How much experience is enough?

[curtis]

Hey Curtis,

Welcome aboard!

Thanks.

Are you a catboat sailor? There are lots of those wonderful vessels out of Chatham.

No.  I sail a Com-pac 23, a masthead sloop.  There are a lot of catboats with Marshal being local and Arey's Pond Boat yard still making wood or fiberglass cats.  Cats are great in shallow water which we have plenty of.

If there is interest I have photos of last year's Pleasant Bay cat boat race.  One historic 28' cat, and one reproduction was there and that attracted many entries.  They cut it off at 100 boats and split into three starts by size.  The Narrows in Pleasant Bay is about 40' wide with about 20' of usable width at the North end but the race still went through Then Narrows.

Anyway, great post--you actually sail through the Chatham Break. Good for you!

Its quite doable.  Local knowledge is essential.  It changes year to year which means you have to ask around, go to the Chatham lighthouse at mid to high tide and watch commercial fishing boats go through or at least figure out the latest buoy placement, go a back to the lighthouse at low tide and get a feel for where the shallow water is, and then go for it.  You do have to cross a breaker line so only go for it when conditions aren't too rough.  Repeat the quick survey each spring and after each major storm.

All sorts of small boats go out Chatham Break but they are all local.  Much over 4' draft might not work though I have heard of 5' going through at dead high tide.  I only draft 2'3".

If I didn't go out Chatham Break I'd be limited to daysailing in Pleasant Bay.  Once out, the closest usable harbor is Nantucket.  Nauset Inlet is closer but it makes Chatham Break look easy.

Happy Easter!

--Joe

Happy Easter!

Curtis

ps - The formating can be done with the boxes labeled "BBC tags".  The formating of tables on this BB software is just like HTML tables if that helps.  If you don't know how HTML tables work its not obvious.

[CharlieJ]

Laura and I have some friends who might argue the point about your Compac 23 being bluewater seaworthy.

This look familiar? Boat name is Tura Lura. The couple who owned her used to post here (Nick and Melissa). Pic was taken in Nassau Harbor as they were leaving to head back to the states. They had sailed the boat from Florida to Bimini, then the Berries (for several weeks) then Nassau, then the Exumas, down the chain to Little Farmers, then back up to Pipe Key, back to Nassau and then back to the US, winding up in Stuart, where they sold the boat.

Thus crossing the Gulf Stream twice, North West Passage ( and Tongue of The ocean (21000 feet deep) twice, among other stretches of very blue water.

I suspect the boat is well capable. Just needs experience and confidence.

By the way- this isn't meant to put you down- I deeply respect your care and concern in how you  look at offshore trips. They DO require respect, and much of it, from all of us.

Laura and I recently made a 6 day passage across the Gulf of Mexico on board a 41 footer. We had some rough seas and strong headwinds and both agreed, we'd NOT like to do that exact trip aboard our own 25 footer, tough boat even as she is.

The BOAT would have done fine, I don't know that WE would have.

[CharlieJ]

One more picture, with Melissa hauling anchor

[curtis]

Charlie,

Laura and I have some friends who might argue the point about your Compac 23 being bluewater seaworthy.

It depends on how a "blue water boat" is defined.  I define a "blue water boat" as one that with the right crew can be relied on to safely cross an ocean even in the worst of conditions.

I agree that a CP23 can cross the Gulf Stream and quite a few have.  I don't feel that make it a blue water boat.  There is quite a difference between crossing an ocean and picking a brief weather window and making a 60 mile passage, even if it is over water with a 4 knot current.

That kind of sailing is light coastal cruising IMHO, Coastal cruising without the "light" is where you may sail down the coast maybe 50-150 miles off shore for days or weeks, keep an eye on the weather, and duck into a harbor if a nasty low appears.  Blue water is where you check on a weather window to leave and head across an ocean.  If half way a serious storm comes along, you have no choice but to endure it.

No offense intended to Nick and Melissa.  I'd love to make the same crossing but first I'd need to make my way down the coast.  I do sail on the Atlantic, make

I think we are just defining "blue water capable" differently.  I would not leave in a CP23 and head for Europe.  I'd also be very careful about the weather window any time I was making a passage along the coast with more than a day or two to the destination and no viable harbors in between.  I don't think you are suggesting otherwise.

Curtis

[CharlieJ]

 :D

Can't argue with that definition. But once out of sight of land, you are pretty much "Blue water" no matter what boat you are in, so you best be able to deal with what comes up. We sail, at best, 5 knot boats (offshore). Storms often pop up quite quickly particularly in southern waters, and move at 15-30 mph. You can't outrun them, so you must be ready to deal with it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with your definition.

Our Tehani could well be a "blue water" boat, except I feel she isn't capable of comfortably toting the stores ( for two people) for prolonged ( say 4-6 week) passages. Not enough displacement. Kurt's Ariel 26 with one more foot of length and one more foot of beam would be- just large enough. James Baldwin's Atom (Triton 28) certainly is-he's proved that -twice around.

But considering that boats like Manry's Tinkerbell (12 feet) and Gerry Spiess in Yankee Girl (10  feet -also later sailed the same boat across the Pacific) safely crossed the Atlantic, size really doesn't define  that capability. The sailor does.

I won't list some of the other smaller boats because I really believe they were stunts. Gerry and Robert 's passages were carefully thought out, carefully planned sails.

Understand- I'm NOT saying these are boats I'D want to do it in- I'm perfectly content with coastal cruising ;D Have zero desire to cross the Atlantic in a small sailboat. Hey- I really don't want to do it in a LARGE sailboat. Been out there on an aircraft carrier when we ducked a hurricane-THAT wasn't quite large enough :D So I'll continue to do exactly was you outline in your last sentence-

"I'd also be very careful about the weather window any time I was making a passage along the coast with more than a day or two to the destination and no viable harbors in between. "'

And that's exactly how we sail. On Tehani we've made passages of up to 3 days offshore, in carefully picked conditions. So  we completely agree there.

But the BOATS could handle it. Most small sailboats, properly prepared, can take far more than the crews can.

One other point, and I bet Frank and S?V Faith will concur - that 60 mile passage across the Gulf Stream is NOT "light coastal cruising" ;D ;D once you are out there, in the stream, you are most definitely "blue water" :D

[Auspicious]

What constitutes 'offshore' is always an interesting discussion. I think curtis has a similar definition to mine, which is that 'going offshore' is a passage longer than a reliable (ha) weather forecast with no bailouts closer than a day away.

So Buzzards Bay to Cape May is NOT offshore
Ft Lauderdale to Bimini is NOT offshore

Beaufort NC to Marsh Harbour is marginally offshore

Norfolk VA to Bermuda is definitely offshore, as are ocean crossings (of course)

That isn't to say that features like the Gulf Stream aren't a challenge, but they aren't offshore.

It also isn't to say that a coastal passage over several days with watches set and no stops doesn't present challenges and have its own rewards, but it isn't offshore.

[CharlieJ]

I kinda agree, as I did with Curtis, save for one point. The definition of "offshore" vs "Blue water voyaging"

If you are out of sight of land, and lets say it's at least half day away, you are most definitely "offshore" - may not be blue water voyaging, but offshore for sure.

Meaning, for me anyway, that you, and your boat, had best be prepared to deal with "offshore" situations. Just because land is relatively close by, doesn't change that fact. In fact, it just may make it worse. Because you could be lulled into thinking "if it gets bad, I'm close to shore- I can just duck in"

And that just might cost a boat, and even worse, a life.

For us, when land falls below the horizon, we ARE offshore. And our thinking shifts to an "offshore" mentality.

[Captain Smollett]

What constitutes 'offshore' is always an interesting discussion. I think curtis has a similar definition to mine, which is that 'going offshore' is a passage longer than a reliable (ha) weather forecast with no bailouts closer than a day away.

So Buzzards Bay to Cape May is NOT offshore
Ft Lauderdale to Bimini is NOT offshore

Beaufort NC to Marsh Harbour is marginally offshore

Norfolk VA to Bermuda is definitely offshore, as are ocean crossings (of course)

That isn't to say that features like the Gulf Stream aren't a challenge, but they aren't offshore.

It also isn't to say that a coastal passage over several days with watches set and no stops doesn't present challenges and have its own rewards, but it isn't offshore.

Thanks for this discussion, guys...this is excellent stuff.

For my part, I would argue...TO A POINT...(that is, I won't take my point too far), if the boat itself is capable and set up to handle a "jump" of 60 or 150 miles on the ocean, then it is, by some metric anyway, 'blue water capable.'

It is statistically possible to cross the Atlantic ocean and never encounter winds greater than 25 knots and no more seas than associated with that.  It is also possible to encounter bad, bad conditions crossing from FL to Bimini or Beaufort to Marsh Harbor.  

If the boat can handle one, it can handle the other...again, to a degree.

As for distance to safe harbor?

20 miles offshore can be deadly...its possible you don't have the 5+ hours it takes to get back in.

What we are ultimately talking about here is the SAILOR not the boat...Both Curtis and Charlie have stated that THEY would not cross an ocean in THEIR CURRENT BOAT.  In both cases...the boat itself could possibly make the trip successfully (and many lesser boats have).

I think this is one of the most important threads we have on SailFar.  It began with a question not of "when am I ready," but "when is enough to avoid criticism when things go wrong?"

At the time the thread was started, there was a seeming rash of boat incidents that had the 'Net sailors all a-twitter with armchair criticism.  The OP was asking an EXCELLENT question - at what point can this criticism be quelled with "shut up, the guy knew what he was doing."

As we each have examined this question, and the broader one in "when am I really ready," I have been fascinated by the fact that pretty much all of us have said some variation of:

"I've done this and that, I've encountered this and that, but I STILL have a lot to learn."

I believe it is humility in regard to the sea...open ocean, coastal ocean, bay or inland lake doesn't matter...that makes us better, more capable sailors.  The boat is the platform upon which we work, but 'blue water capable' ultimately comes down more to personal levels of comfort and personal compromises in terms of strength and seaworthiness.

The purpose of my list was not to say "you need these skills to be 'ready,' and if you have them, you are good to go."  PLEASE PLEASE no one reading the list of questions take it that way.

What it was meant to get at was "confidence" as it related to "competence."  Sailor A may have the skills to be "ready," but lack the confidence in those skills...that's just as potentially damaging as having the confidence but not the skills themselves.  Through experience...

Experience is the name we give our mistakes

--Oscar Wilde

We gain BOTH skills and the confidence in them.  THAT was the premise of my list of questions.

The strongest, most 'blue water capable' boat on the planet can get someone hurt on the ocean, a bay or inland lake...the body of water is less a factor, and the boat is less a factor than the sailor.  Admittedly, it is about statistics...weak boat + open ocean + marginally competent sailor is a greater chance for failure than strong boat + inland lake + novice sailor.

The relative weights of the terms in this equation

probability of success = boat capability + water sailed + sailor/crew competence

are VERY difficult to pin down.  It's easy to get preoccupied on one term vs another.  And, sorry for the math parlance, but they are not independent factors.  A good sailor would not likely choose a poor boat, etc.

Anyway, again...thanks for the discussion (and thanks, Okabow for starting this thread a while back).  The introspectiveness caused by asking the question is valuable in its own right.

[s/v Faith]

...one of the most important threads we have on SailFar.  It began with a question not of "when am I ready," but "when is enough to avoid criticism when things go wrong?".....

.....I believe it is humility in regard to the sea...open ocean, coastal ocean, bay or inland lake doesn't matter...that makes us better, more capable sailors.  The boat is the platform upon which we work, but 'blue water capable' ultimately comes down more to personal levels of comfort and personal compromises in terms of strength and seaworthiness......

The 'lack of humility' is one of the greatest dangers a Sailor can face.  I see it expressed in the arrogance that some show in their replies when things go wrong for others....

... there IS value in learning from others errors.  There is NO HONOR in elevating ones self above those who have provided the lesson.

[Auspicious]

Charlie, you and I use the word 'offshore' differently. Thanks okay. We can each remember that when ready the other's posts. That I consider 'coastal' some of the jumps you consider 'offshore' doesn't diminish the challenge or preparation necessary.

John, I truly cherish your thoughts and thank you for sharing them. I offer my own humble observation that sailing oceans is less difficult than many think, but that many are less ready than they believe.

Craig, learning from the mistakes of others is indeed a mark of intelligence. Willingness to share our mistakes with others that they may learn is a mark of courage and compassion.

[tomwatt]

If I might add (humbly) a little reflection based on a different discipline - wilderness medicine - "wilderness" within that concept is outside the golden hour of rescue and conventional medical treatment. Under those circumstances, I might reset a fracture if not doing so is going to cause possible loss of the limb and resetting it will restore blood flow to the limb. I was thumbing through an old copy of "Sail" this morning and reading a story of a fellow sailing along the coast of Texas who got caught in a cyclonic event, his sailboat grounded heeled over in the mud well above the tide mark. He apparently spent 4 days digging and other things plus the assistance of a couple of powerboaters to get himself free. While granted that his problem occured at the "hard bits around the edges", it could just as easily be a remote reef or other location stranded.
Without getting too far off the mark of where the thread was intended to go, it just seems that conditions - and mindset - play a large part in the definition of offshore. Or at least they should. I really like the approach almost everyone here has, as it mirrors my thoughts in terms of preparedness, planning and equipping my vessel. Of the powerboaters I know, almost none carry flares, anchors, extra food and water. Or a change of clothes. I can understand why they wouldn't carry a sail repair kit, but I like having one. You just never know.
I'm actually pondering, since I have a portable 12 volt air compressor for the Jeep anyway, packing away a few packaged truck tire inner tubes... instant on-demand floatation in the event of a holing.

[Captain Smollett]

20 miles offshore can be deadly...its possible you don't have the 5+ hours it takes to get back in.

I should point out that I am currently reading Graveyard of the Atlantic: Shipwrecks of the North Carolina Coast by David Stick.

An awful lot of sailors have died within sight of land.

Reiteration of Dave's point that it is the hard edges that present the real problems?

Anyway, I was thinking about this "coastal hopping" vs "truly offshore" thing a little more.  I think SOME of the issue is that one is viewed as 'safer' than the other by many people.  Only viewed that way by inexperience sailors?  Coastal hopping has the illusion of the safety net of safe harbors close by.

But where are you when you need to run for a safe harbor?  TONS of sailors have come to grief trying to get into a harbor in bad conditions.  It's often been said "searoom is your friend."  In bad conditions, being 100+ miles out may be safer than trying to run in for 'safe harbor.'  Trying to convince some people of that is like, yes, pushing a wet noodle up a rope with your nose.

Just wanted to emphasize that coastal hopping only APPEARS safer than offshore.  Maybe true blue water voyaging asks more of the boat, but coastal perhaps asks more of the skipper.

It seems that here on sailfar we are often discussing the illusions, beliefs, myths and conventional wisdom "popular" in the sailing community that tend to not hold water in the real world.

It just fascinates me how many folks on the 'Net use the "stay close so you can run in if things get bad outside" rationalization.  Reminding them that generally, the most dangerous thing for a boat is land proves ultimately futile.

Of course, I think these are the same ones that believe (and act on the belief) that being tied alongside in a marina is the safest place for the boat in a hurricane.  The idea of anchoring out in a well researched hidey hole with adequate ground tackle boggles their minds.

Whether heading out of the jetties or facing the potential of a truly destructive tropical cyclone, fear is a powerful influence on beliefs, motivations and actions.

Maybe that's a deviation from the discussion of experience, but I think it's related.  Fear can also prevent us from getting the experience we need.

[CharlieJ]

lol-OK Auspicious, how about if we use the terms the old time cruisers used. Instead of Blue water/coastal, let's call it  ON soundings or OFF soundings. Once past the 100 fathom curve, I'm sure offshore :D

John- that's basically what I've been saying. Once you are out there, your mind better be set to "Offshore" cause if the doodoo hits the rotator, you gotta deal with being OUT there.

Oh- and I've really enjoyed participating in this thread. Brings out points that I and others may not have considered.

[Auspicious]

Anyway, I was thinking about this "coastal hopping" vs "truly offshore" thing a little more.  I think SOME of the issue is that one is viewed as 'safer' than the other by many people.  Only viewed that way by inexperience sailors?  Coastal hopping has the illusion of the safety net of safe harbors close by.

Bingo. Buy that man a grog. *grin* "When in doubt, go out"

The never-ending thread on SailNet (?) about the loss of Rule 62 in the Bahamas is illuminating. Bad weather and (we think) seasickness led to a decision to run to a safe harbor that was clearly not safe, or at least not accessible. Someone died and a boat was destroyed as a result of that decision. Continuing on to the BVI, or at least to the Tongue of the Ocean, and staying off soundings (*grin*) would have surely resulted in a different outcome at the cost of some discomfort or a little misery.

Good judgment and good decision-making are key to making good sailors.

I too greatly enjoy this line of discussion. I hope I don't come across as believing I have all the answers. I know I don't. I have spent a goodly amount of time off soundings and hope that sharing what I have learned will allow SailFar'ers to make new and creative mistakes instead of repeating the same old boring ones that I have already made.

[CharlieJ]

Quote from Auspicious-

"I too greatly enjoy this line of discussion. I hope I don't come across as believing I have all the answers. I know I don't."

Nope- not to me.. I first sailed in 1957 and I'm still learning. I just hope Curtis doesn't feel we're hitting on him.. Wasn't the intention at all.

[Frank]

Fun topic to read. None of us ever stop learning and most of look back and laugh at past mistakes. Some were funny...others down right dangerous. We all have read about sailing and some even taken lessons. We've learned basic navigation and have GPS's and VHF's etc.
I find the one ingredient missing at times is the ability to really sail your boat. I've often watched people head out without a true comfort level of handling their boat 1st.
*have you practiced reefing sails in strong wind/waves 1st? (calm doesn't count) The 1st time shouldn't when it's needed.
*have you practiced being hove-to in strong wind/waves 1st?  All boats are different and trim different. Don't 'learn' out there when it's needed
*have you moved about both above and below deck in steep waves. Being inside a washing machine comes to mind. Figure out how before needed...and it will be needed

I peck this out because so much can be read about but the above can only be experienced.

As to boat size.......we all know many famous passages on lil boats as well as a circumnavigation on an 18fter.  I wouldn't...but.........

[curtis]

Captain Smollet, Auspicious, Charlie,

Great conversation this forum has going.  I think we are splitting hairs when we try to make a distinction between blue water and offshore.  I'm fairly sure I've read definitions of light coastal, coastal, and offshore somewhere and I think the Europeans have boating standards that define these sort of terms for the purpose of rating the suitability of boats for a given purpose.

According to Adlard Coles, and other authorities on heavy weather, its not the wind that gets you it is waves that will get you.  The huge swells (40-50 ft, btw - the record is 132 in the North Atlantic AFAIK) with breakers over the top can only grow that big with fetch, wind, and time.  In a well handled small boat with deep reefs in the main and a small headsail it is not the 40-50 knot gusts when a bad thunderstorm blows over and is done in a few hours that can sink you.

Most thunderstorms don't carry much over 35 knot gusts and my wife has poured champagne in 25 knots and 35 knot gusts.  That was protected water, protected by 150 yeards of sandbar between us and the Atlantic.  You won't get blown over by the wind into a full roll.  You might get knocked down and get your spreaders wet.  We did almost get knocked down in a gust (no spreader dip), but the good news is we didn't spill any champagne.

The point is really that the types of storms that generate gail winds for days at a time are predictable within a 2-3 day time period.  Thundershowers are not nearly as predictable but they don't last long.  That is why coastal cruising is quite a bit safer than blue water sailing aka offshore passagemeking.  There are also some harbors that can be entered in almost any condition or at least any condition that could develop in 12 hours or less.

Anyway, the CP23 is roughly half the weight of a Flicka, Cape Dory 22, an Arial, and 1/3 the weight of a Triton.  Its also beamier for its length than any of those.  Roll it and there is a good chance it will turtle and then eventually sink.  At least so says the CSF if you think there is any validity to those numbers.

And if you read the Practical Sailor review of the CP23, you should reinforce the main bulkhead tabbing, better attach the main bulkhead to the cabin top (alread broke that myself and reattached it), and up the standing rigging from 5/32 to 3/16 just for starters.  Its not build for blue water.  It can make great little coastal cruiser but you have to be aware that it does have limits.

For example, you can break the main bulkhead free of the cabin top on a CP23.  I've done it and all it took was 25 knots of wind and a pounding into 5-6 foot waves.  That wasn't even close to the punishment a boat would need to endure during a bout of bad weather when blue water sailing.  (And yes I had too much sail up and could have been sailing less aggressively and reduced the pounding - I hadn't even tied the first reef yet - no long term harm done).  I haven't done all the other things that Practical Sailor suggested are needed for my boat and maybe I will in time.

I'm not at all offended but It seems like I said that I'm new on this forum and my boat was not a blue water boat and some people have taken it to mean that I'm a timid new sailor.  I just recognize the limitation of the vessel that I sail today and I can live with those limitations.  (I can live with it for now at least).

Curtis

[Captain Smollett]

but It seems like I said that I'm new on this forum and my boat was not a blue water boat and some people have taken it to mean that I'm a timid new sailor

NO NO NO NO NO.    :(

I don't think ANYONE here is thinking that at all.

We are just bantering ... not unlike what it would be like if we were all sitting around a club house or bar making conversation.

PLEASE don't take any of this discussion to be directed AT you...like criticism or something.

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly welcome your input, and I KNOW that the thought of you being a "timid sailor" has not even entered my mind - not even for a second.

But if I may continue in the spirit of "just a discussion,"

Its not build for blue water.  It can make great little coastal cruiser but you have to be aware that it does have limits.

This is true of ALL of our boats.

The Alberg 30 was not built for blue water.  Alberg was commissioned to design a boat for a Canadian sailor, and later the group that ordered them for production were likewise out of Canada.

There are a number of areas of the Alberg 30 that must get attention before the boat "should be" taken offshore.  For example, the production chainplate bolts are undersized and the wooden mast support is a weak point (on the older boats).  Both have failed - in offshore conditions during a circumnavigation.  But with proper preps, many many A-30's have made ocean crossings, more than a couple circumnavigations and is considered a VERY good boat for voyaging.

It is my personal opinion that EVERY boat requires such attention and "upgrades" before heading "out."  Many a boat sold as "blue water capable" have come to grief (Ken Solo's boat, I cannot recall her name, comes to mind), and many, many, "oh that's not a blue water boat" have made the trip(s) with 'proper upgrades.'

I maintain the position that this difference lies in the heart of the sailor - some realize just how tenuous our man-made hardware (20 ft, 40 ft, 120 ft boat doesn't matter) is 'offshore' and work hard to gain redundancy and back-up plans.  Others accept the advertising as-is and head to the briny deep without ever looking at the rig.  Most that buy a blue water boat never leave sight of land and some never even leave the dock.

So, in the end, I AGREE with you 100%.  In my opinion, one of the marks of the skilled sailor is knowing his boat - her strengths and weaknesses, as well as what she is best suited to do.

[CharlieJ]

Curtis- as I said- I hope you don't feel we're hitting on you. Never the intent, and things of that nature are frowned on by all of us here.

Just a very intersting thread, and several very good points.

Personally I was not aware of the internal problems with the CP 23. Good to know. Of course when we rebuilt Tehani we did many small( or not so small) changes to improve her strength and offshore safety.

So hang in there- your thoughts and viewpoints are as valid as all of ours.

And it's good to have you aboard.

[tomwatt]

And did I mention that a sent a round of grog for Curtis?
I likes the cut o' yer jib, matey!