth - West or southwest 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 to storm 10 later. Squally showers, rain later. Good, occasionally poor.

That means that the last forecast before they left was predicting up to a F10 by 0040 on the 3rd January, just ten hours after they left.

Which means he had a 2 1/2 hour window to be in a F9 and a 10 hour window to be in a F10, not the 12 to 24 hour window he states.

This information was all available to him before departure, and he was clearly aware of it because he Tweeted about it.
He can change his story but he can't change the now archived Tweets.

I posted in one of the original threads about the weather.... and questioned the actual condititions when they got in trouble... in my original post (Which I cannot be arsed to find thanks...) I cited some figures from weather stations along the coast... and not one of them was showing more than F6-7 at the time they got in trouble....

So, overconfidence was they key I think... combined with a weak crew and a sea state that was probably not expected..

 

[Simondjuk]

Exactly. They got much less than was forecast and still got into trouble.

The situation if they'd got the full F10 with the associated gusts touching hurricane force, as per the forecast, doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[photodog]

I have not looked at the tide at the time...

Was it WOT?

The skippers failure to realise he was in trouble when he had several of the crew go down ill (From reports this happened pretty early in the trip...) and the impact this would have further into the trip show that his judgement was very poor. His talk was indicative of a desire to make the delivery... versus think about the best interests and comfort of his crew... who had paid to be part of the trip.. not baggage.

 

[Elemental]

That's not what the forecasts told him or what he acknowledged in his Tweets.

The Shipping Forecast issued by the Met Office on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at 0505 GMT on Monday 2nd of January 2012. Humber, Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth - West, backing south or southwest, 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 or severe gale 9 later. Squally showers, rain later. Moderate or good, occasionally poor.

That means that all day they'd had access to a forecast which gave them the potential of a F9 by 1705, just two and a half hours after they left.

The Shipping Forecast issued by the Met Office on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at 1240 GMT on Monday 2nd of January 2012. Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth - West or southwest 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 to storm 10 later. Squally showers, rain later. Good, occasionally poor.

That means that the last forecast before they left was predicting up to a F10 by 0040 on the 3rd January, just ten hours after they left.

Which means he had a 2 1/2 hour window to be in a F9 and a 10 hour window to be in a F10, not the 12 to 24 hour window he states.

I'm afraid you are wrong. The term "Later" means 12 - 24 hours. "Soon" means < 12 hours, "Imminent" means < 6.

That means the forecast issued at 1240 GMT on Monday 2nd of January 2012 was predicting storm force winds sometime in the period 0040 - 1240 on Tuesday 3rd. Your analysis of the earlier forecast is similarly flawed. He had, acc ording to tyhe forecast, 12 hours more than you're giving him credit for. His 12-24 window was correct from the forecast he had. That would equate (simplistically) to around 70 miles (assuming SOG is 6kt).

Whether or not that was a sensible gamble given the circumstances is another matter.

 

[Pete R]

Then why did you bother to post here?

As per the opening post.

I started the thread to highlight what I saw as a rubbish interview in YM. There are an abundance of threads on here with lots of differing opinions that I could read if I wanted. Similar to the one you have just had on the weather forecast.

I am more interested in the skippers decision making and was hoping, silly I now realise, that he may have been asked some questions since it was supposed to be an interview.

 

[photodog]

As per the opening post.

I started the thread to highlight what I saw as a rubbish interview in YM. There are an abundance of threads on here with lots of differing opinions that I could read if I wanted. Similar to the one you have just had on the weather forecast.

I am more interested in the skippers decision making and was hoping, silly I now realise, that he may have been asked some questions since it was supposed to be an interview.

Well, as has been pointed out that appears to have been explored in the article...

But if it was not....saying you are uninterested in the thoughts of others... in this place.... is pretty silly.! The point of starting a thread, or making a post... is to encourage discussion... and in this place attempting to steer that discussion is utterly pointless.. ( Though it does provide excellent entertainment....)

Enjoy the ride!

 

[Simondjuk]

I'm afraid you are wrong. The term "Later" means 12 - 24 hours. "Soon" means < 12 hours, "Imminent" means < 6.

That means the forecast issued at 1240 GMT on Monday 2nd of January 2012 was predicting storm force winds sometime in the period 0040 - 1240 on Tuesday 3rd. Your analysis of the earlier forecast is similarly flawed. He had, acc ording to tyhe forecast, 12 hours more than you're giving him credit for. His 12-24 window was correct from the forecast he had. That would equate (simplistically) to around 70 miles (assuming SOG is 6kt).

Whether or not that was a sensible gamble given the circumstances is another matter.

No, he may have had 12 hours more. There is no assurance where the conditions will fall within the window. They may come at the start of it, they may come at the end of it, or they may cover the entirety of it. To assume they'll come at the end of the window just because that happens to suit your agenda would be foolish in the extreme.

If you knew you could jump a little over 12 feet, and I told you there was a gap of between 12 and 24 feet between the tops of two tower blocks, would you take your chances and leap?

 

[Pete R]

Well, as has been pointed out that appears to have been explored in the article...

Oh really. Have you read it?

saying you are uninterested in the thoughts of others...

Since you quoted my post in your reply I will just remind you that I did not say I was uninterested in the thoughts of others but that I am more interested in the skippers decision making . Not quite the same.

 

[Elemental]

No, he may have had 12 hours more. There is no assurance where the conditions will fall within the window. They may come at the start of it, they may come at the end of it, or they may cover the entirety of it.

Well, you stated they'd have the conditions forecast by 1750 and by 0040... You seemed to be contesting CS's statement that according to the forecast he'd have 12-24 hours before the storm hit. I'm simply pointing out that his statement was technically correct.

To assume they'll come at the end of the window just because that happens to suit your agenda would be foolish in the extreme.

I ended my post by stating

Whether or not that was a sensible gamble given the circumstances is another matter.

so, I think on that point we're in agreement.

 

[photodog]

Oh really. Have you read it?


Since you quoted my post in your reply I will just remind you that I did not say I was uninterested in the thoughts of others but that I am more interested in the skippers decision making . Not quite the same.

No, you said....

I don't care what you think! I am only interested in the skippers thoughts.

I think this is more a absolute valuation of your interest.... as it excludes any relationship to others.

 

[davidej]

Some of these Liquid Vortex post have suggested he should have made for Boulogne.

I have not entered Boulogne in a gale but looking at the almanac I cant see why it would have been better than Dover.

Anybody more experienced care to comment? More constructive than continuing to squabble.

 

[Simondjuk]

Sea Spray,

I qualified the 'bys' with 'potential' and 'up to' in relation to the possibly lesser but worsening weather conditions predicted at the start if the time windows, so I think we're disagreeing over semantics.

Either way, he had 21 hours or so before the very latest time a F10 was forecast to get 120 miles and no safe options in the lesser conditions forecast much sooner. So yes, we agree, a somewhat less than wise decision to go.

 

[Simondjuk]

Some of these Liquid Vortex post have suggested he should have made for Boulogne.

I have not entered Boulogne in a gale but looking at the almanac I cant see why it would have been better than Dover.

Anybody more experienced care to comment? More constructive than continuing to squabble.

It would have been a windward shore. More sheltered, flatter, and they wouldn't have been driven up the beach if it all went TU.

 

[A1Sailor]

On the Monday, before departure, the skipper tweeted:
"Great F8/9 maybe even F10 Tue!!!" They knew about the forecast weather... Does that not settle the argument?
I await the MCA report with interest.

 

[Simondjuk]

On the Monday, before departure, the skipper tweeted:
"Great F8/9 maybe even F10 Tue!!!" They knew about the forecast weather... Does that not settle the argument?
I await the MCA report with interest.

You'd think so, but some like Toad seem to think it's the RYA's fault for not ensuring the two lowest crew competency levels they categorise aren't bulletproof in heavy weather.

 

[Boomshanka]

On the Monday, before departure, the skipper tweeted:
"Great F8/9 maybe even F10 Tue!!!" They knew about the forecast weather... Does that not settle the argument?
I await the MCA report with interest.

Anyone can have a nosey around Twitter and find the whole run up (I haven't read the YM article so I don't know if the Twitter feed was included). There was first mention of a weather check for the trip as far back as 29th Dec. Passage plan appears to have been Ramsgate in one hit (mentioned a few times)

Relevant tweets (and my view is that whilst it's on Twitter, someone's course of action in reality can be different in reality - I'm open in view as to what actually happened, no doubt the next few weeks/months will tell - one thing it has done though is reinforce my view of NEVER to go on Twitter):

Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
@LunnonWood Read the RYA web site news!
2 Feb


Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
@RNLI @DungenessRNLI @doverlifeboat THANKS!!!!!
4 Jan


Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
OK going quite well over 6 knots under just head. Sail, no3 Jib!! 20 knots wind but motion not good 3 crew sick!
2 Jan


Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
Ok evening from the Solent, next stop Ramsgate weather permitting!! yfrog.com/oc4hexkj
2 Jan


Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
Good morning all from Shamrock Quay! yfrog.com/nuxxfoj
2 Jan


Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
Great F8/9 maybe even F10 Tue!!! At least it's from west so just run under storm jib!!! May even use Trysail!!!!
2 Jan


Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
So here we are 2012!!! Hope the hangovers are not to bad, next check weather for tomorrow's trip up to London on Liquid Vortex!
1 Jan

Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
@ali__white All the way to Ramsgate in one start Monday there late Tue. Wed afternoon first bit of river early hours Thur second leg river
30 Dec

Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
Having just checked Met Office web site weather looks like it could be interesting for start of trip to London on Monday
29 Dec

Sailing Boy
Sailingboy55 Sailing Boy
Mind you the crew I get on 2 Jan might think going right through to Ramsgate is a long trip!!!!
29 Dec

@lovesail Yes back at Shamrock 1 Jan then crew arrive 0900 2 Jan and in way by 1200. Will be there for first day.
29 Dec

 

[Pete R]

No, you said...."I don't care what you think! I am only interested in the skippers thoughts."

I think this is more a absolute valuation of your interest.... as it excludes any relationship to others.

Interesting!. You included in your post earlier a different quote from me. This must be how you play your games. Entertainment? Maybe for you and as long as you are kept happy by it then that is fine by me.

I fully admit that I did say "I don't care what you think!" BUT that was aimed at the Toad. Not unreasonable in my opinion although I didn't know you two were that close and you feel the need to stand up for him....... If you know what I mean

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Whether or not that was a sensible gamble given the circumstances is another matter.

If you knew you could jump a little over 12 feet, and I told you there was a gap of between 12 and 24 feet between the tops of two tower blocks, would you take your chances and leap?

Comprehension difficulties, Simondjuk?