boycott Peter Hughes Diving
- Thread starter sdiver02
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
a Cat 1 (despite what people have said "officially", Barry was a Cat 1 last summer - I have the wind readings to prove it) here....
I would not want to do a Cat4 - ashore or on the water.
With that said, from the reports that have been linked to here it is my estimation that they did most if not all of the right things. They went up from the coast into a recognized hurricane hole, and tied off. The boat was riding it out ok (if you can manage to eat dinner and plates aren't flying around the cabin you're doing ok!) until the stern line parted - at that point they were hosed with nothing they could do about it.
The reason for the lines parting may never be completely understood; that they failed is known but WHY is not.
There is a reasonable man's expectation of assumption of risk that lies with the passengers on this boat. It appears that the pax (and crew!) were all offered bus transportation out of there and refused. Apparently the pax were dining or had just finished when the line parted, which is pretty good evidence that both boat and pax thought all was well up to that point, and that indeed it was.
There are a number of unfounded allegations made in the "cyberdiver" account, none of which to me, as someone who's been on the water all my life, make a bit of sense.
Soundings appears to have the most objective account of the incident as it is refreshingly devoid of assertions of material fact without evidence attached.
Second-guessing the path of a hurricane is always lots of fun after the storm hits, but here are the facts for those of you who are not boat jockeys:
1. You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER head into the path of an oncoming storm, ESPECIALLY not where you can get pinned between it and a lee shore. For the WD to have headed back north would have put them directly into the maw of this beast on the water but in SHALLOW water where they would have had no path of escape except to attempt to run the eyewall! No captain worth the name would ever do that.
2. If you go to sea to avoid a storm (as opposed to running for a hurricane hole) you do so in DEEP water. Why? Because the danger is the wave PERIOD, not size. Size alone is not necessarily threatening (20' long-period seas will not sink a well-found 100 footer provided your propulsion remains operational and the helmsman appropriate skilled); short-period seas, especially breaking seas, are. The WD had the only possible line of movement to open water cut off by the storm long before they ran to the hurricane hole.
3. If you're being chased by a storm (as the WD was), you find a hole and talk to your creator! That's what they did, basically. With their escape cut off they had little choice.
You can argue with the decision not to pull the hook earlier, but "sit and wait" if the path is uncertain is not necessarily a bad decision PROVIDED you can reach a port once the decision to pull up and move is made. Once the path of the storm was established south of west they could not have gone back to Belize City with any degree of safety; encountering a Cat4 storm at sea in a 100' boat is unacceptable. Once the turn was made they had to run south, and they did.
They also successfully got there and tied up before the storm hit; they did not get caught offshore.
The moorings were inspected by multiple people and appeared to them to be adequate. You never know if they really will be in a hurricane; you take your best shot and sometimes you're wrong.
The Pax had the option given to them by the authorities to disembark. They decided not to take it. The captain's threat to fire any crewmember who deserted the vessel was, in fact, a good decision and one I would have made in his shoes - you do not allow your crew to disembark during impending storm conditions when you might need them!
Now could it be argued that everyone should have disembarked the boat? Perhaps. But the fact remains that the WD's sister ship survived the blow with all hands safe and sound, as did others in that same hurricane hole.
I would not have stayed on board if I were a pax - but that's me. I would have taken the bus.
But for the lines parting, the boat would have probably been fine.
Those who were there, and who made the individual decisions to stay on board, are responsible for the consequences of their decision. They were not forced, and IMHO if the facts are as Soundings presented them were I on the jury, as an experienced yachtsman, I would have voted to return a $0 award.
I would not want to do a Cat4 - ashore or on the water.
With that said, from the reports that have been linked to here it is my estimation that they did most if not all of the right things. They went up from the coast into a recognized hurricane hole, and tied off. The boat was riding it out ok (if you can manage to eat dinner and plates aren't flying around the cabin you're doing ok!) until the stern line parted - at that point they were hosed with nothing they could do about it.
The reason for the lines parting may never be completely understood; that they failed is known but WHY is not.
There is a reasonable man's expectation of assumption of risk that lies with the passengers on this boat. It appears that the pax (and crew!) were all offered bus transportation out of there and refused. Apparently the pax were dining or had just finished when the line parted, which is pretty good evidence that both boat and pax thought all was well up to that point, and that indeed it was.
There are a number of unfounded allegations made in the "cyberdiver" account, none of which to me, as someone who's been on the water all my life, make a bit of sense.
Soundings appears to have the most objective account of the incident as it is refreshingly devoid of assertions of material fact without evidence attached.
Second-guessing the path of a hurricane is always lots of fun after the storm hits, but here are the facts for those of you who are not boat jockeys:
1. You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER head into the path of an oncoming storm, ESPECIALLY not where you can get pinned between it and a lee shore. For the WD to have headed back north would have put them directly into the maw of this beast on the water but in SHALLOW water where they would have had no path of escape except to attempt to run the eyewall! No captain worth the name would ever do that.
2. If you go to sea to avoid a storm (as opposed to running for a hurricane hole) you do so in DEEP water. Why? Because the danger is the wave PERIOD, not size. Size alone is not necessarily threatening (20' long-period seas will not sink a well-found 100 footer provided your propulsion remains operational and the helmsman appropriate skilled); short-period seas, especially breaking seas, are. The WD had the only possible line of movement to open water cut off by the storm long before they ran to the hurricane hole.
3. If you're being chased by a storm (as the WD was), you find a hole and talk to your creator! That's what they did, basically. With their escape cut off they had little choice.
You can argue with the decision not to pull the hook earlier, but "sit and wait" if the path is uncertain is not necessarily a bad decision PROVIDED you can reach a port once the decision to pull up and move is made. Once the path of the storm was established south of west they could not have gone back to Belize City with any degree of safety; encountering a Cat4 storm at sea in a 100' boat is unacceptable. Once the turn was made they had to run south, and they did.
They also successfully got there and tied up before the storm hit; they did not get caught offshore.
The moorings were inspected by multiple people and appeared to them to be adequate. You never know if they really will be in a hurricane; you take your best shot and sometimes you're wrong.
The Pax had the option given to them by the authorities to disembark. They decided not to take it. The captain's threat to fire any crewmember who deserted the vessel was, in fact, a good decision and one I would have made in his shoes - you do not allow your crew to disembark during impending storm conditions when you might need them!
Now could it be argued that everyone should have disembarked the boat? Perhaps. But the fact remains that the WD's sister ship survived the blow with all hands safe and sound, as did others in that same hurricane hole.
I would not have stayed on board if I were a pax - but that's me. I would have taken the bus.
But for the lines parting, the boat would have probably been fine.
Those who were there, and who made the individual decisions to stay on board, are responsible for the consequences of their decision. They were not forced, and IMHO if the facts are as Soundings presented them were I on the jury, as an experienced yachtsman, I would have voted to return a $0 award.
It is a shame when a board regulator uses his authority to ban a portion of my message because it is clearly sarcasm and also because my opinions differ than his.
My message was 100% sarcasm and should be re-posted as it does make a point. If need be I will edit it so people who dont understand sarcasm will clearly see the words SARCASM before and after the paragraph.
For those of you interested in seeing my sarcasm..you be the judge..PM me and I will gladly send you a copy.
My message was 100% sarcasm and should be re-posted as it does make a point. If need be I will edit it so people who dont understand sarcasm will clearly see the words SARCASM before and after the paragraph.
For those of you interested in seeing my sarcasm..you be the judge..PM me and I will gladly send you a copy.
Sorry for the loss, but instead of railing aagainst the fates each should contemplate what their own action would be in such a situation. Having been through more hurricaines than I want to remember, I've drawn some of my own conclusions.
1) Land shelter is better than afloat, even in safe harbor.
2)Being sober and having ones wits about you is paramount in a storm. Stuff happens quick.
3) Always have an exit plan, brought home to me when I lost some dear friends on Mel Fisher's tug.
4) When tragedy does strike, seek solace in a higher power, not lawyers.
Hopefully I have not offended too many, not my intent.
1) Land shelter is better than afloat, even in safe harbor.
2)Being sober and having ones wits about you is paramount in a storm. Stuff happens quick.
3) Always have an exit plan, brought home to me when I lost some dear friends on Mel Fisher's tug.
4) When tragedy does strike, seek solace in a higher power, not lawyers.
Hopefully I have not offended too many, not my intent.
rcohn
Guest
I've heard those reports as well. I'll try to dig out some links.
Ralph
Use 'em.
Someone pulls something like this (btw, Airlines do this all the time when they go bust) you simply charge it back.
If the deposit or fee is "non-refundable" then it is if you send cash or a check. DON'T! Use your plastic - that's why its there!
Someone pulls something like this (btw, Airlines do this all the time when they go bust) you simply charge it back.
If the deposit or fee is "non-refundable" then it is if you send cash or a check. DON'T! Use your plastic - that's why its there!
Send me a copy.
Anyway, regardless of what everyone says, I don't think being in a Cat 4 is DIR.
SPEEDSTER
Guest
It is so long as you are there with your buddy and have your 'rock bottom get the hell outta here' calculated correctly.
mike
-sorry, I'm just in one of those moods
I wouldn't get on a PHDI boat without a Spare Air on a Rope (so I would have it with me naked in the shower too).
rcohn
Guest
Similar threads
