I plan on taking my Hunter 49 to Fort Myers Beach and have to pass under the Matanza Pass Bridge which shows a height of 65 feet. My mast is 64 feet. Has anyone with this size mast had a problem with this bridge?
Mast Clearance
- Thread starter mrmarch
- Start date
- Status
Height
Are you sure of the 64 mast height and does that include wind machine and VHF antenna.
How did you get that measurement,my mast is 55' but I was told that it does not include the VHF and wind Machine so add about 3' more feet.
It is very scary going under a bridge and thinking if I hit it's all over for my $$$$$ mast so check and make sure,when I went under a 64' bridge with my 58' mast it was very scary looking up and my crew was thinking and yelling we are going to hit and as you are going under it's too late to try and stop so double check your mast height and low tide for sure going under a 65 bridge with a 64 mast.
Nick
Are you sure of the 64 mast height and does that include wind machine and VHF antenna.
How did you get that measurement,my mast is 55' but I was told that it does not include the VHF and wind Machine so add about 3' more feet.
It is very scary going under a bridge and thinking if I hit it's all over for my $$$$$ mast so check and make sure,when I went under a 64' bridge with my 58' mast it was very scary looking up and my crew was thinking and yelling we are going to hit and as you are going under it's too late to try and stop so double check your mast height and low tide for sure going under a 65 bridge with a 64 mast.
Nick
MrMarch,
Tall mast? Low bridge? No trouble. Check out this video. It makes perfect sense. Trig the heel required, drop a line the appropriate length from the mast and add a tag line. Pretty simple stuff . . . I think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epz6BBZm__0&NR=1
Tall mast? Low bridge? No trouble. Check out this video. It makes perfect sense. Trig the heel required, drop a line the appropriate length from the mast and add a tag line. Pretty simple stuff . . . I think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epz6BBZm__0&NR=1
Guys -
most of the bridges in Florida, these days, are purposely mis-marked on the 'depthboards' as maintained by the Florida Dept. of Transp. due to lawsuits from stupid people hitting the undersides of the bridges and the navigation lights that are suspended under these bridges..
In most of Fla. the FLDOT has artificially lowered the 'airgap' postings on most but not all bridges .... and NOBODY knows what the REAL bridge air-gaps are anymore; hence, the question.
mrmarch - I suggest you find a bascule bridge in close proximity to the Matanzas Pass bridge, call/telephone them and ask for info on the airgap of that bridge ...... and then LISTEN very carefully **between the lines** of their answer as to discern the 'real' airgap, because they 'for legal purposes' seemingly cant give you a 'straight answer'. Thats the way its done nowadays in Florida to find out 'airgaps' on any bridge that is 'doubtful' and 'legally mis-posted'.
Its surely turning into a entire country dominated completely by shysters, inane legal precedent, the pursuit of contingency fees and nothing relates to the TRUTH anymore.
most of the bridges in Florida, these days, are purposely mis-marked on the 'depthboards' as maintained by the Florida Dept. of Transp. due to lawsuits from stupid people hitting the undersides of the bridges and the navigation lights that are suspended under these bridges..
In most of Fla. the FLDOT has artificially lowered the 'airgap' postings on most but not all bridges .... and NOBODY knows what the REAL bridge air-gaps are anymore; hence, the question.
mrmarch - I suggest you find a bascule bridge in close proximity to the Matanzas Pass bridge, call/telephone them and ask for info on the airgap of that bridge ...... and then LISTEN very carefully **between the lines** of their answer as to discern the 'real' airgap, because they 'for legal purposes' seemingly cant give you a 'straight answer'. Thats the way its done nowadays in Florida to find out 'airgaps' on any bridge that is 'doubtful' and 'legally mis-posted'.
Its surely turning into a entire country dominated completely by shysters, inane legal precedent, the pursuit of contingency fees and nothing relates to the TRUTH anymore.
No matter what it is still scary. I chartered an H46 in 2007 and we were in the ICW, west coast. We were approaching the new Sarasota high bridge headed for the Sarasota YC. The charts indicated we had room. It looked so close that I called the charter service in St. Pete. They said no problem, been under with that boat many times, but stay in the center! Duh.
I find trying to determine height when looking straight up VERY difficult. And even people with experience in these matters seem to have difficulty- A few summers ago we made our first passage under a bridge- we were all sure we did not have enough room - even our crew, one of whom was a career firefighter was sure we did not have clearance. However we did proceed when the voice from on high ( the bridge keeper) boomed out "Go ahead you have lots of room"
Sorry Rich, but this is just not true and another one of those urban legends. The bridges in Florida are all marked on the tide boards at "low steel" at mean low low water, which is the lowest point of the bridge in the channel and not the center span. The Coast Guard, not the state of Florida is responsible for regulating bridges and signage. The fines to any bridge owner for incorrect signage is $25,000.00 per day per occurrence. If you or anyone believes a bridge sign has been tampered with they should immediately notify the local Coast Guard District. I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Waverly Gregory, Bridge Administrator of the 5th Coast Guard District, at the AIWA Conference on November 18th about just that subject. The boards in the state of Florida are all correct reads at "low steel" unless they have been damaged, and those should be reported. Chuck
What about the width?
Great idea, though with masts that tall, he might worry about getting between the uprights, as well as under the span. Lucky no one was coming the other way!
Well Im going to totally disagree with you as the 'boards' MOSTLY now read to the *bottom of the nav lights* hanging down from the 'low steel' ... and the nav lights on MOST of the bridges from Palm Coast to Ft. Lauderdale have their boards reading 62-63 ft. at MEAN HIGH WATER ... and yes indeed, Ive had a few firm discussions with one of my US Senators, the 5th USCG district, etc. And the Senator's comment is: if the state has erroneously re-marked the bridges to other than the 'spec'. then the state has the responsibility to correct .... or to rip out the bridge and rebuild to the 65ft. spec. .... and these specific bridges under discussion are not 'arched' trusses (low steel at the support ends / high in the middle) but straight beam bridges. There IS a connection to actual lawsuit vs. FLDOT where a boat hit the nav. lights, damaged his vessel at less than mean high water ... and the FLDOT then 'raised the boards'. Been well documented ... and a legal work in progress, as its DANGEROUS to not know EXACTLY the air-gap on a bridge over a federally controlled navigational waterway.
;-)
Be careful
It's best to use local knowledge. Up here in NJ we have bridges at both ends of Barnegat bay on the ICW. They are both charted at 60" clearance but when you try to go under, the tide boards show something like 56'-57' even at low tide. In fact, one of the brides has no tidal boards at all and many sailboats get hung up under the span.
My mast is ~56 feet from the waterline plus my antenna and instruments and I have managed to make it under at least one the bridges several times but we go very slow and hold our breath each time.
Be careful!
BTW: The datum information on the chart should tell you how the clearance is measured.
It's best to use local knowledge. Up here in NJ we have bridges at both ends of Barnegat bay on the ICW. They are both charted at 60" clearance but when you try to go under, the tide boards show something like 56'-57' even at low tide. In fact, one of the brides has no tidal boards at all and many sailboats get hung up under the span.
My mast is ~56 feet from the waterline plus my antenna and instruments and I have managed to make it under at least one the bridges several times but we go very slow and hold our breath each time.
Be careful!
BTW: The datum information on the chart should tell you how the clearance is measured.
Mast height 40.5
My mast height (according to factory spec's is 63' 9") I to hold my breath everytime I go under an ICW bridge and have learned that if the clearance board is showing 64' I will and have scraped the radio antenna on the under gridders every time and there are a lot of ICW bridges in NC I talked to a delivery Capt. recently that was moving a 460 to Fla. and we had the conversation about mast heights as we were in neighboring slips in Beaufort and he told me he had motored thru a couple of bridges backward I guess if it's going to come down better to fall towards the bow than the cockpit YIKES! I would love to know where to find "the boat balls" as shown in the video, I would feel a lot more comfortable if I could get the boat heeled about a foot on those bridges that show 64' clearance.
captron
My mast height (according to factory spec's is 63' 9") I to hold my breath everytime I go under an ICW bridge and have learned that if the clearance board is showing 64' I will and have scraped the radio antenna on the under gridders every time and there are a lot of ICW bridges in NC I talked to a delivery Capt. recently that was moving a 460 to Fla. and we had the conversation about mast heights as we were in neighboring slips in Beaufort and he told me he had motored thru a couple of bridges backward I guess if it's going to come down better to fall towards the bow than the cockpit YIKES! I would love to know where to find "the boat balls" as shown in the video, I would feel a lot more comfortable if I could get the boat heeled about a foot on those bridges that show 64' clearance.
captron
Rich, could it be that the State is changing its markings "in the field" while the charts haven't changed the height clearances?
with a mast that tall, will your depth be an issue?? when we were there, first time they were dredging the channel and we went grounded on stbd side of channel on our entry--we drew only 4.5 ft, so we didnt have trouble second or subsequent times on our entrances. the bridge is fairly high-- might want to go into the channel in high and wait to go under bridge at low tide...just a thought. our mast is 55 ft and we saw quite a lot of air between masthead and bridge.. gooodluck--smooth sailing!
Stu - here's the REAL problem:
The federal/NOAA charts have all these bridges listed at 65 clearance MHW. A boater coming in off the ocean to avoid storm, etc. conditions needs to KNOW EXACTLY what the clearance is, especially during 'rising water'. Therefore this is a very strategic SAFETY concern.
If a bridge is purposely/erroneously marked for 'litigation/judicial purposes' lower than the 'true' or actual mean high water level; and, if an approaching mariner in approaching storm conditions who LOOKS at those mis-marked clearance boards and makes a BAD decision based on the **clearly and purposely MISREPRESENTED** gages which then results in damages or injury etc. of the mariner or his boat ... who then is responsible: .... The mariner who was MISLEAD by the purposely mis-marked gage boards and as a result encountered harm, OR the morally irresponsible Florida judge who ordered the change to prevent 'future litigation'? VERY serious question that no one apparently will address.
All this goes back to an incident where I tried to 'convince' a very elderly mariner who with a 63 ft. mast + antennas, etc. balked at passing under an actual 65 ft. clearance bridge but which was 'marked' by the FLDOT at 62 ft. I later assisted this frail octogenarian climb the mast etc. remove anchor etc. lights and other equipment .... and that was STUPID & unecessary because most of the east coast FL bridges over the ICW are MISMARKED by their 'gage clearance boards'.
Ditto the same situation at the supposed 65 ft. bridge over the south end of the Alligator-Pungo canal on the ICW. I have assisted many french speaking canadiens and other poor-english speakers understand that in the USA we have a SEVERE 'lawyer problem' and most of what is posted by the 'authorities' is usually a 'conservative lie' to prevent litigation. Sad state of affairs for a country that once could proudly boast of its adherence the 'rule of law' and truth.
The federal/NOAA charts have all these bridges listed at 65 clearance MHW. A boater coming in off the ocean to avoid storm, etc. conditions needs to KNOW EXACTLY what the clearance is, especially during 'rising water'. Therefore this is a very strategic SAFETY concern.
If a bridge is purposely/erroneously marked for 'litigation/judicial purposes' lower than the 'true' or actual mean high water level; and, if an approaching mariner in approaching storm conditions who LOOKS at those mis-marked clearance boards and makes a BAD decision based on the **clearly and purposely MISREPRESENTED** gages which then results in damages or injury etc. of the mariner or his boat ... who then is responsible: .... The mariner who was MISLEAD by the purposely mis-marked gage boards and as a result encountered harm, OR the morally irresponsible Florida judge who ordered the change to prevent 'future litigation'? VERY serious question that no one apparently will address.
All this goes back to an incident where I tried to 'convince' a very elderly mariner who with a 63 ft. mast + antennas, etc. balked at passing under an actual 65 ft. clearance bridge but which was 'marked' by the FLDOT at 62 ft. I later assisted this frail octogenarian climb the mast etc. remove anchor etc. lights and other equipment .... and that was STUPID & unecessary because most of the east coast FL bridges over the ICW are MISMARKED by their 'gage clearance boards'.
Ditto the same situation at the supposed 65 ft. bridge over the south end of the Alligator-Pungo canal on the ICW. I have assisted many french speaking canadiens and other poor-english speakers understand that in the USA we have a SEVERE 'lawyer problem' and most of what is posted by the 'authorities' is usually a 'conservative lie' to prevent litigation. Sad state of affairs for a country that once could proudly boast of its adherence the 'rule of law' and truth.
I have run the ICW from Portsmouth to Ft Lauderdale with confidence, encountering no problems with my 61' mast height above waterline. Even the bridge over Alligator-Pungo Canal appeared to have two or three ft to spare. I do approach these spans with due caution, putting binoculars on the clearance boards and double looking at the marks. Usually there is some high water residue around the 64 mark, water at 65 and sometimes a 67 or 68 will be exposed. Once I am satisfied with what I see, I point for center of span and continue my passage. I have been more concerned with cross current at the high rise just south of the St Johns River. The channel narrows under the bridge and water flow creates a standing wave tending to shove unwary captains toward the buffers on the western side.Steve
It does no one any good to spread incorrect information. Any questions on any bridges in any state can easily be verified through a call to the local Coast Guard District for verification on any bridge. The US Coast Guard is solely responsible for policing all bridge clearances and schedules. We work closely with the Coast Guard on bridge height, both charted and marked on the water. There is currently a question on the new Bridge Of Lions in St. Augustine as to current sign boards and has not been resolved. There are no bridges in Florida or anywhere else along the ICW both the Atlantic and Gulf Coast that are charted or marked incorrectly. There have been no conspiracies by the State of Florida or any other state driven by lawsuits or any other issues to mismark anything. Water levels change due to tidal influences, winds, rain and storms but bridge heights do not, so clearances do change. This is what I do for a living every day. I can tell you that you can safely transit the ICW using, common sense, current charts and reading the tide boards. Any changes made to the boards were done ONLY to show the correct clearance based on CFR requirements and not lawsuits or state conspiracies. Those are the facts and all the rest of the nonsense can be filed away for suggestions to Mythbusters. Chuck
Chuckbear what is the official clearance measured to?
I would like to know what the official height shown on the chart is supposed to be to. I know the bottom is supposed to be Mean Low Water, but what is it measured to on the bridge? Is it to the nav light hanging down or the lowest piece of steel (say the low point of an arch at the end).
I would like to know what the official height shown on the chart is supposed to be to. I know the bottom is supposed to be Mean Low Water, but what is it measured to on the bridge? Is it to the nav light hanging down or the lowest piece of steel (say the low point of an arch at the end).
Jerry, The charted height is "low steel" as I posted earlier. This is the lowest point under the bridge, within the channel. Even flat bridges are not flat, the bridge has a curve to it and rises in the center. The lights hanging down will be above the charted clearance and higher than low steel. The center span to the steel crossbeams will always be higher on both sides of the lights. But don't try and take the bridge based on clearing the lights if your air draft is more that the charted clearance or the readings on the sign boards. There is no magic or special interpretations here. We have done the ICW from New Jersey to the Keys well over 20 times and the entire ICW from New Jersey to Houston more than once. My wife is the Editor for Waterway Guide and I am the General Manager. We deal with issues on the ICW every day. I just returned from the AIWA Conference in Portsmouth that was well attended and included representative from each of the US Coast Guard District as well as the Corps Of Engineers. Both commercial and recreational interests were represented. We had lengthy discussions on the health and issues along the ICW including dredging, economic interest and the current state in Washington and how it will affect funding. We talked about water depths in Georgia, you will not be surprised to know that the current controlling depths are six inches, yes inches. We also discussed in length, bridges, channel markers and problem spots. Sorry for the long answer, keep in mind the the information and advise you get on the internet is worth every penny you pay for it. So always proceed with caution. Chuck
- Status