Bounty Captain Reckless?

[Gunni]

So, let's review: CAPT.Walbridge recklessly sails into a massive hurricane with a light and inexperienced crew, he loses his ship, he get's a crew member killed, endangers the remaining crew along with the SAR personnel who came out to save them, and finally, the idiot's actions bring intense scrutiny upon the already beleaguered tall-ship community...his legacy is and will ever be stained. Too bad someone didn't drag his dumbass off the Bounty while she was still in New London. That stunt where he dared his crew to leave the boat before departure for St. Pete renders him an abusive scoundrel.

 

[MrBill_FLL]

I don't think for 1 second he wanted to scuttle the ship, or endanger lives.
-and I read almost all of the accounts and trial transcripts.

 

[Lake Superior Sailor]

With all the other choices he could have made; and a deck stacked against him: hard to say what he was or wasn't thinking! But I don't even use my pumps; And I wouldn't take my boat out if all where not working! Would you?...Dale

 

[Gary_H]

From the book I gather that the Bounty was considered somewhat of a Black Sheep of the Tall ship community and had a reputation of finding work arounds and shortcuts to get around problems and not maintaining the standards required by the others. It was registered as a Moored attraction and therefore not supposed to carry passengers while voyaging.

 

[RECESS]

It was a movie prop.

 

[HukilauMike]

It was a movie prop.

This is a misleading, and frankly inaccurate statement. The ship was built for the remake of "Mutiny on the Bounty", but she was designed and built to sail on her own bottom from Nova Scotia (where she was built) to Tahiti (where the movie was filmed). This was a real tall ship built for ocean voyaging, not just a "movie prop". Since the film, the ship made many open ocean crossings. That she was not properly maintained or ever certified to carry paying passengers have nothing to do with her original purpose. You can fault the use of Home Depot caulking, her overall poor maintenance, her lack of adequate pumps, her inexperienced crew and her arguably criminally negligent captain. But you can't say that she was just a "movie prop" and shouldn't have left the dock.

 

[Gunni]

Aye Mike;
The Bounty was a true sailing vessel, attached find a shot of her the June before she was lost, sailing out of the Elizabeth River in Hampton Roads, Virginia. We couldn't keep up - she blew right by us. Of all the many tall ships headed to Baltimore that day, only Bounty and the Pride were under sail. She was a good looking movie star! What a tragedy.

 

[RECESS]

This is a misleading, and frankly inaccurate statement. The ship was built for the remake of "Mutiny on the Bounty", but she was designed and built to sail on her own bottom from Nova Scotia (where she was built) to Tahiti (where the movie was filmed). This was a real tall ship built for ocean voyaging, not just a "movie prop". Since the film, the ship made many open ocean crossings. That she was not properly maintained or ever certified to carry paying passengers have nothing to do with her original purpose. You can fault the use of Home Depot caulking, her overall poor maintenance, her lack of adequate pumps, her inexperienced crew and her arguably criminally negligent captain. But you can't say that she was just a "movie prop" and shouldn't have left the dock.

She was held together by glue. It is not like she had proper maintenance. When she left the dock she had the integrity of a movie prop.

 

[Johann]

She was held together by glue. It is not like she had proper maintenance. When she left the dock she had the integrity of a movie prop.

Still, to sink her it took:

1. A hurricane.
2. 4 underperforming bilge pumps
3. Continuously interrupted electric power (due to filter changes).

Remove any of the three, and she would likely still be sailing today. More than a movie prop could handle I would say.

 

[topcat0399]

Reckless aye.

 

[Gary_H]

Yes the ship was built according to the original plans at a shipyard and was seaworthy. The dimensions were expanded by 1/3 to accommodate the space for film crews to work. so it was actually somewhat larger than the original. The problem came when it went through a series of owners one through acquisition where the owner didn't even know he owned it for quite some time. The cost of upkeep and maintenance on the wooden vessel was more then many were prepared for. During it's haul out a new fuel tank was installed and the crews quarters was moved. It was during that time it was discovered that some planks and beams were rotted these were above the water line but probably caused by deck leakage.
During the storm the site glass of the port side day tank broke and was not discovered until the tank drained and the engine ran dry. They were not able to get the engine restarted so they lost the port side engine and the port side generator. The starboard generator filters had to constantly be changed because the filters were more dense than specs. Starboard engine sputtering probably due to junk stirred up in fuel tank. crew had to stay in the bilge to keep trash from clogging the pump intakes which were still constantly loosing prime. Two storm sails blew out. Captain order ship to heave to.
I don't really know how accurate this book is but it sounds very plausible.

The Gathering Wind: Hurricane Sandy, the Sailing Ship Bounty, and a Courageous Rescue at Sea
by
Gregory A. Freeman

 

[Gary_H]

I'm thinking that if they had stuck to the original plan and swung way out to the east they probably would have made it. however probably even better would have been to stay in port. Not sure why making that appointment in St Petersburg was so important.

 

[Crazy Dave Condon]

Although there is error in judgment, least we not forget that two people one of which was a relative of Christian and the other, Captain, were killed and I pray they are in heaven and leave it at that as both will be missed. There are lessons to be learned from this but to drag the case on as to fault will not bring back those two precious lives.

Dave Condon

 

[Gary_H]

Dave, we grieve for these two sailors loss, but as sailors we have a keen interest in the details of the tragedy not necessarily to place blame but to learn from not only the mistakes but also from the actions properly performed. Also as a study and reminder of the variety and cumulative effects of problems seen and unforeseen.

 

[Anonymous 121765]

The Tampa Bay Times had a three part series on the Last days of the Bounty.
These will prove the captain was an idiot to think he could sneak past an oncoming hurricane. The Bounty was NOT seaworthy. This was a known fact.

The articles tell of the KNOWN mechanical & electrical problems before setting sail.
Oh, did I forget the leaking hull timbers & the failing pumps? If I had been a crew member, I would have refused to sail with him. I'll bet I could have taken half his crew with me so maybe, he would not have sailed.

Here are the articles for reading, it's pretty sad:

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2013/reports/bounty/day1-ie.shtml
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2013/reports/bounty/day2-ie.shtml
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2013/reports/bounty/day3-ie.shtml

CR

 

[Jackdaw]

If I had been a crew member, I would have refused to sail with him. I'll bet I could have taken half his crew with me so maybe, he would not have sailed.

Maybe. But that's an easy thing to say, as an amateur yachtsman after the fact. As a professional mariner, saying NO to a voyage can stain your career forever. The 1st mate is a quality sailor. He had reservations, but respect for the chain of command and a concern over career obliged him to go. Sadly.

The unpaid 'crew' didn't have the sense to know what they were getting themselves into.

 

[higgs]

I don't see any justification for the captain's decision and it is not a situation of hindsight being 20/20. What idiot would even consider taking a boat, with known structural and mechanical problems, with inexperienced crew, into the predicted path of any storm, much less a hurricane?

 

[MrBill_FLL]

IIRC, the original plan was to go east then south. but that changed, and I still don't know why.

anyone have the link to the original thread? the trial summary was pretty detailed.

 

[Anonymous 121765]

Jack,

I'm surprised by your post man. I've had my UCCG master ticket with towing & aux sail endorsements for thirty years & have sailed many boats both sail & power. So, I don't consider myself "an amateur yachtsman after the fact" pal.

Respect for "the chain of command." Really, even when you feel your life is in danger & the captain's decision to go was murderous? Oh yea, he was also in a rush to get to the next port to stay on schedule, but again at what cost. Obviously you've never sailed in big water in 70 KT winds & 15 foot seas. If you had, you might think differently; captain or no captain.

I really don't care that he killed himself, as it was his fault, what I do care about is his stupid overconfident decision making took a young Claudene Christian's life on Oct. 29, 2012. She had NO sailing experience & only joined in May. She trusted the captain, hell, what did she know. Look at how that turned out.

But you're trying to defend this guy..........really man? The "chain of command thing? This was a volunteer crew, not that the boat was anything more than a mobile "park-it & tour boat."

Take the time to read the articles, then make your call. Remember, not all captains are created equal............

CR

 

[Jackdaw]

Jack,

I'm surprised by your post man. I've had my UCCG master ticket with towing & aux sail endorsements for thirty years & have sailed many boats both sail & power. So, I don't consider myself "an amateur yachtsman after the fact" pal.

Respect for "the chain of command." Really, even when you feel your life is in danger & the captain's decision to go was murderous? Oh yea, he was also in a rush to get to the next port to stay on schedule, but again at what cost. Obviously you've never sailed in big water in 70 KT winds & 15 foot seas. If you had, you might think differently; captain or no captain.

I really don't care that he killed himself, as it was his fault, what I do care about is his stupid overconfident decision making took a young Claudene Christian's life on Oct. 29, 2012. She had NO sailing experience & only joined in May. She trusted the captain, hell, what did she know. Look at how that turned out.

But you're trying to defend this guy..........really man? The "chain of command thing? This was a volunteer crew, not that the boat was anything more than a mobile "park-it & tour boat."

Take the time to read the articles, then make your call. Remember, not all captains are created equal............

CR

Ron,

Absolutely no disrespect intended. And I'm not defending him. And I do read every USCG and USsailing accident report published.

For my money, the best thing we can do in these circumstances is to learn what happened. But figuring out WHAT happened is easy. But when the most obvious things were not done correctly, the hard question to answer is; WHY?

It's clear that they should not have left. But they did.
It's clear the captain should have have more prudent. But he wasn't.
It's clear that the crew should have jumped ship, but they didn't.

So why? For me, when looking at these things its important to put away any personal pre-conceptions of what I think/wish I would have done, knowing the outcome. It helps to make sure I can learn from the event.

I'd like to think I would not have gone. Or called the captain out on the plan. Or jumped ship. But frankly there is no way of knowing for sure. I was not there. The best thing I can do is to learn from it objectively, and hope it aids in my decision making process going forward. Cavalierly claiming that I 'would have done this' or 'would not have done that' reeks of the same brand of hubris that got the captain into trouble in the first place.

PS - the whole crew was not volunteer. The mates and able bodied seamen were paid positions.