Bounty----sinking hearing by USCG

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
charles

charles

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
196
Location
usa
Vessel Make
CHB 45 Pilot House
On gCaptain there is a day by day synopsis of the hearing.
I highly recommend reading it. Take your time and digest what is said. It could save ones life. (The latter is my opinion, only.)

Here is the link

Recap: Chief Mate Testifies – Bounty Hearings – Day 1 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

On this list the subject of a person having a Coast Guard license and to what standard would he be held has been "argued" many times. On day 7 the answer is stated.

CCC
 
  • Like
Reactions: Art
Great post Charles. Many people should take the time to read all of this!!!

Let's hope they do!!!!
 
It would seem that the Bounty as a vessel for hire ( I assume that the novice "crew" paid a fee to travel on the vessel as is often the case with other tall ships) should be subject to USCG inspections that define its seaworthiness. So apart from the apparent foolhardy decision to put to sea, is there another element here in that the ship was basically on the verge of being un-seaworthy, and should not have been allowed to put to sea. Seaworthy to me means more than cruising in good weather or being a dockside attraction.
 
Chrisjs said:
It would seem that the Bounty as a vessel for hire ( I assume that the novice "crew" paid a fee to travel on the vessel as is often the case with other tall ships) should be subject to USCG inspections that define its seaworthiness. So apart from the apparent foolhardy decision to put to sea, is there another element here in that the ship was basically on the verge of being un-seaworthy, and should not have been allowed to put to sea. Seaworthy to me means more than cruising in good weather or being a dockside attraction.
Click to expand...

Yes the Bounty needed a COI...but

"Attraction vessels may be of unique or unusual design, have some historical significance, be restored or constructed as replicas of former vessels or provide some related maritime interest to the public. Generally, the design or construction of an attraction vessel precludes conformance with or retrofitting to meet U.S. passenger vessel requirements without damaging the originality of the vessel."

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2000/2_00/app4.pdf​
 
Understood, but surely if it is permitted to carry paying passengers it should still need to meet safety standards relating to items like leaking and general seaworthiness??
 
Yes, there was testimony that wood rot was found and some repaired when in for the last port maintenance, but at the direction of the Capt, further inspection and repair of rot damage was curtailed. The Capt assured the maintenance crew that he would follow up on needed repairs before the next USCG inspection. Then they set off to sea toward Sandy.
 
I don't think the crew is/was considered "passengers for hire" in this case or maybe they were and the COI for passenger vessel was issued and the vessel met the standards on the last inspection.

Plenty of inspected vessels sink for all kinds of reasons.
 
psneeld said:
I don't think the crew is/was considered "passengers for hire" in this case or maybe they were and the COI for passenger vessel was issued and the vessel met the standards on the last inspection.

Plenty of inspected vessels sink for all kinds of reasons.
Click to expand...

From one of the earlier news articles I understand that it was not inspected (because it had failed) and so would not have been able to carry passengers for hire. They could have people aboard, but only while tied up to the dock. Apparently that was part of the financial catch-22 they were in.

I just took a look at the coast guard database for documented vessels. They are listed as Passenger (uninspected). So I suppose they could carry up to 6 people for hire just like any 6-pack captain.
 
Chrisjs said:
It would seem that the Bounty as a vessel for hire ( I assume that the novice "crew" paid a fee to travel on the vessel as is often the case with other tall ships) should be subject to USCG inspections that define its seaworthiness. So apart from the apparent foolhardy decision to put to sea, is there another element here in that the ship was basically on the verge of being un-seaworthy, and should not have been allowed to put to sea. Seaworthy to me means more than cruising in good weather or being a dockside attraction.
Click to expand...

From Day 2 testimony:
The witness, Todd Kosakowski, looked at Coast Guard’s evidence # CG-41: a series of 29 photographs he had taken of Bounty during its most recent yard period. Mr. Kosakowski – the lead shipwright and project manager for Boothbay Harbor Shipyards - was in charge of the last maintenance project ever to be done on Bounty.
The pictures were of rotted frames and fasteners (trunnels) he found under the planking during repairs. Kosakowski told NTSB investigator Captain Rob Jones that he believes 75% of the framing above the waterline on Bounty may have been rotten, but that the ship’s representative in the yard, Captain Robin Walbridge, declined any further search for rotted wood. He convinced Kosakowski that they would make the repairs before their next Coast Guard hull inspection. The final witness of the day and the discussion of the evidence was stunning those of us in the crowd.
 
I did see the "shoreside attraction" reference but it still seemed likely that they had paying passengers in their "trainee crew". Perhaps Twistedtree is correct that they were able to get around the issue by being a "6-pack". Perhaps Bounty did not charge for the ride like other tall ships??
 
Chrisjs said:
I did see the "shoreside attraction" reference but it still seemed likely that they had paying passengers in their "trainee crew". Perhaps Twistedtree is correct that they were able to get around the issue by being a "6-pack". Perhaps Bounty did not charge for the ride like other tall ships??
Click to expand...

Read that article again, he goes into the distinction in some detail. The author is a professional with deep USCG experience,

Rick B; Right on! Given my tag line, I obviously agree. I thought the author of the article was much more eloquent:

"He had clearly confused the lack of failure with success, and may have begun to truly believe his own advice."

I think I'll use that now and again myself.
 
I loved that line, too, George!! Read it to the Admiral and made a mental note of it for future use.
 
charles said:
On gCaptain there is a day by day synopsis of the hearing.
I highly recommend reading it. Take your time and digest what is said. It could save ones life. (The latter is my opinion, only.)

Here is the link

Recap: Chief Mate Testifies – Bounty Hearings – Day 1 | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore News

On this list the subject of a person having a Coast Guard license and to what standard would he be held has been "argued" many times. On day 7 the answer is stated.

CCC
Click to expand...

H F S - What a ClusterFck of mistakes, incompetence, ego, old aged boat, poor equipment, and unforgivably incorrect judgments. I read it all and listened to Matt Sanders on the video. God Bless the surveyors and the dead.
 
It's just amazing how long an accident waiting to happen....can wait!!!!!
 
There is no mention of "paying passengers" in the CG discussion, so I must assume that the Bounty unlike ships such as Picton Castle did not have"guest crew". Unfortunately, it seems she neither had much in the way of any qualified crew. What a sad story. Last time I saw Bounty it was visiting Woods Hole last summer. Still amazes me that a ship in such poor condition can circumvent seaworthiness requirements apparently so easily. It is also ironic that the vessel was still listed in brokerage (Yachting magazine) several weeks after the sinking!!
 
Chrisjs said:
There is no mention of "paying passengers" in the CG discussion, so I must assume that the Bounty unlike ships such as Picton Castle did not have"guest crew". Unfortunately, it seems she neither had much in the way of any qualified crew. What a sad story. Last time I saw Bounty it was visiting Woods Hole last summer. Still amazes me that a ship in such poor condition can circumvent seaworthiness requirements apparently so easily. It is also ironic that the vessel was still listed in brokerage (Yachting magazine) several weeks after the sinking!!
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be suprised....take a good look at a lot of vessels...commercial, commercial fisherman, pleasure.....there are a lot of accidents waiting to happen.

And if not the vessel...then the skipper is the weak link.
 
Dated February 6, 2014

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the sinking of tall ship Bounty was the captain's reckless decision to sail the vessel into the well forecasted path of Hurricane Sandy, which subjected the aging vessel and the inexperienced crew to conditions from which the vessel could not recover. Contributing to the sinking was the lack of effective safety oversight by the vessel organization."

Marine Accident Brief: MAB-14-03
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Adopo
Supreme Court Upholds Back-Door Denials of Boat Insurance Claims
Replies
6
Views
1K
SteveK
SteveK
D
Collision and demasting
10 11 12
Replies
351
Views
24K
Old Sea Dog
Old Sea Dog
Wayfarer
So uh… I found a dead body in a river yesterday.
Replies
25
Views
4K
Hippocampus
H
syjos
USCG offers new i911 for PNW boaters
Replies
2
Views
895
Alaskan Sea-Duction
Alaskan Sea-Duction
M
Hose clamps failure can sink a boat
Replies
22
Views
4K
Slowmo
Slowmo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom