Yes, that's it. I was too lazy to look it up while writing. Farmerman's suggestion makes sense. I remember a Dutch sailor making an attempt to break the record of sailing solo around the world. He hit a floating container in the Gulf of Biscaye on his inbound leg (so not very far from the finish line). He was not thrown overboard, because he was in the cabin when it happened, but the shock was so heavy that he was thrown against a bulkhead with enough force to cause broken bones and a cracked skull. He was saved by the very ship that had lost the container earlier.
Still, on the subject of the fenders. If the crew were experienced sailors attempting to sail round half Australia, they would have taken in the fenders shortly after leaving port and not put them back until shortly before reaching their port of destination, which would suggest the following:
- Whatever happened, happened shortly after leaving port or shortly before reaching port (which I deem highly unlikely because they would have been in close proximity to land and other ships).
- They docked with another ship or object during their journey when something happened that separated them from their ship.
- The fenders were not taken in but, for example, just hoisted on deck (not very professional, but possible) and washed over the side again when the ship encountered bad weather or a freak wave.
Well, it sometimes happens that you forget about the fenders.
And later, you really don't remember that you have them to get in .... because you usually do it shortly after you docked out.
Two other factors to keep in mind is that the engine was running--so they might have been attempting to improve upon the speed from the sails; and there was table service and food laid out--so whatever happened, it is probably a reasonable assumption that something happened suddenly, and unexpectedly. I agree that there are several things which point to a lack of sailing experience, not the least of which is running the engine with sails set. If there is insufficient wind to set sail, and you feel it is necessary to run the engine, sail should either have been shortened, or taken in altogether. If there is sufficient wind to make even two or three knots, it's a bad idea to burn up fuel which you don't need to burn. With the computers running, a lap-top set up and running, and table service and food on the table, there is no reasonable basis to speculate that they apprehended danger--so why run the engine with sails set?
Very mysterious, indeed. I agree that the evidence is that they were not terribly experienced seamen, and may have been, as is all too often the case with people who live on a seacoast, men who thought that their small sailing experience in sheltered waters (the waters on the eastern shore of Australia are partially sheltered by the Barrier Reef) made them more competent than they actually were. When i was a boy, although i'd had quite a bit of experience on the water in sail boats, when i took sailing lessons at a yacht club in Annapolis, Maryland, i learned how little i really knew. In the first place, we had morning class session in which i learned just how very little i knew about sailing, the physics of sailing, and navigation. In the second place, in the afternoon sessions during which we went out into the harbor in small sailboats, we had boys from the Maryland shore who went with us, who had grown up on the water, and who spent so much time on the water and on the water's edge, that their skin was burned brick red by the sun, and their feet dyed brick red by the red clay mud of the harbor. When you saw them in action, you learned just how inept you were yourself, for however much you thought you were good before that.
The course ended with a week sailing around Chesapeake Bay, when many of the sloops used were the privately-owned yachts of the parents of kids in the class. I observed then that many of these weekend sailors had a much higher opinion of their knowledge and skills than a comparison to our instructors, and the boys from the Maryland shore, warranted. It is entirely possible that these were weekend sailors who greatly overestimated their own skills and knowledge. The motor running struck me more than anything else. You should never burn fuel if you don't have to, because if you are hit with a storm with very high winds, the only way for the vessel to swim safely is to turn the bow into the wind, and run the engine in order to keep your head to the wind. You don't burn fuel unnecessarily, because some storms may rage for many hours, even days, and it's just not a good idea to use any fuel unless you absolutely have to. The experienced and competent sailors i met in Maryland and Virginia only used their engine to leave or to enter port.
There are lots and lots of stories about this if you "google" news for "ghost ship+Australia." The lead story which appears on the search page, had two interesting points to make, which make more sense by changing the order:
Quote:Superintendent Roy Wall told Australian Broadcasting Corp radio it was likely the men were thrown overboard. He said recovered navigational equipment suggested something threw the boat off course on Sunday.
While earlier in the article, it states:
Quote:Police were still trying to solve the "Mary Celeste" style mystery but told local radio it was feared the three men may have fallen off in rough weather six days earlier.
So, if the vessel had a sudden course change at the same time that rough weather closed in, that would explain a lot. However, the fact remains that computers running and food on a table set for a meal is pretty clear evidence that they did not anticipate trouble. So, why would they have been thrown overboard if they were engaged in activities which take place in the cabin? Cooking food and setting the table are things you do in the cabin, and the lap-top was set up and running.
If the thrown or washed overboard theory is correct, then the only plausible scenario which occurs to me is that they were preparing to eat, when some one of them noticed foul weather closing in, so they started the motor to turn the vessel into the wind, but were thrown or washed overboard. This still suggests that they lacked necessary experience, because with today's weather services and with radios, they ought to have known they could expect foul weather, unless they simply weren't paying attention. It also means that they went on deck with foul weather closing in without their life vests on. When i went sailing as a boy (i've not been at sea in decades), we never did anything without our vests on, including eating meals. The more i read about this, the more it seems they weren't very good sailors.
Finally, there was this:
Quote:Local media named the three men as 56-year-old skipper Derek Batten, 69-year-old Peter Tunstead and his 63-year-old brother James.
It's really incredible that men that age weren't better prepared for whatever event threw or washed them overboard.
Curiouser and curiouser . . . this is from the Australian magazine
The Age:
Quote:Search and rescue teams say sailing conditions when the men set off were rough.
"The wind was at 30 knots and the waves were rising,'' said a spokesman for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. "I wouldn't have gone out.''
A 30 knot gale and the sea running high? That really was stupid.
I read that the men were from Perth on the West Coast and were avid fishermen (which means they have been on the water before, but it does not say anything about their maritime skills). A family member is quoted as supposing that the men went fishing in a dinghy and somehow were separated from the ship
Quote:That's what we are hoping, that they forgot to anchor it [the yacht] and it's drifted off - the three idiots - and [they've] not been able to get back to it
Her calling them three idiots may suggest that they were inexperienced. Ozzies have the reputation of being a bit wacko at times. They may not have let a lack of nautical experience stand in the way of their grand scheme.
I have a sailing diploma, but am a lousy sailor nonetheless, so I can imagine. I have a talent for running aground on any sandbar or mudflat in a 100 mile radius. I had a nice 14-foot mahogany sloop once, but I had to sell it when I moved here.
Several of the stories i've read so far mentioned that the life raft was missing. Perhaps they did "go fishing" and let the boat drift away. Let's hope so. I'd rather think of them as stupid and embarrassed rather than stupid and dead.
the BBC reports that the search for the missing crew has been called off ... "no foul play iis suspected" ... one has to wonder what is being suspected ?
"One theory is that members of the three-man crew fell overboard in bad weather conditions. " - i thought they were experienced sailors - but one has to assume that they didn't use lifelines - certainly very strange !
hbg
Quote:'Ghost yacht' crew search halted
All the vessel's sails were up, although one was badly torn
Australian authorities have ended their search for the crew of a yacht found off Australia's Great Barrier Reef, saying their fate remains a mystery.
The Kaz II was found with its engine running and a table laid for dinner.
Rescuers said that the craft had probably been drifting since last Sunday, making it unlikely that any of the three crew could have survived.
One theory is that members of the three-man crew fell overboard in bad weather conditions.
Queensland police said that the decision to call off the hunt was "based on expert medical advice which suggests the men could not have survived this long in the water".
Mysterious disappearance
The boat left Airlie Beach on Sunday bound for Townsville on the first leg of a voyage around northern Australia.
The 12m (40 foot) catamaran was spotted by a helicopter on Wednesday drifting off the Great Barrier Reef, but a rescue team only reached the boat on Friday, and confirmed that there was no-one aboard.
Rescue crews say they are puzzled by the mysterious disappearance.
"The engine was running, the computers were running, there was a laptop set up on the table which was running, the radio was working... and there was food and utensils set on the table ready to eat," said Jon Hall, a spokesman for Queensland's Emergency Management office.
"It was a bit strange," he added.
All the vessel's sails were up, although one was badly shredded, and lifejackets were still on board.
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority said the men had been planning to sail around northern Australia to Western Australia.
The KAZ II is now back in port.
Police forensic teams say they do not suspect foul play.
source :
...SEARCH CALLED OFF...
Furthermore, if they fell overboard in foul weather, how come everything in the cabin was still in place and working? In a storm anything that is not stowed away will end up in the bunks or on the floor. In a storm even an inexpereinced crew would have worn life jackets and saftey lines when leaving the cabin (at least that is what common sense would dictate. I wonder if any empty beer cans or bottles were found aboard, that might explain impaired common sense). It seems more likely to me that the incident, whatever it was, happened after the storm, like the three guys trying to take in the ripped sail (which is why they would have had the engine on, to keep the ship facing the wind) and being swept overboard by a big wave. These things happen.
The most puzzling thing however, is that all three disappeared. Even in the above scenario, one would normally have been at the helm.
Other explanations suggested in blogs:
- Pirates (but why didn't they take the valuables with them?)
- Narcotics (they docked with another ship to take on drugs, but something went awry)
- They put in (to take shelter from bad weather?) at a remote jetty but the ship broke its bounds and drifted away.
- They are trying to fake their own death (seems a rather too complicated and expensive way to achieve this).
I hope for no. 3 since it gives them the best chance of survival. Someone suggested that satellite images ought to be able to tell us what happened, but I think they have an unrealistic idea of what satellites are capable of (and the Australian seaboard is not a hotspot of satellite surveillance, I guess).
Another relative describes the crew as experienced sailors:
BBC News article
I know my theory is wrong because I saw a picture of the ship closer up and the front chine is in perfect shape, just the storm jib s torn up. Anyway, usually only powered cat prows have a tendency to "dive in" when they encounter an obstruction.
I cant imagine them going fishing in an inflatable when theyve got aperfectly good ship under them. They could set out lines from the cat since it draws so little water. Tose things can sail right up a river to a mud slick and still move. Usually the keels are swing up and are double finned only for deep water sailing.
I dont like cats because they are a wet rough way to travel, although they are fast. They always come down in a wave trough like a pancake. They dont cut through rough seas as much as pound over them. You can always make a great deal on a used cat anything, sail or power.
I would not discard your theory so quickly. I thought I saw a smudge on the port side prow in the picture. They could have hit something that struck below the waterline (like a whale) and fallen overboard if they all happened to be in a position to do so (scenario: come out on deck to see a pod of whales, katchunk, splash and the cat sails off).
We don't have enough information to do much more than speculate. For instance, a quick perusal of the ship's log could help locate the where, when and why of the incident. Being able to approximate the location of the event might give us important information as to sea and weather conditions. There was something in the report about the ship making a change in course, and that might also help locate their position when the event happened. Were there photographs taken of the ship and its interior? Someone said they were "experienced sailors", but that in itself means almost nothing. Any decent investigation would do a thorough background on each of the three crewmen.
What are the theories for leaving their ship involuntarily?
Pirates: Probably not, because valuables were found aboard, and pirates would likely have sunk the ship to cover their tracks. Other than the ripped Jib, we're told that no other damage was found. No blood, no evidence of foul play.
Washed overboard: Apparently they set sail on a day that more prudent sailors would have stayed in port. The putative evidence of the galley table set for dinner(?) and a laptop switched on, argues against any weather condition strong enough to wash three crewmen overboat. They were frequent fishermen and presumably knew the sailing characteristics of their vessel very well. Even if their skills were only so-so, its hard to imagine three crewmen all being washed overboard leaving life jackets behind. The entire crew would have had to be on deck, yet the evidence suggest that at least one of the crew was in the cabin. Apparently there was no significant sign of salt water inside the vessel.
Knowing the approximate location of the event might shed light on sea and weather conditions, and there are several ways of estimating the ships location. Sudden heavy seas would have made a shambles below. Dinner and laptop items may indicate that two of the crew were in the cabin when the event suddenly occurred. What time did the crew routinely eat, and how much visibility would there have been at dinner time? We're presuming the meal to be served was dinner, but it might have been breakfast or lunch. If one or two of the crew were below when the event happened, they would have rushed topside. If the event suddenly caused a heavy pitch or roll sufficient to topple three men into the drink, they would all have had to be on deck and unprepared. This means that the boat would have had to have experienced at least two upheavals/waves, one of which would have split the jib, but left the mainsail and rigging undamaged. Possible, but not a very high probability given the rest of the evidence.
If not a sudden sea/weather change, then it's suggested the vessel might have run over a whale or a large bit of flotsam. A collision sufficient to throw three crewmen into the drink would have disarranged the cabin, and at least one of the crew was almost certainly in the cabin when the event occurred. How would a collision have resulted in a torn jib? No hull damage argues against the collision theory.
My theory:I think that the split jib is a more likely event to bring the crew on deck than either heavy wind/seas, or collision. The torn jib sail might have been due to a sudden wind burst, but I've known them to tear even in relatively good sailing weather. An inquiry into what caused the sail to fail makes sense. How old and in what condition was the jib? Jibs aren't all that cheap, and many folks won't replace them until they fail. They may well have heard the jib fail, and the helmsman would have called out. The crew would have come topside and tried to bring the torn sail down The watch would have started the engine to help steady the boat. It would only take one man to handle the sail itself, and the other might have been manning the sheet. In darkness, or near darkness, a sudden shift of the deck could easily cause the man on the bow to slip and go in the drink.
Fearing that the man would be lost in darkness and the immensity of the sea, the remaining crew might have abandoned the idea of getting the jib down until they recovered their friend. Was the "lifeboat" missing? I seem to recall it was, but maybe not. If it was, then one of the crew dropped the fenders and took to the boat to get to the man overboard, while the remaining crew member tried to do a 180. If the seas and wind were running just a little high, that might take some time. It could be that when the ship and boat rejoined, there was some difficulty. The last man aboard the cat, left the wheel to help and went overboard. The cat sailed away, and left the survivors adrift and unprepared to survive more than three, maybe four days. Without water and exposed to the elements the odds of survival in a small boat/raft adrift on untraveled blue water is very, very low.
Asherman wrote:We don't have enough information to do much more than speculate. For instance, a quick perusal of the ship's log could help locate the where, when and why of the incident. Being able to approximate the location of the event might give us important information as to sea and weather conditions.
I wouldn't bet that they kept a log with noting down positions and course any couple of minutes.
But as said in various reports, their GPS will be analysed for clues to see if the boat's passage can be tracked backwards.
Asherman wrote:Were there photographs taken of the ship and its interior?
I certainly would think so - it would be somehow stupid just to give a verbal description .... and some are even online (by Queensland police and agencies).
Asherman wrote:Was the "lifeboat" missing? I seem to recall it was, but maybe not.
According to Queensland police, "Initial inquiries also indicate the catamaran was not equipped with a life raft and the vessel's dinghy was still attached."
There have been several photographs of the vessel. In the ones that i've seen, there were three fenders over the side on the port side, and one on the starboard side. I'm not sure about the "smudge" that Paasky has referred to--unless he means the fender which i saw on the starboard side.
These two articles (which are only recently available) from the
Telegraph (UK) and the
Melbourne Herald-Sun report that family members now suggest they may have been kidnapped. Apparently, the fenders over the side, and all the other appearances of "normalcy," including their clothing folded in the stern, along with the meal on the table, lead them to claim they were unexpectedly taken off the vessel.
Telegraph article
Melbourne Herald-Sun aricle
The smudge I saw on the port side bow (on the waterline) does not seem like anything in the picture Set attached. It looked more ominous in the grainy small pic I first saw. Still this doesn't rule out running into somthing that floats below the surface (I suggested a whale since there are migration routes of several whale species along the Australian East Coast and a whale might not have done as much damage as a reef or rock would have done).
Everything Mr Asherman has said is reasonable and has been considered, but indeed until we get more info there is little to do but speculate.
And now for something completely different
Willem Ysbrandtsz. Bontekoe was a Dutch skipper of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and became famous (at least in the Netherlands) due to his account of the one eventful journey he made for them (more about that in another message, if I did not already relate his trials and tribulations), but what is less known is that Bontekoe was forced to sign up with the company out of financial need after his own ship (also called Bontekoe) had been captured by Barbary Pirates. Bontekoe himself was kept for ransom and his family succeeded in buying him free, but the ship was not recovered and what became of the rest of the crew is unknown, but very likely they were sold as slaves. I have been wanting to write a contribution to this thread about the Barbary pirates since they were mentioned in the press in relation to the commemoration of the transatlantic slave trade. I have no time right now, but here is an article to whet your appetite:
Barbary pirates off the coast of Devon
