Hi Mark,

He also stated that he thought the damage would likely not have occurred if they had not been "sailing" at the time of the wave strike, presumably they'd have been better off if they'd simply been lying ahull... I can only assume he means that the massive rudder correction required to counter the extreme weather helm they were feeling oriented the rudders in a way that made them far more susceptible then the boat was driven back upon them...

One thing that I'm not sure has been discussed, is the possible role of the parting of the jib sheet in this event... Seems like that could have been the first, or most critical, in a classic series of cascading failures that led to the end result of rudder damage... Seems rather surprising that the jib sheet issue with chafing they admit to being aware of wasn't resolved beforehand, but once the sheet parted and they lost the use of the jib, that had to have greatly exacerbated their weather helm, particularly with a main without a third reef...

I was most surprised by Charlie's comment that appeared to indicate it was the high degree of buoyancy of the damaged rudder that ultimately prohibited them from dropping it, and how both rudder noticeably "popped up" when they were being worked on, and the tiller arms disconnected... That indicates to me that even the rudder that was bent towards the centerline was still free to turn, I had initially been under the impression that it had been jammed or wedged in position against the hull... In which case, I can only wonder if it could not have been bridled to at least maintain a fore & aft configuration that wouldn't want to drive the boat in circles. As to the possibility of dropping the rudder completely, do you suppose that boat would have been carrying an all chain anchor rode, or a mixed rode? Certainly, the weight of the anchor and an all chain rode, attached to the rudder and 'sacrificed' to the deep, should have been sufficient to counter the buoyancy of the rudder and allow it to be dropped, don't you think?

Doesn't surprise me at all that the account posted on Alpha's website has disappeared, if anything I'm surprised certain elements of it were ever posted there, to begin with... Posting quotes from the skipper's "official insurance report" on the internet no doubt has some scratching their heads, especially when there are considerable discrepancies between Hank's and Charlie's accounts... For instance, Hank says they were "close reaching a 6-8 knots", and were "driven violently backwards" by the wave strike, while Charlie says they were in a "sort of fore-reaching configuration at 4-5 knots", and the wave strike "seemed to move them backwards, slightly"... The way all this stuff gets played out on the internet today can easily come back to bite you, seems the folks at Alpha might have been a bit naive in that regard...

Finally, I can't help wonder how Charlie feels about my own comments he singled out, by now... (grin) In retrospect, they seem pretty tame in comparison to many others that have followed... For some reason, I wasn't able to enter my response (perhaps due to it's length?) directly to his own blog, so it only appears in response to his blog posts on Sailfeed on SAIL magazine's site... That's where most of the comments have piled up, and some of them have been remarkably harsh, and unfair, it seems to me... People calling for Hank's USCG license to be revoked, the owner to be fined, and so on... I'm guessing that in hindsight, Charlie would have welcomed my criticism, if he could have been assured that it would have been the harshest that the crew of BE GOOD TOO would have received in the wake of this loss... (grin)

best regards,

Jon