Next message: Andy Repton: "Re: [world-cruising] Re: Multihulls ib Blue Water"
Bryans post has excellent points, especially regarding COLREGS. I
would like to point out a couple things as well. Unless the EPIRB
came with the boat(and maybe even so) I would think that the delivery
crew would get in trouble if they took it upon themselves to install a
mounting bracket. Especially since proper installation of anything in
a boat requires alot more then just screwing it in. Personally, I
would not take a boat offshore with out a registered, installed
EPIRB..be it a delivery or not. And I would include solving that
problem in my prep. Also, hydrostatic releases need to be underwater
several feet usually to release so in the case of an overturned cat it
wouldn't have floated free anyway without some help from a crew
member. While its possible for a cat to sink, its not likely so I
would probably never use a hydrostatic release on one as there are too
many scenarios that I would need it where it would not activate. This
accident sounds like a tragic event and hopefully we can all learn
from it. It is easy to get complacent when you've done the same thing
many times without incident. This is a dramatic reminder to stay
vigilant when preping to sail offshore.
Personally I think arguing about the safety of multihulls vs monos is
ridiculous. For every overturned cat there's a sunken mono... two
different animals with positive and negative traits regarding rough
weather. Accidents happen because of poor prep, poor seamanship, poor
judgement, lack of experience, and sometimes there is not a damn thing
anybody could have done.
Capt Rick
s/v Mai Tai
Lagoon 37 TPI
--- In , "Bryan Genez" <svcapella at dot dot dot >
wrote:
>
> On 1/11/07, dlm48 at dot dot dot <dlm48 at dot dot dot > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Like i said i cant imagine WHY an EPIRB would be locked away
except for
> > the
> > reason i gave - using MY LOGIC - as to the suggestion that it would
> > not have
> > been used in extremis because they might get prosecuted after the
event -
> > i
> > find that suggestion obscene bearing in mind three people lost
> > their lives
> > here.
>
>
> Not to put too fine a point upon it, but a prosecution would never
happen.
> First, the timing of this unfortunate incident was before the
121.5/243.0
> EPIRB ban, which began on Jan 1, 2007. Secondly, there's a jurisdiction
> issue - boat, crew, and location may not have been affected by this law.
> Third, COLREGS and maritime tradition both allow virtually any activity
> that's necessary to save lives when a vessel is in extremis.
Fourth, the
> nature of the communication restriction would - at most - result in an
> administrative fine, never a judicial prosecution.
>
> Logic being what it is...if a premise is wrong, conclusions based
upon that
> premise are not logical. The premise was wrong.
>
> We've strayed quite a distance from the original topic, haven't we?
>
> --
> Best,
> Bryan Genez
> "Capella" V40-158
> New Bern, NC
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
